2006 11-02sIDAHO
r.
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 2, 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 O Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X David Moe _X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
B. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
4. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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 16, 2006
5. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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 16, 2006
6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker — NWC of Eagle
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Road and Lanark Street (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush Industrial
Park: Recommend Approval to City Council
7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky,
Inc. — 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Continue Public Hearing to December 21, 2006
8. Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61
single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. — 3465 &
3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Continue Public
Hearing to December 21, 2006
9. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors — 570 S. Linder Road: Continue
Public Hearing to November 16, 2006
10. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-036 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on
5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors
— 570 S. Linder Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 16, 2006
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
lighted fields adjoining a residential district for Heritage Middle School by
Joint School District No. 2 — 4990 N. Meridian Road: Approve
12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare
Una Mas, LLC — 3475 E. Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to
November 16, 2006
13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O -T zone for Kelley Carport
by Larry and Judy Kelley — 403 East 2nd Street: Deny
14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request
for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C -N zone for Lochsa Falls Office /
Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC — south of Chinden Boulevard
and west of N. Linder Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 21,
2006
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: MCU 06-002
Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
0 •
Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office / Commercial Addition
by Farwest, LLC — south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder
Road: Continue Public Hearing to December 21, 2006
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court: Continue Public
Hearing to January 4, 2007
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi -family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court: Continue Public Hearing to
January 4, 2007
18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi -family development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Continue Public Hearing to January 4, 2007
Adjourned at 10:06 P.M.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
a
CITY OF
IDAHO ;"iY�
A
Fc
�q � TREA9[IRE V n�Y
_�, , -,-p, �, t� 0 !Jp-ha -
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 2, 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
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:"
4. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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:
5. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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:
6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker — NWC of Eagle
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
tii'...at. hLt .1wJ fi n� !�
F
s' )
4'i q3•�` ...
i
ui
M S
i
5` 5
rz
14
Y
�
uA£'.."
2 '•y# St §. t'.}�:�n`J•i&M1i.+q, N ty a J
AFy
4 .&
• •
Road and Lanark Street (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush Industrial
Park:
7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky,
Inc. — 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
8. Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61
single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. — 3465 &
3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
9. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors — 570 S. Linder Road:
10. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-036 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on
5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors
— 570 S. Linder Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
lighted fields adjoining a residential district for Heritage Middle School by
Joint School District No. 2 — 4990 N. Meridian Road:
12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare
Una Mas, LLC — 3475 E. Ustick Road:
13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O -T zone for Kelley Carport
by Lary and Judy Kelley — 403 East 2nd Street:
14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request
for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C -N zone for Lochsa Falls Office /
Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC — south of Chinden Boulevard
and west of N. Linder Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: MCU 06-002
Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa
Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office / Commercial Addition
by Farwest, LLC — south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder
Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
e
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi -family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi -family development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
j.A'"'..`i a
77
t.N # t,'`�+Fw}l a k ,� 4 3*,• § F i i� h`3A 1 flay r$
y.
t
ri $
`t9. ✓Ha.
44. ?
? t.!'i}: d : 1� 3 .Yi '" d" 4 yy Y # �t s�
S^i r',✓,
i f e
Sly
Y S
.
gb
}
L
$$ z
1 >
b d3Y
p
v
>�.v.
I MW Broadcast Report VW
Date/Time 10-30-2006 04:23:47 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
This document: Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11"
4r ?44 14 C 04tU -
(''''�;�,�' C1f °11
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
C Y[ L�nQjG !qwk REGULAR M MING
IDAHO AGENDA
City council chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
Although the City of Meridian no longer raVlres swam fssdmony,
eN presentations before the Mayor and City Counc# are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the abllity of Me 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:
A Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2008 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meetings
4. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: AZ 08-043 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:-
5.
ay:5. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2008: PP 00-045
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots
consisting of 4® attached single-family units and 27 detached single-family
units and 6 commordother 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:
6. Public Heering: RZ 06.010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker - NWC of Eagle
Meridien PWm1rg am! ZonbV Canuftalan Meeft Agenda— N wea tber 2.2M Paas i *f3
AR mawWs preser$sd of pLMv meeMW Ma bamme proWiy efthe CAy of MeridWn,
Anyone daft o=ommodmWn W dleaKft mated to daamw c atdW hearbig,
please cardeat the CRY Cdedta Offin at 688-4433 at heat 48 ire= ptbr to the pubft asa#M.
---. n---- /+....A.........1 . GA
—. .7d. +.+...........—
No. Job
Remote Station
_�.. _a__ __.___.._.__ _
Start Time
_ _
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
001
156
3810160
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:11:00
013
1
G3
HS
FA
002
156
8989551
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:48
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP21600
003
156
8848723
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:01:16
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
004
156
8886854
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:38
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
005
156
8985501
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:01:15
313
1
1 EC
HS
C131 4400
006
156
8467366
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:40
3/3
1
1 EC
HS
CP28800
007
156
8950390
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:39
313
1
EC
HS
CP31200
F�.,}, "Y �E,yi
Y
4y
i
'6,
f
t
1.{: �t^",'f{i,"'FY
a
{
R%
4 �
4 %4
l
DateTme 10-30-2006
Local ID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
s Broadcast Report
04:23:56 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
156
208 888 2682
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:38
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
156
208 387 6393
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:01:16
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
156
2877909
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:01:16
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
011
156
2088885052
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:39
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
1156
18881983
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:40
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP28800
013
156
2083776449
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:01:16
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
156
4679562
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:42
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
156
2088886701
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:37
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
016
156
8884022
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:02:51
313
1
G3
HS
CP9600
017
156
3886924
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:47
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP24000
018
1156
18841159
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:39
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
156
12088840744
03:50:25 p.m. 10-30-2006
00:00:47
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP24000
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
0
s
CITY OF
IDAHO �e;>
�
R,,M V N_0
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 2, 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:
e
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe David Zaremba
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: .,;W1? ,?t_ 0 L"
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: A-ppi" t) Lc
B. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: Ar v,7 i -t� U e
4. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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:
5. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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
0n4-1,r� _fie �I-✓
6. Public Hearing: RZ 06-010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker — NWC of Eagle
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly 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.
0 0
Road and Lanark Street (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush Industrial
Park:
cc-, r""ter t2eil`ol''1l-o Lice '' �7; e, Z4&,
7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky,
Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
S. Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request tie-
or Preliminary Plat approval of 61
single -family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 &
3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 38467 E. Falcon Drive:
�l'' `moi �/ %`� G'' -C� �l:L � L•i C; �I f'G�. � l %'1 � �'�� � � - �1 d �`,, �
9. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Nurse Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 S. Linder Road:
10. Continued Public Hearing from Octo�er 5, 2006: PP 06-036 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on
5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors
- 570 S. Linder Road
11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
lighted fields adjoining a residential district for Heritage Middle School by
Joint School District No. 2 - 4990 N. Meridian Road:
�e c t�Yr1 <A- wv ocea -4z" CIC
12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare
Unca Mas, LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road:
13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone for Kelley Carport
by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East 2nd Street:
14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request
for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls
Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office /
Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard
and west of N. Linder Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: MCU 06-002
Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit /
Planned Development to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional
Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa
Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office / Commercial Addition
by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder
Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 2006 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
I
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
r-a-�r ilk i�L� Ci / , r �- 14 `6.7
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi -family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi -family development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
FU� x
I
,
k
4Z
.LS'
ff
rEX*"
"A
� t
9 �r �a t
A fid
I
16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
r-a-�r ilk i�L� Ci / , r �- 14 `6.7
17. Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi -family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
18. Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi -family development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 2, 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.
I
,
k
4Z
� t
9 �r �a t
A fid
Y 5 ( 8 4 ui
t
99 s
Rj
s4 j S Ti q, RMI T
RMI
C L`
s4
I
4
4PKIIi'
r s ,
�.
. v
Remote Station
—
Start Time
— .
Duration
% ..
Line
k >
Job Type
Results
'ikr
192
a5h$t
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:00
0/3
1
off;
HS
FA
002
11-03-2006
2088884218
'W Broadcast Report
11:18:57 a.m. Transmit Header Text
Local Name 1
Local Name 2
This document: Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11 "
C�WnQdc
a5,wo
City of Meridian Idaho
Line 1
Line 2
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEE71UG
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Merldian, Idaho
Thursday, November 2, 2606 at 7:00 p.m.
Although the Cfty of Meridian no lunger rerlufts swum tesdmany,
all presenta8ons before Me Mayor and City Council are expecte
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
7. Roll -call Attendance:
ts_.. Keith Borup endy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe1--Davld Zarremba
Michael Rohm - chainnan
2. Adoption of the Agenda: f -i wrote AS Atte--
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: A prc VC
S. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning
CominisstonMeadng. ArloY-oVe
4. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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 SpurMng Limited Partnership -
NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chlnden Boulevard and wrest of N.
8purwinQ Way: LLe
�r
5. Continued Public Hearing from October 18, 2006: PP 06-M
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential building lots
consisting of 48 attached single-family units and 27 detacdied single-family
units and 6 oomrmn/other lots on 20.51 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Spunving Patio Homes Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -
NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N.
Spurwing Waycan-li In 1
u-11 10 11-14-100
6. Public HearinlW.. RZ 06.010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from i -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker - NWC of Eagle
Merl Pbmft end Zan ft Cau wAss1Dn Mearg Agartde— November Z 200 F"s 103
All presented at pAk m dyes aw hsooma properly of t* CRY of Mondial.
A�ryaoe deshblg b' dWabStWa talc W to doa>arnts=&or hewft
please card�the Only dark's Ot6Oe at 888-0433 at lsaat 48 tans p W to the POO Reeft.
— nom.-t.....-�A GA
1 VIII rOtj.. VHOI111®u
No. Job I
. v
Remote Station
—
Start Time
— .
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
001
192
3810160
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:00
0/3
1
G3
HS
FA
002
192
8989551
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:55
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP21600
003
192
8848723
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:01:26
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
004
192
8886854
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:44
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
005
192
8985501
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:01:25
3/3
11
1 EC
IHS
CP14400
006
1 192
8467366
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:45
3/3
11
1 EC
I HS
CP28800
007
192
8950390
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:46
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP28800
t
3
e
a � i
XLl%
i'
.. e
- .,
. , .. .. ' f �F, �...
E
yy S
.a,.
f
'kC 4 G:4�`.�d'2 ✓'4
ry
j {
agO
Date/Time 11-03-2006
Local ID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
I 1w Broadcast Report 111w
11:19:06 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
I Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
192
208 888 2682
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:43
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
192
208 387 6393
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:01:25
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
192
2877909
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:01:26
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
011
192
2088885052
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:44
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
1192
8881983
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:49
313
1
EC
HS
CP28800
013
192
2083776449
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:01:25
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
192
4679562
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:48
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
192
2088886701
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:41
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP33600
016
192
8884022
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:03:03
3/3
1
G3
HS
CP9600
017
192
3886924
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:48
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP24000
018
j192
8841159
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:44
3/3
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
1192
2088840744
10:47:42 a.m. 11-03-2006
00:00:53
3/3
1
1 EC
IHS
CP240M
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save
MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
SFr
x., �:. y�x Stix, � � �$ Sa. z ,'-"`4 � b �.a gr i �'� 5i { c�'.v',
✓
}
r �.t
C
rk.
x
4 3 y
t�
y` '�`
Wyk, S£'
•. ..�9'}2tX,"9'?'�kif f
S
h
9�
io
Transmission Report MIF
Datei Time 11-03-2006 10:24:55 a.m. Transmit Header Text
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2
This document: Confirmed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11"
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
City of Meridian Idaho
Line 1
Line 2
DATE November 2, 2006 ITEM # 4,5
PROJECT NUMBER AZ 064)43, PP 06.045
PROJECT NAME SpurvAng Patio Homes
r_4_ n..«A.--A . in
Job Remote Station
Start Time Duration Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type Results
0 190 8886854
ti
10:23:25 a.m. 11-03-2006 00:00:58 1919
11
EC
HS CP31200
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save
MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
jp,;�.�
5
x
3 Q,
( t�tk
f
,
= r
Ri
R
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetina November 2, 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 2, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, David Zaremba, and David Moe.
Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Amanda Hess, Sonya
Watters, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open the regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for November 2nd, 2006,
and begin with the roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we are going to
have some changes. Items 4 and 5 related to Spurwing Patio Homes has been
requested to be continued until November 16th. We will not be hearing that tonight, so
if there is anybody here for that project, it will be heard on November 16th. Items 7 and
8, both related to Harcourt Subdivision are -- that project is going to be continued until
December 21 st. Item No. 12, Una Mas Day Care is to be continued to November 16th.
And Items 14 and 15, Lochsa Falls Office Commercial Addition is to be continued until
the December 21 st hearing. Anybody that is here for those hearings, they will not be
heard tonight and will be continued until the stated date. With that being said, I'd like to
have a motion to accept the agenda as amended.
Moe: So moved.
Rohm: It's been moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: And seconded to accept the adopted agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 2 of 53
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Ma'am, did you have a question? Can you submit -- from the audience we are
asked if they could say something about those projects, because they are not going to
be here. And the answer is not tonight, but if you can't be here on that night, you can
submit a letter of testimony and it will be received by each of us as Commissioners and
it will be given the same weight as if you were to testify yourself. The question was can
we postpone until after the first of the year and the answer is the new agenda has
already been selected and if, in fact, we do not get through it on the 16th and if there
are answers to questions that just aren't available, then, items can be continued again
for final conclusion at a later date, but, generally speaking, once they are posted to an
agenda we will take testimony, either written or otherwise, and try and act on them at
that time, but that's not saying that we -- obviously, we continue a lot of them and that
may happen again, so --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but since there are some
members of the public here on that, maybe Mr. Hood can remind me, but I thought we
only left that hearing open for your findings. Were you going to have another hearing?
Rohm: I'm not sure which one she was referring to.
Nary: I thought they were asking about Spurwing. And wasn't that just for Findings?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Mr. Nary, the way that I understood the hearing and the direction from
the Commission was we didn't have conditions of approval either, so it was for staff to
draft conditions of approval and Findings. A decision hadn't necessarily been made, I
think the direction was we like the project, but want to see the conditions of approval
and the Findings to basically affirm that -- the direction they seemed to be going.
Nary: Okay. Great. I just wanted to make sure those folks, if they were going to come
back, that we were going to have a hearing. If there was no final decision made, just a
general direction of staff to bring back for consideration, then, that's fine. I just didn't
want these folks to have the wrong understanding when they left.
Zaremba: And that was my understanding. And the hearing was open.
Nary: Okay.
Zaremba: It's not closed.
Rohm: And so if you have got some thoughts on that project, for sure you're welcome
to come and you will be heard.
Nary: And, Mr. Chairman, if I could have one more point. Part of the reason for the
request to continue it tonight is because the Findings aren't completed. So, there isn't a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 3 of 53
reason to have the discussion. So, if these folks are wondering why would we set this
over that was the reason. So, if they are completed next hearing, so they understand,
that would be your opportunity to have your comments be heard, as well as for this
Commission to make a decision if -- if those are done.
Rohm: Yeah. And I'd throw one other thing out, too. I personally think that it's always
in your best interest to work with the developer before it comes before this board and if
they -- if you're on opposite other ends of the spectrum, then, that's what we are here
for. But if you can get some resolve before it gets to this Commission, then, it's better
for everybody. But, obviously, at the end of the day if not, then, that's what we are here
for. So, just throw that out for thought.
Hood: Mr. Chair, not to -- I want to add one more thing. I'm just -- although things were
continued tonight, we do have a pretty full agenda. I'm going to offer to go in the hall
and these folks that have questions I can answer these and we don't have to do this
kind of back and forth thing with the audience that we can get through the agenda. We
aren't going to hear these items tonight and I can answer any question they may have in
the hallway. I think that's probably the best way to go, so you don't get into this. But if
you want to take questions, that's up to you, too.
Rohm: That's fine. I agree with you a hundred percent. With that being said, Mr. Hood
will step out in the hall and answer any questions.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to present the Consent Agenda and there are two
items on this and both are approval of minutes, one from the September 21st, 2006,
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and second is for
the October 5th meeting minutes. Any addition or corrections?
Moe: I have none.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
9
A
g4;Sf x 77 h a
x 5
y
y'C;
4
s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 4 of 53
Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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 5: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: 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 Items 4 and 5, both related to Spurwing Patio
Homes Subdivision, AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045, both with the intent only to continue
them to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, 2006.
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open -- there is a little speech that we give before we start
any hearings to be heard and that is the procedure that we go through is we will open
up the hearing, we will ask staff to speak to that particular project and what staff does is
they talk to us about how that project relates to ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan
and, then, they will give us a recommendation of approval or denial based upon its
adherence to those two documents. Once we have heard from the staff, the applicant
has their opportunity to sell the project to us. Once those two presentations have been
completed, it is, then, open to the audience to comment on the application and once
that's done, then, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to any queries made by
direct testimony or testimony offered in writing. Once all of that's been heard, we will --
if we have got enough information we will deliberate and issue a recommendation to
City Council. And that's typically the way projects, once it's opened, works, but
sometimes there is not information to continue it -- or to complete it and it will be
continued to a later date.
Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 06-010 Request for a Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L
to a C -G zone for Lanark Property by Ron Van Auker — NWC of Eagle
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 5 of 53
Road and Lanark Street (Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush Industrial
Park:
Rohm: But with that being said, at this time I'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 06-010,
request for rezone 2.2 acres from I -L to C -G for Lanark Properties by Ron Van Auker
and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant Ron Van
Auker has applied for a rezone of 2.2 acres from 1-0, light industrial, to C -G, general
retail and service commercial. The subject property is located at the northwest comer
of East Lanark Street and Eagle Road. Right here. The applicant intends to construct
office and retail uses on the site, which are not currently allowed within the light
industrial zone. This site, Lots 1 and 2 right here -- Block 1 of the Olsen Bush Industrial
Park, Phase One, is currently vacant. Lot 1, Block 1 of the subject site has direct
frontage on Eagle Road and East Lanark Street. Lot 2 also fronts East Lanark Street.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for the site. The
applicant is proposing to make site improvements, landscaping, pathways, etcetera, at
the time of submittal for a certificate of zoning compliance. At that time staff will require
site improvements in accordance with the Unified Development Code. As the subject
property also lies within an entryway corridor, the applicant will also be required to
submit for design review for the proposed structure. The proposed zoning amendment
is not consistent with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map, which
deemed appropriate land use for the site as industrial. However, staff believes that the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan itself and the existing conditions in the area support
the proposed zoning amendment. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the
proposal. As far as issues go, staff recently discovered that there is an existing utilities
drainage and irrigation easement which spans the property line common to Lots 1 and
2, Block 1, of the Olsen Bush Industrial Park, the subject site. Prior to submittal of a
certificate of zoning compliance for the proposed structure, the applicant must complete
the necessary steps to vacate the easement. Staff requests the Commission include
this requirement as part of the development agreement. And that is all staff has, unless
the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Moe: Mr. Chairman. In regard -- did you -- as far as the letter that we received from
Van Auker Properties, you have reviewed that and --
Hess: I have reviewed that.
Moe: And are you in agreement with these items as well?
Hess: We -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we feel there is a little bit of
wiggle room with regard to the sidewalk along Eagle Road. However, we are not really
in support of eliminating the pedestrian walkway. That is a requirement per UDC
standards. So, we stand by that one absolutely. And we would like to see the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 6 of 53
increased landscape buffer between the two uses as the UDC does call for a separation
of the higher intense use from the lower intense use. So, we felt that that was a good
compromise for them.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Miller: Brad Miller representing Van Auker Properties, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you for taking time to hear this. We
have decided -- this property is zoned I -L, but it -- as you know that area has changed
dramatically over the past number of years and we office in the building right next to
that, to the west, so we know that area very well and it wouldn't make any sense for us
to put an industrial building on that lot. So, we propose that we would do a commercial
type building, with the thought that we would move and occupy a portion of the second
floor ourselves and, then, lease out the building next to it, which we currently occupy.
The issue in regard to the sidewalk on Eagle Road, we don't have any problem at all
with the sidewalk on Eagle Road, but with the fact that Eagle Road will be widened and
reconfigured here in the next little while, we think it would make sense to wait on that,
because where you would put that sidewalk and whether it would match with their plans,
we don't know right now. The other factor is if ITD has plans to put in their own
sidewalk, I'd rather have them do it at their cost -- or I guess all of our costs, then, us
absorbing that cost. But we would be willing to -- if ITD doesn't do that, we'd be willing
to do it ourselves after the fact, but once that's determined exactly where those things
will be and once they have started those improvements there. In regard to the
landscape easement -- or the landscape buffer between the two properties, we had
proposed -- you can see there is five feet there in front of the parking. Since we occupy
the other building, since we know that area well, the uses in these two buildings will not
really be dissimilar. The building that we occupy is zoned I -L, but it's used as an office
use and we have a shop area in the back. But there is no heavy intensive industrial
uses on that side of the road. Across the street, yeah, YMC that does heating and
airconditioning, they have a sheetmetal shop there. But we would propose that the five
foot landscape buffer is adequate. If we have to go to the ten feet, it could possibly alter
our parking and make it a little bit tight. The other issue in regard to -- what was our
third issue? Oh, on the -- on the pedestrian walkway. The requirements require us to
put a cobblestone or paver or some other sort of walkway from the sidewalk to the front
entrance of the building. Having officed in that building for -- the building next door for
14 years, I think I can count the number of pedestrians that I have seen there in that 14
years on one hand. If that's a requirement, that's fine, but it seems to me that if there is
no pedestrians there and there is no use for it, it won't be used, why expend the funds to
do that. There just are not any pedestrians in that area. The other issue in regard to --
what was the last issue you brought up, Amanda, the one that you said -- oh, on the --
on the easements. When the plat was recorded the -- it used to be that on all property
lines you would give blanket utility easements. You don't do that anymore. Typically it's
along the front property line now where you give easements, because it's such a pain to
get them relinquished. We are in the process of getting those easements relinquished.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 7 of 53
There is no utilities that are in that easement area right now. There is no plans for any
utilities there, but I -- in the past it's taken me months and months to get the telephone
company and the power company, actually, is quite easy, but to get some of those
others to relinquish their rights to those easements -- I would ask that rather than the
CZC being a condition of -- it being a condition of the CZC that we have those removed,
I would ask that either the pulling of a building permit or preferably the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy. We have no problem with taking -- removing that easement
there, that's what our plan is, will be before the City Council. I believe the City Council
hears those matters and we will appear before them, but you have got to go to the
irrigation district, ACHD, all utilities, the cable TV people, and the city to get those
waived and it does take a little time and I'd prefer that we have a little more leeway
there, so we can get the project moving and not be held up by that. But, obviously, we
want to get that done and we want to make sure that we handle that properly. That's all
I have, unless there is any questions.
Rohm: I have got a couple of questions and kind of bear with me at this time. I'm
thinking as I go here. The adjacent property where your office is currently, is it zoned I-
L?
Miller: Correct.
Rohm: Okay. With that zoning, the sidewalk from the front to the building is not a
requirement and if -- if we use the -- the fact that it doesn't have any foot traffic, but,
then, we are moving this to a commercial zoning, then, we are using the I -L status
wasn't going on there to validate something that is in a different zone and it doesn't
seem to me that the two are congruent. It seems to me if we are going to go with the
commercial zoning, then, we should stick to the standards established within that zone.
That's just kind of the thought process I --
Miller: I understand what you're saying, but if -- I mean my thought is if it's not going to
be used, why do it.
Moe: Well, I guess I would make one point to that. You already answered that
question. You already made the statement that that area out there is growing --
Miller: That's correct.
Moe: -- and, therefore, as it keeps growing you will start seeing people there, therefore,
you will start getting foot traffic, especially when Lanark is going to go through at some
point and, then, you're really going to start seeing lots of traffic through there.
Miller: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, is the road going to go through? I'd love to
see it go through. But I understand there is problems with the school district on that.
But anytime you'd like to take a stroll down Eagle Road with me, I'd be more than happy
to do that. But we have got the railroad tracks to the north and it's just not conducive to
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
November 2, 2006
Page 8 of 53
pedestrian traffic in there. It's really not. But, you know, I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it if we have to put in a paver walkway.
Zaremba: Excuse me. I'm song, Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I can agree at the moment there is no apparent need for pedestrian, but
along with Commissioner Moe, I can see a future need for pedestrian. If Eagle Road
becomes a public transit corridor with buses, the need for sidewalks for people to -- who
are not driving, who are using the bus, they need to be able to access places by walking
and I don't foresee people walking along a sidewalk on Eagle Road, except gathering
there to get on or off a bus and, then, accessing the nearby buildings. I don't think there
will ever be great north and south pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk, but I do feel that
the portions of the sidewalk and the entrances to the buildings need to be prepared. It
may be 20 or 30 years away before we have a bus system, but the sidewalks are what
help it work
Miller: I understand.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Brad, another -- in regards to the sidewalks and whatnot on Eagle Road, I would
absolutely agree a hundred percent with you, I don't -- I think we need to wait and see
what ITD does before we do anything. But I guess -- you have said that, in fact, if you
guys needed to, you would do that.
Miller: Sure.
Moe: Would you be anticipating bonding for that or are we to just kind of anticipate if it
comes to that that you will do it?
Miller: Well, of course, your preference is always not to bond, but one of the situations
you may or may not be aware of, the City of Meridian will not accept a bond. A bond
would be great, but they only accept letters of credit or cash and -- so, the preference
would be, no that we would prefer not to bond. But we would be more than willing to
make that a condition of approval that at such time that the Eagle Road corridor is
improved, that if they do not put in a sidewalk, that we would do that at our cost. One
other issue that I failed to mention -- along the back of the building there is no entrances
along the back there, we would like to reserve the right not to put that sidewalk on the
back of the building there as well and just have the landscaping there, because we don't
feel that that would serve any function either. So, that's one other issue that was not
included in the letter and which I failed to address. Give you something else to think
about.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 9 of 53
Moe: You're speaking of the north side?
Miller: The west side.
Moe: Oh, the west -- the west side. Okay.
Miller: Yeah. But we would -- right now the sidewalk goes completely around the
building, but in discussion today in our office we felt like the sidewalk on the west would
not be necessary. There are no entrances along the back there. But we would want to
reserve the right to do it if we felt that it was necessary.
Rohm: That makes sense, too. I want to go back to this highway improvement just for
a moment. Do you have any feel for the time frame in which those questions are to be
answered and they will complete the transition of Eagle Road in front of this property?
Miller: You know, I'm not up to date on that. I went to the open houses and talked to
people, but I, quite honestly, can't remember. Maybe city staff has an idea of when that
will take place.
Rohm: The reason why I asked the question is because I hate to leave something
open-ended and if you say, well, if ITD or Ada County fails to put a sidewalk in at such
time that they complete theirs, well, we will do it. Well, if that's ten years down the road,
none of us are going to be here to validate the agreement that was made tonight and it
would be hard to come back and say, well, weren't you going to put that sidewalk there
and I feel a little uncomfortable leaving it open-ended like that.
Miller: But if it's part of a condition of approval I could see that we can go back to the
documentation and verify that that was the case. But, granted, I mean ten years down
the road, who knows, we maybe sell the building or something and I could see how that
could become fuzzy.
Rohm: And what I'm going to do is I'm just going to ask staff for their -- for them to
weigh in on that and give us a further definition from their perspective.
Miller: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to help on that. I, too, went to many of their
meetings and my understanding was that the Eagle Road corridor work was, actually,
engineered and planned to be accomplished in 2005. It got delayed by other expenses
that ITD has and since they spent that money on other projects around the state, it is
now totally in limbo. They have the plan and they will do it some day, but who knows
when they will do it.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. And just to kind of further that thought
process just a little bit, there have been other projects along other proposed corridors
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 10 of 53
that because it's open-ended we have not felt it really in the good -- in the best interest
of the community to waive off those just because it is so open-ended, but that's just my
opinion. You know, that's why we have got a Commission here, so --
Miller: I'm not asking for a waiver, I'm just asking for deferment.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Two -- well, the one -- I guess your comment on the sidewalk around the
building -- and one of the reasons that may be in there as a requirement, because it was
on your plan; is that correct? You're the ones that drew it on there.
Miller: We drew it.
Borup: Okay.
Miller: That's correct.
Borup: I'm still having a little bit of trouble understanding the walkways and the
perimeter walkways when it talks about the perimeter sidewalk, we are talking about a
sidewalk along Lanark?
Miller: Correct. I found that confusing and Amanda and Caleb were able to help me
understand that better. We are talking about the perimeter around the property and,
then, we are also -- and, then, there is also mention in there about the perimeter
sidewalk right around the building itself.
Borup: Well, but we are not talking sidewalks along the other two perimeters.
Miller: No. No. No. No. Just on the --
Borup: Just on Lanark.
Miller: -- East Lanark and, then, also on Eagle Road. Correct.
Borup: Okay. And, then, a walkway from that sidewalk to the building somewhere, a
marked walkway.
Miller: Just a delineated area. Correct.
Borup: I may as well mention it now, rather than later. I mean I -- there probably will be
some pedestrian traffic, but right across the street we have a shopping center that has
'
441
b j 1
w d S r ,
-i`
e
x4 ..
_41 {
I
t i 4
w d S r ,
-i`
e
_41 {
f "{
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 11 of 53
thousands of pedestrian traffic all day long with cars driving clear along the front of all
those buildings with very few marked sidewalks that I can remember.
Miller: Right.
Borup: And that's -- and that's an area where -- where that is a conflict and I don't know
if there has been a problem there. I mean this is a -- this is, essentially, a one entrance
building, it's got -- it's got access to the adjoining property, but it's not going to be a high
traffic area.
Miller: But we are going to -- just another thing. We will eliminate that entrance to the
other property and we -- right now it's just two entrances on East Lanark. We are going
to squeeze that down to one. We just don't feel the function -- the architect drew it that
way to accommodate --
Borup: Well, I like the idea of the entrance to the property. I -- it's very irritating on
projects without cross -access agreements and needing to go back out on a busy street
just to get to the property next door. So, I don't know how others feel about that, but I
think that's a good thing. That's all, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. At this time I'd like to
go back to staff and get your comments on the -- the sidewalk from a time millennium
perspective.
Hess: Mr. Chairman, staff believes that the only way to guarantee that that perimeter
sidewalk is going to go in is to require the applicant to do it and right now it is based in
our code, that requirement. They are required to put in a sidewalk. It's up to you, if you
want to give them a little bit of wiggle room talking with ITD, but all of our applications
we see require sidewalks to be installed along all streets.
Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Again, only speaking for myself, I think that we are going to -
- it's going to be quite some time before Eagle Road is fully developed and I think that
there is some benefit to having that definition and from my perspective I think it's best to
put it in now at the time that construction takes place, but the balance of the
Commission will certainly have an opportunity to voice their opinion, too, but -- and I
agree with everything you have said. I think that at the end of the day if you put in a
sidewalk today and it's -- and, then, ITD changes how they are going to configure it,
they will probably tear it out put in a different one. I don't know. I don't disagree with
your thoughts at all, but we don't have any feel for when that's going to take place or at
least I don't.
Miller: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. The situation I would address is that most
likely it will be torn out and I'd just hate to see the waste take place and I also hate to
put it in when there is no function. Across to the -- to the south the building there where
Everton Mattress is there is no sidewalk there. To the north there is the railroad tracks,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 12 of 53
there is no sidewalk there. So, if it's not going to serve a function, I don't see why it
would make any sense to put it in.
Rohm: Well, I guess I still go back to that Everton Mattress property is technically I -L
and it's not a requirement in the I -L, but it is in the C -G and if we are granting you a
change of -- in zoning, then, it should be in compliance with the zoning request or --
Miller: So, my question is is the Eagle Road sidewalk would not be required if it's I -L for
the Everton Mattress?
Hood: Mr. Chair, would you like me to answer that?
Rohm: Absolutely. Please do.
Hood: The sidewalk along Eagle Road is required for any construction along Eagle
Road. So, if it came in for a certificate of zoning compliance, we would require that
sidewalk to be put in, the multi -use pathway.
Rohm: Even regardless of the zoning?
Hood: Regardless of zoning.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Boy, that's --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would also comment from memory other projects that have
gone on and I'm thinking specifically of those north of where the Blue Cross is now,
have had the same comment that there is no pedestrian traffic there. It's the intent of
Meridian to make a continuous sidewalk for several reasons, one because there may be
pedestrian traffic, but mostly for future public transit and while it's an obvious argument
now that the sidewalk is not continuous and, therefore, nobody walks up and down
there, as each piece comes before us we are adding that requirement, with the hope
that sometime in the future it will be a continuous sidewalk. I mean if anything ever
happens with the Mattress property, even if it stays I -L, it will require them to do a
sidewalk. The project immediately to the north of you on the other side of the railroad
track will be required to put in a sidewalk. Blue Cross has volunteered to put a sidewalk
in, even though they are not asking for any changes. So, it will at some point be
continuous.
Miller: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, I believe that that would be a good argument to say
that we should bond for it. We don't have a problem with doing it. We do have a
problem with doing it and, then, having it tom out or put in the wrong place or those kind
of things. We don't have a problem with doing it at some point in the future.
Zaremba: The City of Meridian I don't think accepts bonds for those, but if it were an
ACHD street they would. It's not, it's an ITD street. Do they bond for --
77 7
4
p�i r
I
.> ..ttd 9F p'SS h
i
I
4
I
I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 13 of 53
Miller: I don't know the answer to that, but we would be willing to either bond with the
City of Meridian or with ITD, whichever is the case, and with the City of Meridian we do
have the ability to acquire a letter of credit.
Zaremba: I certainly can see the logic in finding some way to make that happen.
Miller: Yeah. I don't have a problem with that requirement at all.
Rohm: Well, I think it's a good time we will open it up to public testimony.
Miller: Thank you.
Rohm: And we do not have anybody that has signed up to this, but at this time we
would open it to public testimony. There is nobody signed up or appears as if anybody's
coming forward, so at this time I guess we can conclude our open testimony and,
Commissioner Zaremba, would like to give us your thoughts on this?
Zaremba: Yes. I have in the past been vocal about preserving I -L properties. We have
very few of them in the city. I think we are kind of under represented with I -L and
certainly along the railroad track. However, this is not just a piece of property along the
railroad track, it's also on Eagle Road and I feel completely opposite about the
properties along Eagle Road, that they need to have retail and office things that are
more appropriate in the zone that's being applied for, the C -G zone, than in the I -L and
while I hesitate to give up I -L property along the railroad track, I just feel it's more
practical on this piece of property that it be C -G. So, I would be in favor of the zoning
change. Of the things that have been discussed tonight, if there is a way to bond for the
sidewalk, I'm perfectly happy to see that happen. I would like to see a single access
onto Lanark, as opposed to the two driveways depicted, but I would also like to preserve
the cross -access to what is currently their own property, but may some day not be
under the same ownerships the cross -access to the property to the west. Basically, I'm
in favor of what -- I'm in favor of approving it with some conditions.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I'm in favor of the project, too. I think pretty much I agree with everything
Commissioner Zaremba said. I don't know it does much benefit for the pedestrian
sidewalk from Lanark into the building, but it's not a -- it can be colored concrete, so it's
not that big of a deal either, probably. The sidewalk on Eagle Road I don't -- you know,
I wish it could be designed with what they have already have designed and get it taken
care of now. It doesn't make sense to build something and tear it out. They don't
always tear it out. Other projects have been -- seen others where they leave -- they
leave the sidewalk that the developer put in and, then, when they put the curb and
gutter in they just have a separate sidewalk, at least I know they did that in a stretch
along Ustick Road and maybe in other places. So, I don't know the best -- I don't know
the best answer to that. I don't see a lot happening from Ustick -- I mean from the
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
November 2, 2006
Page 14 of 53
railroad tracks to Franklin until there is a continuous sidewalk, because of the way that
road is. So, whatever we need to do I guess is fine with me.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'm pretty much in agreement with the other Commissioners. As far as Eagle
Road is concerned, again, I -- my biggest concern is that Mr. Borup brought up a good
point, if, in fact, you can get the plans on what ITD had planned for Eagle Road -- my
concerns are the elevations of where they want this sidewalk to be, where you want to
put it and where they would put it. If you're not -- you know, that's -- you're going to just
waste money, because they will tear it out. So, I don't know if we go ahead and try to
have them bond for it at the present time and, then, maybe they do get with ITD, verify
some elevations, and see whether or not we can put it in now, because it sounds like
there won't be funds to take care of Eagle Road for awhile and, yes, we do want the
sidewalk, but, again, I don't like putting in things just to turn around and watch them get
taken right out. It's a waste of money and that's not what we are trying to do here. We
are trying to be a little frugal here. So, as far as the other conditions in the report and
whatnot, I -- I agree with the staff report, other than the Eagle Road area.
Hess: Commission Members, Mr. Chairman, I would like to let the applicant know and
all of you that the UDC does allow the applicant to construct the majority of the sidewalk
within a landscape buffer, and, therefore, that would likely not be removed at a later
date by ITD.
Borup: And we do have 35 feet there; is that correct?
Hess: Correct.
Hood: And, Mr. Chair, maybe I should -- and I'm not familiar with the Eagle Road
corridor study for this mile section or two miles or however they have broken that
section up. I do generally know that the policy of ITD is they are in the business of
moving cars and not people. I do not even know that a pedestrian walkway is in the
plan for them. They generally -- that's why it is hit and miss with sidewalk there is
usually they would rather not see them. They see it as a liability within their right of
way. So, although I don't -- it doesn't specifically say that in the UDC that it's outside of
the ultimately right of way of ITD, I think the intent is for these pathways along state
highways, particularly to be on -- within landscape buffers with an easement provided to
the public to use them. So, it doesn't answer the question, but just kind of some
background history of how ITD looks at these. Now, I know that some of the
Commissioners have been involved with the Eagle Road study a little bit more and
maybe know if there are, you know, design plans that are at 85 percent or whatever and
they have incorporated in some pedestrian paths or whatever along Eagle Road, at
least a couple few years ago they didn't have any want neither desire to have any kind
of pedestrian -- encourage pedestrians on a state highway, so that's where we as the
city kind of don't see the same as ITD does and why we have it in our UDC and they
may or may not have it in their design for the roads, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 15 of 53
Borup: I could see it having more use, maybe, as a bicycle pathway than a pedestrian.
Anybody bicycling on Eagle Road would be a good -- it's a good thing to get off the
road.
Moe: Well, with the elevation change that is out there in that area that would be a crazy
ride on a bike.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment -- I'm trying to picture a plan that I have
seen at some of the various meetings and my recollection is that all of ITD's stopped at
the curb. I don't believe they go beyond the curbs and pretty much for the same
reasons that Caleb has just said. So, it is up to the City of Meridian. ITD will go along
with it if we ask for a sidewalk, but that doesn't appear to be their interest.
Rohm: Thank you. I guess last to chime in on this, I personally am in favor of doing the
sidewalk now. I think that it should be placed in that 35 -foot strip and outside of the ITD
influence and at that point it would not be removed at such time as the full
improvements take place and the other thing is I think that the applicant's request to
move forward with the project and vacate the easement prior to occupancy is in good
order. I think that makes complete sense and he's certainly right that those lot lines all
have a five foot utility easement and that's the way they used to subdivide and now it's
more just the paper chase to get a sign off on each of the utilities vacating that and
moving forward.
Cole: Mr. Chair, with all due respect -- and I certainly don't mean to be argumentative
with you here -- the building department will not normally issue a building permit if there
is a platted easement across there. We have in the past found out that there is an
easement after we have issued the permit for occupancy, but if we know there is
easements, there we are not going to issue the permit.
Rohm: Well, then, I guess the applicant will need to get that vacated before they obtain
a building permit, won't they.
Cole: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. I think at this time we have taken plenty of testimony and it would
probably be in order to close the public hearings.
Borup: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-010. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
oai
3
r
i
yZ q,
sj P-1
ni''uY�nd. .x t F: m
r
�F
£
L@@
ku 133 }i. ! Y (G tt
- f
3
Meridian Planning & Zoning O
November 2, 2006
Page 16 of 53
Rohm: Commissioner Moe, would you care to take a stab at a motion?
Moe: Well, before we do that I have a comment. I guess after discussion of the
sidewalk and whatnot, looking like we are considering putting in the landscaped area, I
guess right now it doesn't look like there really are any changes to this project that I'm
aware of.
Borup: Perhaps the sidewalk around the building, maybe.
Moe: The sidewalk on the --
Borup: West side.
Moe: -- west. Yeah. Where is that at?
Hess: Commission Members, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the very last bullet
on page five of the staff report under the development agreement requirement.
Borup: Yes.
Moe: Yes. Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of File No. RZ 06-010 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 2nd, 2006, with the following modification: On page five
of the staff report, last bullet where it talks about the applicant shall install sidewalks
around the structure as proposed, I would like to amend that to be the applicant shall
install sidewalks around the structure, excluding the west of the building. All other
comments stay as they were. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been move and seconded --
Borup: Discussion?
Rohm: -- to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ -- excuse me --
RZ 06-010, include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Borup: Aye. Never mind.
Rohm: I think everybody was in favor on that. Thank you.
.^t`
a `.t
5
5'
I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 17 of 53
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky,
Inc. — 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61
single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. — 3465
& 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive:
Rohm: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, both items
related to Harcourt Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly
scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward -- or to continue Items AZ 06-046 and
PP 06-048 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21st, 2006. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: There were a number of people that came in after we opened our meeting
tonight and there is another project that is to be continued tonight and that's the Una
Mas Day Care, CUP 06-033, and it's going to be continued to 11/16. And the Spurwing
Patio Home Subdivision has already been continued to 11/16. So, if any of you have
come in to hear those items, they will not be heard tonight. Oh, and the Lochsa Falls
project, RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, are to be continued to December 21st, 2006, as
well. So, if any of you came in after we opened the meeting, those have all been
continued.
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for
Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors — 570 S. Linder Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-036 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on
5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors
— 570 S. Linder Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 18 of 53
Rohm: Okay. Let's see. Where am I? Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public
Hearing on AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036, both items related to Nursery Subdivision and
begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This project is located on the
east side of Linder Road, approximately 1,900 feet south of the intersection of Linder
and Franklin Road. Right here on the screen. The application includes a request for
annexation and zoning of 5.59 acres from RUT, which is an Ada County designation, to
R-8, medium density residential within the City of Meridian and preliminary plat approval
of 25 single family residential lots and four common lots. Just to give some context of
what's going on out there, the project is almost completely surrounded by The Landing
Subdivision, which is zoned R-4, which is, basically, all of this area around here. To the
south there is one larger parcel that contains a single family home that is zoned R-4, but
hasn't been developed yet within the -- hasn't been -- no new buildings have been
constructed since that zoning occurred. And to the -- to the west there are various rural
residential properties in the county and also some -- some city land that is zoned also
R-4. We will move onto the aerial photograph. This just gives another view of what's
going on in the area. As you can see, this property is almost completely surrounded by
houses, except for this area over here. The preliminary plat request consists of 25
single family residential building lots and four common lots. The total gross density of
the project is 5.06 dwelling units per acre as proposed. The access to the development
will be from an existing stub street, which has been extended from The Landing
Subdivision, which is called South Kilee Way and The Landing Subdivision currently has
direct access from Linder Road. And one stub street will be provided to the parcel to
the -- to the 2.27 acre parcel to the southwest that currently contains an existing home.
This is the stub street right here and this is the stub street that is going to be extended --
or proposed to be extended. Another feature on this site is the Kennedy Lateral, a
Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District facility, runs along the southern boundary of the site
through here. The lateral is piped up to the edge of The Landing Subdivision and, then,
is uncovered up until it gets to Linder Road and the applicant is proposing to cover that
through the subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is medium
density residential and the proposal is generally -- generally complies with the
Comprehensive Plan. We can take a look at the -- the landscape plan. As you can see
here, the common lots proposed -- there is one common open area here. There is the
storm drainage lot proposed here. This is the required buffer. And those are, basically,
the common lots that have been proposed for this -- for this site. There are a few issues
that came as staff took a look at this project and I will go through those one by one just,
so they are made clear. Staff is concerned about the storm drain lot. Actually, I think I
even have a blow up. What I'm looking at -- and we will go back to the plat. This area
of the plat is kind of confusing. There is a lot going on there. So, I did a little bit of a
blow up, which can be seen on this sheet, which shows that this is the northwest corner
of the plat. This is the cul-de-sac. This is shows the storm drain lot. This storm drain
lot, which is located behind Lot 20, Block 1, has an access point that runs up through
here and this access point has been placed in an easement on Lot 20, Block 1. Staff is
not supportive of encumbering this single family lot with an easement that basically
makes this part of the lot unusable for that homeowner. Also, ACHD has a policy that --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 19 of 53
it didn't necessarily come out in the conditions that they included with this report,
because they only do a cursory review, we call it, of the street section. But in their
design when they do the design of the storm drain facilities and when it gets farther
along in the process, ACHD does have a policy, which is outlined in the staff report, that
doesn't allow these storm drain facilities to be included within residential building lots.
So, staff is not supportive of having this easement be placed on this Lot 20, Block 1,
and staff recommends that it be placed into a common lot, so that there would be a
common access to the storm drain lot in that area. The second requirement -- ACHD --
and it calls out in the staff report -- is requiring an additional 18 feet of right of way to be
included with this project and when that additional 18 feet is included, it basically shifts
everything a little bit to the east. The required landscape buffer will have to shift and
that will also decrease the size of this Lot 20, Block 1, significantly. So, basically, what
I'm saying is these two things -- requiring this to be in a common lot and shifting over
this -- the landscape buffer, will reduce Lot 20, Block 1, well below the minimum lot size
standard for the R-8 and staff recommends that this area be redesigned to meet all of
the UDC standards, which currently it appears that it does not. The final thing I'd like to
point out is the existing 20 -foot wide easement in favor of the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District that runs along the southern boundary of the project. As proposed, each of the
lots basically shares a portion of that easement or the lot line runs all the way back to
the far edge of the easement and includes that easement in the rear yard of these lots.
While that, inherently, is not a problem, it can be a problem if, indeed, the applicant is
unable to get a license agreement from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District allowing
those homeowners to fence all the way back to their rear property lines. If that license
agreement can't be obtained, basically, that area becomes kind of a no man's land
where the property owners can't fence it and they would -- as what happened in the
past, would basically extend along the easement line and own this piece of property
behind their fence, that they would be responsible to pay taxes on and maintain. And
it's just not seen as a favorable situation. If, indeed, this area can't -- if, indeed, the
applicant cannot get a license agreement from Nampa -Meridian, staff recommends that
that area be placed into a common lot, where the burden of that -- of that maintenance
and everything of that area is placed upon the entire subdivision, rather than each of
those individual homeowners who happen to purchase that lot in the future. I think
those are all the things that staff would like to bring up at this time and I stand for any
questions.
Rohm: Back to that Lot 20. If, in fact, you put a common lot to cover the easement
area, can you -- if you were to eliminate the lot all together and just make that one large
common lot, can you have an easement within a common lot and have that just one
unit?
Lucas: Absolutely. That would be the -- the preference would be to have it placed in a
common lot, because, then, ACHD, when they come to maintain these facilities, isn't
crossing over any specific homeowner's property, they are crossing over the
homeowner's association property, which is favorable to them. So, the answer would
be yes, Chairman.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 20 of 53
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Just a comment and if you would go to the slide that follows this one. Thank
you. The Nampa -Meridian easement that you have talked about as currently being
depicted where each property owner has part of it, we have an example of that, which,
in my opinion, supports staffs statement that it should not be as presented and that is
along Cherry Lane on the north side of it, between Ten Mile and -- not as far as Black
Cat, but Interlochen, maybe. The situation is the same. The people whose houses
back up to Cherry Lane actually own to the right of way. However, there is a Nampa
Meridian Irrigation pipe underneath that ground and an easement over the top of it, they
can't fence it, so all of them have built a fence along the north side of the easement and
even though they own more property than it appears that they own, that area is not
being maintained by anybody. The homeowners don't go out there and take care of it.
Nampa -Meridian doesn't feel it's their responsibility. Our parks department doesn't feel
it's their responsibility and I'm speaking in support of staffs request to make this a
separate piece of property that is maintained by the homeowners association,
everybody knows that -- where they could put their fence, which is not across this and I
think that's a good call on staffs part.
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, would you be in support of the project as proposed if,
in fact, they can obtain a license agreement with Nampa -Meridian and build the fence
right up to the edge of the property and, then, it will be fully maintained by the property
owners, as opposed to a common lot, if they can obtain a license agreement?
Borup: If it can be attained I could support that one subject before I commit on the
whole. I'd like to hear the presentation --
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: -- and the public testimony.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And that might be a good segway into the next part
of this. Would the applicant like to come forward and give their presentation.
Reliford: Kurt Reliford, J.J. Howard Engineers. I'm representing Gary Fors. One thing I
would like to note about this easement here that we are talking about, The Landing No.
7 Subdivision has an easement on the same magnitude on their north boundary. They
have a fence along that common line there. They have a license agreement as well.
So, I have dealt with this situation many times. I see no need that we would not obtain
a license agreement in this instance. I mean it's just not common for them to give one
guy one and another guy not, so I don't see an issue with that. As far as Lot 20 goes, I
knew about this going into the hearing. What we would probably propose is to eliminate
Meridian Planning & Zoning e
November 2, 2006
Page 21 of 53
the easement for the storm drain. We are proposing to put the sewer along that same
easement in Nampa -Meridian's easement for the City of Meridian. We could put our
storm drain adjacent to the sewer and, then, into -- through the common Lot 19 and,
then, back into the storm drain system and, then, we would lose that 18 feet and move
our buffer over, but, then, we would get that 20 feet back on that lot. So, there might be
some designs that could be worked into that lot, if not and it has to become a common
lot, then, I guess that's the way it is.
Rohm: It appears as if you understand the issue.
Reliford: Oh, yeah. Definitely.
Rohm: Okay. And if, in fact, you can move things in such a manner to maintain enough
square footage within that lot, then, working with staff seems to be in order, but if not,
then --
Reliford: Then, we'd have to come in with some resolve. We understand that. Yeah.
Rohm: Okay.
Reliford: Any questions?
Rohm: Anything else on the subdivision as a whole that you would like to present or are
you satisfied with the staff report as --
Reliford: Yeah. Pretty much it.
Rohm: Okay. Okay.
Reliford: I didn't see anything unusual or out of the ordinary than any other subdivision,
so --
Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Thank you.
Reliford: You bet.
Rohm: There has not been anybody that has signed up to speak to this application, but
if you would like to now is the time to come forward and say your name and address for
the record once you come forward, please.
Buisman: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Julie Buisman. Sorry. B, as in
boy, u -i -s -m -a -n. And I currently live in The Landing Subdivision. I actually reside on
1287 West Gandor Drive. I just have one main concern with this subdivision and that
would be the main access -- actually, the only access being through our subdivision
through The Landing. If you could go back to the main map that shows the access road
through Kilee, how you access that is through Gandor up to I believe Otter and Waltman
Y y ;
E
! g$
f
ROk
d
fj
r
� yar
4t
{t sl
k
����
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 22 of 53
and, then, through Kilee. There are three main roads right now into The Landings
Subdivision and it is I think -- I believe it's got a 200 plus home subdivision, so you can
imagine those roads are, you know, fairly well trafficked right now. My concern is with
the addition of 25 homes accessing Gandor, each home having two cars, that's an extra
-- that's an additional one hundred trips a day if each car makes one trip back and forth
on that road. And that is a main road for children accessing the elementary school,
which is just right across Linder on the west side. So, I would just ask that perhaps you
address the issue, with that being the only access. It is an usual situation, I believe,
with The Landing surrounding that subdivision and I would ask you to consider perhaps
making an additional access to that subdivision or making Gandor not being the only
access. That's all I have. Thank you.
Rohm: The only thing I would say to that is at the time that The Landing Subdivision
was built that cross -access agreement or the stub street was put there specifically with
the intent to serve that adjacent property and -- and that's the requirement that we try to
make on every single development in a residential perspective as they come through is
so that we minimize that number of ingress and egress to the main arteries and build
out just as this is designed and I can certainly understand your concerns, but at the time
that that was -- your subdivision was built, it was built with the intent of servicing that
adjacent property. Just information for you. Any anybody else like to speak to this
application? Okay. Any additional questions of staff or any comments by Commission
members?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, comments, not really questions. Assuming that the easement
problem can be worked out and I'm happy to have it go either way, you either get the
permission from Nampa -Meridian for each property to fence it all the way to the end of
the easement or they put it in a separate common lot, one way or the other, I think. I
don't want to end up with fences along the north end of the easement, but whichever
way it can be worked out is fine with me. I think adding a variety of housing in this area
is a good idea. If this project were standing on its own I would be happy to support it.
It, however, runs into one of my very serious bugaboos, that at what point Linder, as
currently a cul-de-sac, should we stop adding residences until it connects across the
interstate and there are two ways in and out of it. As a cul-de-sac it has already far
more than the 50 homes that the fire department would prefer. Once you hit south of
Franklin, there currently is no other way in or out of the area and we have struggled with
this before. I don't know for myself where I think the straw breaks the camel's back. It's
difficult to add more houses.
Cole: Mr. Chair?
Zaremba: Mr. Cole.
Cole: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mike Cole. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning & Zoning o
November 2, 2006
Page 23 of 53
Cole: It might be interesting to know for Commissioner Zaremba that there is now an
actual emergency access that runs out of the back of the subdivision. It's not a --
Zaremba: There is a connection that heads across, did that happen?
Cole: It's goes across -- a developer has bought up the property underneath Waltman
Lane, south of Waltman to Meridian Road, and has granted that easement -- gave it to
ACHD -- gave them an easement. It's not platted right away yet, but it's an access
easement and approved for emergency access. So, there now is the second way out.
It's not a cul-de-sac anymore.
Zaremba: I'm thrilled to hear that and I withdraw that objection from this and all future
projects along Linder. Good. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have any final thoughts on this application?
Moe: Probably not comments or -- just a couple questions. I'm kind of curious in
regards to the common lot issue and whatnot. Are we wanting to move the thing
forward or waiting --
Zaremba: I forgot to answer that on my part, but --
Moe: My biggest concern is is that before this goes to City Council I would like to see
what they finally do to this lot.
Zaremba: Well, the two things. I'd like the easement resolved --
Moe: Right.
Zaremba: -- and the lot that you're talking about.
Moe: Exactly. So, I guess my point is -- and I'm not -- we continue enough hearings as
it is, but I guess my point is is that until I see what they do with this, I don't want to act
on this tonight, other than to continue it.
Zaremba: For the purpose of seeing how those two changes are made.
Moe: That is correct. Yeah. I'm in favor of the project, other than the fact I want to see
what is done with that.
Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, please? Basically, its kind of
the consensus of the Commission that we want to see the answers to those questions
before we make any motion forwarding onto City Council. What kind of a time frame do
you think you're under to obtain an answer?
``.�'
}1 • 7
�`f`§Nnj'�� y.�' N f %,
�<<<i.� �
t
, .,
� ju'.;� R .. x 1T #d'.�3F�h
t
p70
`tom
p70
Meridian Planning & Zoning e
November 2, 2006
Page 24 of 53
Reliford: Well, certainly, I could get Nampa -Meridian to act on it within a couple days
and just get me a letter saying that if they will grant us a license agreement -- and if
that's all you need, that's fine. As far as figuring out that Lot 18, 19 and 20, sometime
next week I could have something to you. Would it go on the Consent Agenda for --
Rohm: Okay. All right. So, within this next week you should be able to have answers
to both. Okay. Let me ask staff, then. Caleb, can you tell us when you think the next
opportunity to finish this out would be?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did just pull out our agendas for the
upcoming couple of months. We have continued or will continue a couple items tonight
to the 16th of November. I don't want to put Justin on the spot here with -- if you get
something, as the applicant's testified, next week, you know, our print deadline is next
Friday for the following Thursday for the 16th. The 16th looks a lot better than the
December 7th, which is our next hearing. Now, this is the first time I will talk to you all
about it, but there is five Thursdays in this month. I don't want to have to have another
agenda for just this. If -- and I don't know the direction that you're fully going or if you
want to go this way, but if you wanted just -- although we don't have a Consent Agenda
necessarily for development applications that you haven't officially acted on yet, but if
you want to limit the testimony to just discussing those two items, I feel confident we
could probably get through it on the 16th, if Justin thinks a day or so is enough time to
evaluate a revised plan if the applicant could promise to have us something by
Thursday -- by next Thursday. And, like I say, we have 24 hours, anyways, a working
day, to at least update the staff report and give you an updated memo or whatever. So,
the 16th would -- if it's not the 16th, then, we are looking at December 21 st would be the
next hearing that I would recommend.
Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb.
Reliford: We can meet that.
Rohm: Okay. Well good, then. I think we are done.
Reliford: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Zaremba: Just so I understand, information to staff by the 9th would get it on the 16th;
is that right?
Reliford: By the 8th.
Zaremba: 8th is fine.
Reliford: No. The 9th. You're right. I'm sorry. A week from today.
Zaremba: Okay.
f
ni
1
N
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
November 2, 2006
Page 25 of 53
Hood: Next Thursday.
Zaremba: Make sure we are all thinking the same thing.
Rohm: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to make a motion
to --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Items AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036
relating to Nursery Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of November 16,
2006, for the purpose of reconfiguration of two areas that we have talked about or a
letter from Nampa -Meridian, either way and expecting it to be a short discussion.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-038 and PP 06-
036 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, for the sole purpose of
discussing right of way issues and Lot 20. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
lighted fields adjoining a residential district for Heritage Middle School by
Joint School District No. 2 — 4990 N. Meridian Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-031, Heritage
Middle School and begin with staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. The application before you is a
request for a Conditional Use Permit and variance for Heritage Middle School, located
4990 North Meridian Road, on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and
McMillan Road. If you look up here on the screen, we are looking at that property right
there. To the north of the property is Ventana Subdivision. To the east is Saguaro
Subdivision. And to the south is recently approved Solitude Subdivision. All single
family residential subdivisions. Across Meridian Road there to the west is vacant
commercial property, zoned C -G as part of Paramount Subdivision. The City of
Meridian Parks Department is requesting that the school provide -- schools in general
provide lighted ball fields for the benefit of the community to increase the number of
fields available for evening sports activities. Per this request the applicant is applying
for a Conditional Use Permit as required by the UDC for lighted fields adjoining and
within a residential district. To minimize or alleviate the adverse impacts that this use
may pose to nearby residential properties, staff has requested as a condition of
approval that the ball field lights not be lit passed 11:00 p.m. at night. Additionally, the
applicant is applying for a variance from UDC 11.3A.11.0 that requires light fixtures that
have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more to have an opaque top to prevent
uplighting and requires that the bulb not be visible and have a full cut-off shield. The
• a
Meridian Planning &Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 26 of 53
mtq
applicant states that they cannot comply with this requirement, because the flood
lighting that is needed to adequately light a ball field requires exposed light bulbs. The
fire department is requesting that the applicant construct an emergency access road to
the four ball fields as part of the subject approval, as stated in Exhibit B of the staff
report. Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit and
variance as stated in the staff report. Only I guess I need to show you the site plan real
quick here. The arrows indicate the two fields that will -- are proposing to be lit through
this conditional use. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant
come forward?
Moe: I have none.
Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Henson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Scott Henson of LCA Architects,
.'
representing Joint School District No. 2, the Meridian School District, and I will keep my
comments very brief. We have read the staff report and are in agreement with the
findings and the conditions of approval. So, with that I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: That's pretty simple.
w '
Henson: I'd like to go home. You have seen me dozing here.
Rohm: Any questions for the applicant?
,?
Moe: I'll wait for public comment.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. There is not anyone signed up to speak to this application,
k
but now is the time. Anyone that would care to speak to this application, please, come
forward. Seeing none --
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-031 and --
_VIF.
Zaremba: Second.
Moe: -- VAR 06-021.
Zaremba: Sorry. Second.
F
t
iss
4;.
f e'StK e
Y
4 t
itwwir,
G
�5
F
�d �'>; rce' •x m, spki ;. € 5`'i" sk< Jyi
..f: ,:"#'-q(
)`�' wt'1h'.'S S
i y ,
5:
Aft
- Zp
*
t b
x�,s •
5�'�' a.s X- iF"�a.F s� z. Y,� a 4 J r t
St rd's{t
ro
r
t
x
Ni
Ag
Meridian Planning & Zoning
`..
November 2, 2006
«
x
Page 27 of 53
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-
031 and VAR 06-021. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
3
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
� F
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of file number CUP 06-031 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date
^�
of November 2nd, 2006.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the CUP 06-031, to include the staff
report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks for
coming. Good night.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Does that mean we can go home, too?
Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare
Una Mas, LLC — 3475 E. Ustick Road:
2
.,
Rohm: No, we got to stick around for a little while. Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to
open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-033, related to Una Mas Day Care for the sole
purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th
2006.
g3
Moe: So moved.
y.
z
Rohm: It's been moved and --
g v i
Zaremba: Seconded.
Rohm: -- seconded to continue Item CUP 06-033 to the regularly scheduled meeting of
November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 06-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O -T zone for Kelley Carport
t,
by Lary and Judy Kelley — 403 East 2nd Street:
' 5 h
'>
t
�{',
a
t
fi�
y
c
r
y
`
z r
�lk
µ
1
�{
h'Tz.4TE p
T
t
? .. � u k 14° +tad E.*, Pz}E ✓+Pb j"F 1w�°;i`is�j.'"A L3,�. A t,!
s
"
1
4�9
S
ROta
}v
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
November 2, 2006
Page 28 of 53
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-034 related
to the Kelley Carport and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I'll start with a brief description of
where we are located here. We are in the Old Town District of Meridian. Right here on
the comer of East 2nd Street and Ada Street. The exact address is 403 East 2nd
Street. The property is approximately .08 acres and the zoning, as you can see on the
slide, is Old Town. A quick description of what's surrounding it. Obviously, all the
zoning would be Old Town in the surrounding area. To the north you have a single
family home, also zoned in Old Town. To the east is Northeast 2nd Street and a single
family home. To the south is East Ada Street and some apparently -- it looks like some
apartments or possibly a duplex. And to the west is also a single family home. Tonight
the application specifically references a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square
foot canvas carport basically to remain as it's currently located. Earlier this year the
code enforcement division of the police department received a complaint from one of
the applicant's neighbors regarding the location of the carport. This neighbor expressed
concerns that the carport was located too close to the property line and positioned in
such a way that it blocked clear line of sight when exiting the adjacent driveway. The
code enforcement officer visited the applicants and recommended that they speak with
planning staff to verify if the carport was allowed. And due to the fact that canvas
carports are not specifically addressed in the UDC and that the downtown design
guidelines, which, basically, set out most of the standards for the Old Town District,
weren't necessarily geared towards residential projects and more towards commercial,
staff recommended that the applicant apply for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
Planning and Zoning and Zoning Commission to decide on this issue. It would probably
be best to kind of move on from there to get a look at exactly what we are talking about.
This is an aerial photograph of the property. This is somewhat helpful. There are quite
a few trees and this aerial photograph was taken actually prior to the placement of the
carport, but this is the property. The carport is placed right here at the southwest comer
of the property and, really, it most directly affects the neighbor to the west, whose
driveway is adjacent to the carport. I have some other -- this is a site plan which,
actually -- oh, there we go. This isn't oriented quite properly. On this site plan north is,
actually, to our right here. West would be up. Here is the carport location. Here is the
neighboring property and their driveway would be located approximately right here.
Here is some photos just to kind of give us -- put us all on the same page of what we
are talking about. This is the neighbor's driveway. This is the carport as it currently
exists. This is another view of that just to kind of orient us on how the carport may
affect the driveway. This is the distance from the driveway as to the carport. And this
photo kind of helps to show how that driveway could be affected when it comes to vision
when you're pulling out by that -- by that carport. And this is a -- kind of a long view
showing that from down the street a motorist traveling west on Ada Street really can't
even see -- that truck is still there, it just is not -- is not in view due to the location of the
carport. That really kind of moves me into -- into staffs major concerns with this
location and how the carport affects the adjacent property. After careful review, which
included a site visit, staff has determined that the subject carport encroaches into the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 29 of 53
required clear vision triangle in this area and the clear vision triangle is described in the
Unified Development Code and its purpose is to insure that motorists and pedestrians
are able to maintain a clear line of site at the intersection of a street and a driveway. As
the photograph I just showed you shows, the carport is located directly adjacent to the
driveway of the neighboring property to the west and the location of the carport almost
completely blocks the driver's line of sight to the east as he or she may exit that -- that
neighboring driveway. Staff views -- staff believes that this situation creates a hazard
for motorists and pedestrians traveling along this street. That's staffs main concern and
main reference to the Unified Development Code. The other two points I'd like to make
aren't directly drawn from the code, but they are definitely a point of interest that should
be discussed at this hearing. I think this shows best from this photograph here. The
right of way in this area also, as you can see, is not finished, there is neither a curb nor
a gutter, nor sidewalk that has been constructed along this street. But ACHD does own
quite a bit of right of way along this street. And it appears and this -- because I didn't do
exact measurements, there was no survey done, I say appears, that this carport
significantly encroaches into that right of way. A good example of where that right of
way most likely is is about where the edge of the gravel -- gravel kind of side -- side part
of the street is there and it appears that this carport encroaches into that right of way
and that ACHD, upon review of this application, informed me that they also feel that it
encroaches into that right of way and without a license agreement that encroachment
isn't viewed by them as lawful. And the final point I'd like to make is it's basically a
general -- a general discussion of design and kind of what the city wants to see, not only
in the Old Town district, but throughout the city. And staff is concerned about these
types of structures being located adjacent to public streets on this site or, as I said, in
any area of the city. Staff believes the semi-permanent canvas and steel structures,
such as these, should be located out of the public view, especially in residential areas.
And staff is concerned that allowing for the subject carport to be located as shown,
could set an unwanted precedent for such structures in the Old Town district or in any
residential district throughout the city. With that said I'll conclude my comments and
stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. That's a very well presented report. Any questions of staff? Would
the applicant like to come forward, please?
Kelley: I'm Judy Kelley and this is my husband Larry Kelley. We live at 403 2nd Street.
He's giving you a copy of a paper that I drew up that might answer some other
questions. We bought our property in 1972 and at that time the neighbor's property was
a large open yard and the house was now two over from there. When Jennifer and her
first husband wanted to build that house their lot was not wide enough and we had to
sign a variance for them to be able to build closer to our property than Planning and
Zoning would allow. So, we signed their variance access and they could, then, build
there. They also didn't have any equipment -- or any power for their equipment or
generator, so they asked us if we would supply power for their saws and their
equipment to build their house, so all the time that they were building their house they
used our power. When Jennifer and her second husband were painting their house,
they left part of the wall unpainted next to our house, which you can see on the second
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 30 of 53
page of that in the lower picture, shows a partially painted wall that's just next to our
house. We didn't complain about that, even though it's quite odd. The black pickup that
you see in the picture for several years had flat tires and was up on blocks. They do not
use the front driveway. Can you show us the overhead view with the cars and their
driveway in the back, please? The other one. Yeah. As you can see at the top there,
their driveways enter from the alley and there is the car just pulling out at the top of that
alley right there. Both of the garages enter into that back driveway. They never use the
front driveway -- as far as I know they have only been out of it maybe three times in the
last four years, since they just had their car fixed. So, almost all of the access is from
their alleyway. Country Glass uses that alley. So, it's quite a busy alley and their fence
is right on the alleyway. There is no setback for their fence to the alley. It's a blind
comer. We have a very small lot and there is no other area to park our car and the
canvas garage has been there for three years and it hasn't been a problem and if we
were to sell our place and a commercial building was put there with a zero lot setback, a
store front would be, as downtown Meridian guidelines said, abutted to the sidewalk and
that lot line. If you draw a line on the map you designate Old Town for Meridian, the
intent is to recognize the importance of Old Town area and the cultural and history of
Meridian. However, in our area of Old Town there are many lower income families and
small houses, some of them no bigger than a master suite in some of the new
bedrooms -- new houses. As you can see from the other pictures, we have in our area
buildings, they have fallen down, houses with open fire pits, houses with tall weeds,
stolen no parking signs next to a fence that fell down, and also old discarded oil drums,
TV sets in the weeds, refrigerators, washers. They have abandoned cars, junk and
weeds as high as mail boxes and, as you can see in the picture, as high as the boat. I
know that there is good intentions, but like two car garages -- if you want to build a
garage in Meridian right now it has to be a two car garage, two stories high, which is
bigger than our house, almost, and I know that codes have to be there for a purpose,
but we don't have anywhere else on our lot to park and if you look at our lot and figure
out all the easements -- I had it right here -- then, you figure out that -- on the picture
this is our lot. As you take the easements out of it, from this side and this side, and you
put them together, this is how much we own and this is how much the easements own,
so you can tell that the property that we pay taxes on, we own half of it, so we can only
do on our -- half of our lot what normally you could do on your whole lot that you own.
Our request is that we be allowed to keep carport. We do not have anywhere else to
keep the car off of the street. The last time we had it on the street somebody keyed it.
It's a '57 Chevy that we just painted red and white and we really would just not like to
keep it on the street. Any questions?
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Maybe just one on clarification. What are the easements that you're talking
about?
Kelley: Caleb told me that it's 15 -foot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning O o
November 2, 2006
Page 31 of 53
Borup: But that's not -- you don't own that property that has the ACHD easement. You
only bought up to your property line, but --
Kelley: Right. But when he's showing you on that picture that he says is probably
brown -- theirs is probably brown, our lot line come clear out there. What he said is
brown is where the irrigation ditch runs and nobody maintains it on the other side of the
irrigation ditch. When we measured the -- you know, when we went to Planning and
Zoning and they told us that we didn't need a building permit, because of the code --
that there wasn't a code for it --
Borup: But my question is on the easements, so --
Kelley: Right. He just said that they have a five foot setback for the sidewalks and,
then, 15 feet more back for the easements. And, also, on our -- if you measure out with
our tax base, it comes into that easement with our tax --
Borup: So, have you had your property surveyed you're saying?
Kelley: Well, not exactly, but where the bushes and the trees and everything are and
the grass, has been there since we bought it in 1972.
Borup: No. I understand, but that doesn't mean that's where your property line goes to.
I didn't know if you understood that.
Kelley: No, but we maintain a lot of it. That's all I know.
Borup: Right. And I think everybody -- everybody's in that same situation.
Kelley: Right.
Borup: That's the usage you have that you don't own.
Kelley: Well, I was just -- property that I measured --
Borup: But you were talking about some other easements and that's what I was
confused about. I understand the highway --
Kelley: Caleb, what's that 15 -foot easement you told me about?
Borup: You're talking the setback?
Kelley: Setback. Yes.
Borup: Okay. That's a big difference.
Kelley: That's where I --
t
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 32 of 53
Borup: That's just an area you can't put buildings in is all.
Kelley: Yeah.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Kelley: So, this much I can, this much I can't.
Borup: Well, you still own that. You have use of all that.
Kelley: Yeah.
Borup: Just talking about putting structures in over there I guess.
Kelley: Right.
Borup: That's the difference. All right. Thank you.
Nary: Ma'am, your example that you're showing the Commission, you need to give to
the clerk.
Kelley: Oh, sure.
Nary: They just need it for the record. That's why. Since you were using it for
demonstration purposes.
Rohm: Thank you, Ma'am. Okay. Lary Kelly, would you like to speak, please? Are
you -- you're the applicant also, though, aren't you?
Nary: You have got to come up here to the mike, ma'am.
Rohm: Larry, go ahead and come forward, but, basically, the applicant gets their
opportunity to speak and I think your wife represented your interest fairly well, unless
you had something that you wanted to add --
L. Kelley: It would be different that what she had to say.
Rohm: Yes. We are going to make this part of the applicant's a you can split your
application discussion between multiple people, so this will just be a continuance of the
applicant's presentation.
L. Kelley: Okay. My name is Lary Kelley and the --
Rohm: Address. Go ahead and state your address.
77777
777777
r t
{
2
10
4
#..'.
f'
_ t, r.�?.,• fi°v xk�t,'?,.; dt. t t.:: �. k+i': ts'zb'44`><w€�
TV
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 33 of 53
L. Kelley: Oh. 403 East 2nd Street, Meridian, Idaho. The reason that we put this
garage up was that we have a 1957 Chevy that we bought in 1980, very similar to the
one that we had when we were dating back in the '60s, and we spent about 6,000
dollars having it painted and a little leather work done to it about three and a half years
ago and at that point we decided that we didn't want to keep it on the street, so we were
trying to figure out some way to keep it covered. We did go down to Meridian City and
we asked them, you know, all kinds of questions about can we do this and they said,
yes, there is no problem with that and so we came back and we looked into getting the
structure and we put it up to protect our'57 Chevy and that's -- it's not just any car, you
know, anyway, and so that's why we -- we installed that garage and this is the only
place that we have. We don't have an alleyway that borders our property and we,
basically, had that particular area to put it in and that was about it. And so, anyway,
that's about -- I just wanted to explain why we had the structure and what it was for and
the fact that we did go down to Meridian city and ask them for permission to do it. Now,
I understand that Ada County was involved, too. We didn't think about Ada County and
we didn't ask their permission, so -- or if there are any rules that we had to follow along
that line, so I just wanted to bring that point up.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Arthur Campbell.
Campbell: Good evening. My name is Arthur Campbell at 415 East 2nd Street. I'm
one of the neighbors to the north of Kelleys. Like Mrs. Kelley said, I never have seen
that vehicle moved and that family never has used it as a -- as a driveway. They always
use their other one and I never have seen — if it's not there, I never have seen a car
parked there when they do have company. So, I don't see where -- you know, there is
no problem with me with the Kelley's garage -- canvas garage there, because -- unless
you don't drive -- speed down the street, Ada Street, you know, why should you. It's
residential. I mean we do have a few people that speed down the street, but I don't
think they are the neighbors there.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Robert Kelley. Oh. Okay. From the audience Larry Kelley
indicated that the last two have left. So, with that, is there anybody else that would like
to testify to this application?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, I did want to point out that we did receive two
written statements specifically regarding this application and I just wanted to get that
into the record, that there was some written comments received from the neighbors.
Borup: We have got those.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Before we go really any further, I kind of -- I think that if I
could get Mr. Nary to speak to -- if we were to move forward with granting any kind of
an application like this where the carport is in the road right of way, I think we would -- in
my mind we would be putting the City of Meridian in harm's way. Could you speak to
that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 34 of 53
Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean I think you have hit on part of the
problem here is that if there is a right of way, then, ACHD does have a role as well as to
where -- how close that could be to the right of way. I think the staff report -- Mr. Lucas
will have to remind me -- I thought the staff report you talked about that and the
concerns about allowing that and I thought that was part of the basis of their reason for
recommending denial.
Rohm: I agree. And it just -- it seems to me after taking public testimony, there is
nothing that's changed that which was written in the staff report and albeit that
everything that was -- all testimony was very compelling, it doesn't change the fact that
it's still in the public right of way and I don't personally know any way that we could -- I
don't see any way we can grant it and I -- it appears as if that canvas carport is portable
and -- from the audience the applicant said that it's been cemented in, so the wind
doesn't blow it, but I think that it's probably still -- with a little bit of effort it's still portable.
Anyway, those are just my comments on this application and, Commissioner Moe, do
you have some thought?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, maybe, before Commissioner Moe, if you don't
mind. I mean I don't -- I think in the testimony, what you have had, and I think what I
see in the report is there isn't a response from ACHD on whether or not there is an
issue for them. I mean if you want the applicant to file that application and at least see
what that is, and since it is a conditional use you can certainly -- if the Commission is of
a mind to approve it, they can make a condition upon what ACHD would require. I
mean it may require them to remove it further back on their property, if they wanted to
do it. If that's physically possible, that's not really something you can address any more
than that. But you can certainly set it over for that purpose, if you want to do that.
Rohm: Boy, I like that answer. I mean I do. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Well, when I first reviewed this it disturbed me a little bit, because I -- and staffs
taken care of it by letting me know that there was a compliant that was brought up. I
really have a problem if this has been here for three years and this is now just coming
before us and whatnot. Quite frankly, I think the comments from Mr. Nary make a lot
more sense to me. I do believe we need to get a ruling from ACHD before we can really
act upon this as well. I mean if we are going to do it tonight, unfortunately, because it
does encroach onto ACHD, I would probably agree with staff comments, but at the
same point I would like to get some comment from ACHD before we go forward with it --
or before I would like to go forward with this.
Rohm: So, are you recommending that we continue for the sole purpose of getting
weigh -ins from Ada County Highway District?
Moe: That's what I would like to do, yes.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup, any comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 35 of 53
Borup: Well, I think, you know, a good part of the Old Town area has a lot of things that
are probably not in compliance with our present ordinances and some of them have
been there a long time and we have -- I think Meridian has had a little bit of a tradition of
kind of living and let live, but the issue here to me is -- I do believe it is in the ACHD
right of way, but also it's not within setbacks. This is a semi permanent structure. There
never would have been a building permit issued or granted. The car can still stay in the
location with a car cover, if that's where you want to put it, but my feeling -- I don't see
there is anything to continue. It doesn't really matter in my mind whether ACHD
approves or disapproves it. It's not within legal setbacks and that applied in all zones.
This is a residential zone, but in all -- it may just need to be -- if the structure wants to
stay, it may need to be located in another location of the car could still stay there with a
car cover is how I feel.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I guess I would question -- the applicant's have stated that before they even
put it up they went to the building department and were told there was no need for a
permit. I would -- I think it would make a difference how that question was asked at the
building department and what they thought was going up. If you're talking about a
temporary carport, we have all seen those, they aren't usually cemented into the ground
and the difference between a nonpermanent structure and a permanent structure is
usually the foundation. If there is a cement foundation or this is cemented into the
ground, it isn't the temporary movable structure that the building department three years
ago probably thought it was when you say we are going to put in a canvas car cover
there. I agree with what Commissioner Borup has said. To me that makes it a
permanent structure and it would need to meet the setbacks. So, I don't feel it should
be there.
Rohm: Okay. And last to weigh in, I agree with what Commissioner Borup was saying
about in especially Old Town, that there has been and continues to be a number of
issues that probably are not in compliance with ordinances that are on the books today.
But the fact of the matter is when something comes before this Commission, we have to
take into consideration the laws that are on the books and we could remand this back to
Ada County Highway District and they are going to say move it. They are going to say
you're going to have to move it out of their right of way. And so I think that if we were to
continue it for the sole purpose of somebody else telling you that you can't have it there,
then, all we would be doing is continuing your anguish and not change the final outcome
and I have -- I have all the empathy in the world for the situation that you folks are in,
but I think additionally, like Commissioner Borup mentioned, if you can't be in
compliance with the setback, which is the 15 feet from the front lot line, then, it probably
won't gain support either. So, I think that what we should probably do is give you the
fair answer based upon code that are on the books today and let you folks decide how
you want to proceed based upon those -- the laws that we have to use to make these
decisions. So, that would be my thoughts on it. So, I think that at this time, probably,
the best thing is to close the Public Hearing, if we could get a motion to that effect.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 36 of 53
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
o 0
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-034. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move to deny file number CUP 06-034 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 2 for the following reasons: First, those already stated in
the staff report. Second, we believe it doesn't comply with setbacks necessary for a
building with a cement foundation or a structure with a cement foundation. And
possibility that it may also be within ACHD's right of way or too close to it. For all those
reasons. 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 16th,
2006.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 06-034, to include all staff
comments for the hearing date of November 2nd, 2006. All those in favor --
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just before you vote on the motion, because this is a Conditional
Use Permit, state law requires that you give whatever direction you can to the applicant
as to what they could do to be approved. So, if it is simply the reverse of what your
reasons are, then, I guess you want to also make sure to direct staff, then, if they were
to get a license agreement that would allow -- that ACHD would grant them that ability,
then, that condition -- then, that, would satisfy that condition. If you believe it's a
permanent structure, you would need a ruling, then, from the building department as to
whether the foundation of this being in a permanent cement foundation makes it a
permanent structure requiring a permit, which I don't believe it does, but if that does,
you want a ruling from the building department. If it isn't a permanent structure, then,
what other condition you may have for them to be approved would, then, be -- have to
be removed further back, is that -- is that your other -- is that your concern is that it's still
too close to the street or if they have a license agreement and it's not a permanent
structure and it doesn't require a building permit, is there any other conditions that you
would require to be met, because they are entitled to know that when they leave.
Rohm: Thank you.
e,
r
��y ��
P i :=Gkii ij' alk 'yk°lJ'i i t.
�"rcFaY*3
r
�M�
"jj'�:9-d
vi
h
WOW
x
J* 9ktfi?i� a t'x
4 3 3'xq +' r 4 4 } kk^ 7e
1 x: 'xfNaz=
d
2A�•`£�"'5}`ri'
fr K..
y`�vT�I
.,
r = .....
a
;.
�s
V
1`+',".
,
d
n �
J,
Meridian Planning & Zoning o O
November 2, 2006
Page 37 of 53
Zaremba: I would add -- I appreciate Mr. Nary's things. I would add to that the sight
triangle, even though the current neighbor is apparently not actively using that driveway,
it is a driveway and somebody could very soon -- I mean if they sold somebody could
very soon say --
Nary: So, it would have to be a visible structure you could see through it to be able to
see --
Zaremba: Either see through it or move it back far enough that it doesn't impinge on the
sight triangle. Plus everything Mr. Nary said.
Rohm: Okay. Is that also seconded?
Borup: Yes. Yes. I believe that if it's back to the property line, I don't think the sight
triangle is an issue in my mind.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I mean there is shrubbery there now that blocks it also.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: The short answer was, yes, I second it.
Rohm: Okay. Again, it's been moved and seconded to deny CUP 06-034, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for the Kelley Carport, to include all staff comments, with the
mentioned alternatives that you have available to you to become in compliance. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Moe: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in and there are things that we can do and things
we can't -- okay. Thanks for coming in.
Borup: I might also mention that you can -- even though there is not another hearing,
this can be appealed to City Council.
Rohm: At this time we are going to take a short ten minute break. We will reconvene at
it looks like about 9:08.
(Recess.)
I
t
� z
C
-t
�`
fis na
Al
Meridian Planning & Zoning 0
November 2, 2006
Page 38 of 53
14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request for a
Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12)
from R-4 to C -N zone for Lochsa Falls Office / Commercial Addition by
Farwest, LLC — south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: MCU 06-002 Request for
Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to
remove the requirement for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for
development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 for
Lochsa Falls Office / Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC — south of
Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to continue the Planning and Zoning meeting for November
2nd, 2006, and begin by opening Item RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 for the sole purpose
of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21st, 2006. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carnes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-047 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.3
acres from RUT to L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation
Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
multi -family residential building lots consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1
clubhouse building lot and 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision by Vacation Village
Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 06-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for a multi -family development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place
Subdivision by Vacation Village Villas, LLC — 2510 E. Magic View Court:
Rohm: The rest of you must be for this next item. Okay. With that, at this time I'd like
to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-047, PP 06-49, and CUP 06-030 and begin with
the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. The applications before you
are an annexation and rezone, preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit request for
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 39 of 53
Waverly Place Subdivision. The property is 5.3 acres in size and is currently zoned
RUT in Ada County. The subject property is located at 2510 West Magic View Drive,
approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road and a half mile north of 1-84. If you look
up here on the overhead property, it's right there. We have Eagle Road over here and
the interstate down here. The property is bordered on the west by Woodbridge
Subdivision, an existing single family residential development zoned R-4. On the north
by Greenhill Estates Subdivision, an existing single family residential development
consisting of one acre lots zoned R-1 in Ada County. And on the east and south by
existing rural residential properties on five acre lots zoned RUT in Ada County. The
applicant is requesting that this property be annexed and rezoned to the L -O, limited
office zoning district, for multi -family residential use. The UDC requires a Conditional
Use Permit for multi -family uses in an existing L -O zone, which the applicant has also
applied for. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office. The office
designation provides for low impact businesses and office uses, but does not support
residential uses on property that is not yet zoned as office. Because of this staff does
not believe that the requested multi -family use complies with the Comp Plan designation
of office. The applicant is also proposing a preliminary plat for six multi -family
residential building lots consisting of 24 units and three common area lots, including a
clubhouse lot on 5.3 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of
the L -O zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 5.1 dwelling units per
acre. The average lot size in the proposed development is 21,585 square feet. With
each of the dwelling units being between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet. The applicant is
proposing 16.36 percent open space with landscape common areas and a 2,000 square
foot clubhouse. A ten foot wide landscape street buffer is required along East Magic
View Drive and along the interior local public streets. A 20 -foot wide landscape buffer is
required on the west, north, and east property boundaries adjacent to residential uses.
This is an aerial here. If you look on the overhead, it shows the existing properties.
This is a copy of the proposed plat right here. Access to the site will be provided from
the extension of East Magic View Drive and a proposed internal public street. This is
the site plan here. It shows the building footprints on the lot. Landscape plan. And
proposed elevations for the unit. They all have garages proposed with each unit. And
this is an elevation of the proposed clubhouse building. Staff is recommending denial of
this subject application based on the comments previously stated and those stated in
the staff report regarding compliance with the Comp Plan and the Findings of Fact as
listed in Exhibit D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff?
Borup: Maybe just one. The property to the south of this, I mean I realize there is
nothing developed there, but is that the same property we -- that there was an approved
development?
Watters: I believe they denied that. Yeah. City Council denied that.
Borup: City Council denied that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 40 of 53
Watters: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken, Suite B. I'm
representing the applicant on this particular application. It seems like lately I have had
all the tough ones. This is a small parcel. It's about 4.68 acres. This is in a particular
area that on your land use map -- Comprehensive Land use map is this ring around
adjoining Greenhill Estates, Woodbridge, is designated for L -O. In the interior it is
designated regional mixed use. Now, I did attend a lot of the meetings that took place
concerning the land use map and when the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted.
There was substantial discussion about this particular area. Everyone was quite aware
that the five acre lots with the single family dwellings on the substandard rural street
was going to change. With St. Luke's facility and all of the spin-off medical
developments, the motels, the C -stores, drive-in establishments that are taking place
out there, this whole area was going to change in character and I have been told from
people who were on the committee that it was their desire to, obviously, protect the
existing Greenhill Estates residents and the potential single-family developments that
would take place to the west from having a drive-in establishment in their back yard or
some massive huge multi -story type structure and, therefore, they designated this
particular area that this lot is in as L -O. Now, in your Comprehensive Plan it defines the
L -O zone and in that definition it does not specifically state residential. But in the
Uniform Development Code, under the limited office designation, it does allow for multi-
family residential as a conditional use within the L -O zone. Staff indicated in their report
that they believe that only applied if the L -O zone is existing, not that one can petition
for a rezone and annexation to L -O and, then, have an accompanying Conditional Use
Permit and preliminary plat, which is what's before you this evening. I guess I tend to
disagree, because I have had applications in other municipalities where we went into
and requested L -O and had multi -family. So, I did look at some of the other
municipalities' definitions of L -O. This is Boise City's. Very similar. Mirrors Meridian.
And that's the jurisdiction that I did go in and do multi -family development within an L -O
zone. It's not that unusual. Just like Meridian, within the L -O designation, it allows for
multi -family as a Conditional Use Permit. I looked at the city of Star, pretty much the
same. Definition mirrors Meridian. Does not specifically say residential in the definition
of the Comprehensive Plan, but yet allows for it in the L -O zone as a conditional use.
So, I guess one thing I'd like the Commission to consider is the Comprehensive Plan is
a guiding document. Everyone knows that. I mean it's a -- it is a fact. We use it for
guidance. However, it is not set in stone. It is not the implementing tool that we use,
the UDC is. So, I guess our contention is if multi -family is inappropriate within an L -O
designated area, then, why within the most current document that we are using in
Meridian does it allow for multi -family as a conditional use within the L -O zone. This
particular project is small in stature. As Sonya indicated, we have -- we are coming
before you with six multi -family lots, 24 units under a Conditional Use Permit. We did
submit elevations. The site plan -- the site plan you're looking at we are proposing all
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 41 of 53
public streets. We are hooking into Magic View Drive here. The connection to
Woodbridge is already established. That's only an easement, though. Ada County
Highway District has asked us to dedicate that particular section as right of way,
because it's an existing public street within an easement, which is very unusual. We will
have a split entrance, a loop around the structures. The particular structures will -- they
are attached. There are four units per building. We have what we call the A structures
and, then, the B structure here in the center. And I'd like to show the Commission that.
Sony, that one's a little tattered. We folded it and it was the only large one we had. I'd
like to pass these out to the Commission, so they can take a good look. These are
going to be what we call luxury condominiums, they will be probably between 250 and
350 each. They have all a two car garage. They are very very attractive. My client
spent a lot of time, a lot of money, working with Glancey Group to come up with these
elevations and site plans. They will be stucco and masonry on the front. Two car
garages. Staff did indicate in their report -- wanted us to address the 80 square feet
required for the private open space for each particular unit. These will have a patio.
Each unit will have a patio on the ground floor. They are not a two story unit, they are
primarily a single level unit, but they do have a bonus room. So, these units here you
see in the middle have a bonus room up here. I know that the Commission reviewed an
application on the property to the south, the Conger project. That particular property,
they had asked for a Comprehensive Plan map change. This project was brought to us
about the same time the Conger project started the process. We held off to watch what
had happened -- what was taking place with that particular project. It was my belief that
a Comprehensive Plan amendment was not appropriate. I have always -- I typically
don't go in on -- you know, and ask for map changes on a parcel by parcel basis. We,
obviously, try to avoid that from a planning perspective. So, we kind of sat back and
watched. My prediction to my client was the application would not get approved. And,
obviously, it did get through the Commission. There was substantial opposition from the
neighbors, too. A lot of them that opposed it -- that particular project are here tonight in
support of this one, which makes me feel good and says a lot for this particular project.
It went to the Council, the Council did deny it. I kind of talked to a council member after
the -- after the meeting, just kind of asking him, you know, what their reasoning was and
his comment to me was we did not feel a Comprehensive Plan map amendment was
appropriate just for this particular project and site specific development and we -- I
believe he said that there are other mechanisms within the ordinance that would allow
for the multi -family development of -- you know, if it was good quality and we liked it, to
take place within an L -O designation. So, it is my belief that the L -O zone is not
intended strictly for limited office only, that there are other components that can go into
that area. This is a mixed use area and the Commission and the Council are always
asking us to try our best to provide more balance in our developments, mixing
residential and office and commercial and not just straight commercial or straight
residential. I think this type of a condo or multi -family component in this area is going to
be very beneficial. The hospital is located there. We are seeing offices. They intend
this to be empty nesters, seniors. This particular project is going to be what they call
the insolated concrete forms that will be used or an Energy Star program. So, it's going
to be -- as far as from what I have been -- it's been described to me is leading edge.
They are two bedroom units and we feel that this will be very complimentary to this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 42 of 53
area. And, obviously, I think the neighbors are in agreement with that. Even though
there are 24 units, my client is proposing a 2,000 square foot clubhouse, so that the
residents will have an area to gather, have meetings, have functions, and so forth. And
I think that -- that's pretty impressive, because typically with a project of this small
stature we do not see very many amenities, at least not ones to that extent. As far as
the density in the particular project, I think our gross density is 5.1 dwelling units and our
net is 6.4. 1 think that a project that looks as good as this will be a really good
component in this neighborhood and the Conger project was different than this one. It
was more like townhome type lots, very skinny lots, alley loaded and so forth. This one
is something that we have never built in Meridian. It's been talked about, but I have
never had, obviously, the option of being involved in a project that looks this nice. Does
the Commission have any questions? I'm getting tired. This time change is wearing on
me.
Rohm: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Doesn't appear so. Thank you,
Becky. Okay. We have a number of people that have signed up for this project and
they appear all to be in support of it and you're certainly welcome to testify. Typically,
testimony that we receive brings additional information to the Commission that wasn't
brought up in the application testimony. So, each of you are certainly welcome to
testify, but I would ask that any testimony would be -- would bring something additional
like to the project that wasn't brought up in the application testimony. So, with that
being said, I will start out with -- is it Larry Halstead. Would you like to testify or were
you just in support of the project? From the audience he says he's just in support of the
project. Carmen Halstead? Same thing? Okay. I think rather than go down through all
of the names, I think the way I'd like to proceed is there are a number of people that
have signed up and I'm not trying to deviate from that, but if there is somebody that
would like to come testify at this time, please, come forward one at a time, please.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that Mr. Nary has commented that we do
need to read each name for the record.
Rohm: Oh, we do need to --
Nary: That's correct. At least make note of all of those that are in support.
Rohm: Okay.
Recker: Okay. Members of the Commission, my name is Jim Recker. I live at 538
South Thomwood Way, Meridian, in Woodbridge. I was here some months back
representing Woodbridge, as I am tonight, along with Gene Fox, who will be the
representation of the Woodbridge Subdivision. On the Conger project, which is
adjacent to that -- we don't have a map up there, which we may need of that area, but
I'm going to try to make this brief. But we were opposed -- in opposition to that
particular project for a lot of good reasons that I don't want to get into totally, but,
basically, it was an R-9 situation, not good for transition, not good to fit the overall plan
here and the city did deny that project and we were there for that. They indicated that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 43 of 53
they were interested in more medical oriented or things that fit with the medical type of
things and, certainly, this is, actually -- I don't think they are going to officially designate
it as seniors, but, obviously, two bedroom condo, high end like that, fits it. Now, I'm
speaking in favor of this, because at Woodbridge this is exactly what we want. We
would like to see the rest of the property -- let's see, where is this little dealy here. If I
can figure out how to use it. Is that it? Okay. Yeah. Oh. Okay. Okay. This property
here. This is the property that was in question before. Okay. The Conger project that
we did not want. This particular project here is what we are talking about. Now, we --
Woodbridge is really thrilled with this. This is a great transition. We have got a 3.5 or
so per acre here. You're going to a five per acre as a senior type of thing. There is
some other things that are really watching -- watching this thing, because this could end
up with some -- perhaps some senior housing, things that really tie into that medical.
And I think older folks, this is very advantageous. And for this area here and here, it's
speculative right now, but I will tell you that your -- how you go with this tonight will
make this maybe possible or possible. So, seriously consider this. And we would be
very much in favor of what's coming down. This is a very nice one. We already have
multi -family housing right here approved under L -O. Okay. That's already been
approved. I saw the paper on that myself. It was signed February of last year by the
mayor, Mayor Tammy de Weerd. And there is offices in here, along with some multi -
housing right here. Why I remember that, because that got through without us even
talking about it. I don't even mean about the quality of that. But this would not be an
unusual thing to do. Now, respectfully, Council has -- or staff said, you know, hey, on
technicalities maybe this doesn't fit. I don't agree with that at all. I think Becky spoke to
that and I would respectfully say technicalities fooey. This is a win-win situation. We
are standing here, the developer wants it, it's good for the neighborhood, the
neighborhood wants it, the north neighborhood there I have heard are very happy with
it. I have heard nobody -- everybody wants this thing. This is a great thing for an area
that could be very very contentious. So, what we have got is a win-win. So, I ask that
you folks just go do the right thing, approve this thing. Thank you very much. Any
questions?
Rohm: Thank you. Celeste Fox. From the audience she said she's going to defer to
her husband and would you like to come forward, please.
Fox: Good evening. My name is Gene Fox and I live with my wife Celeste at 518 South
Woodhaven, which is -- if I can -- right there. So, you can see that we are in a great
juxtaposition to this project, so -- a few months ago I stood before you as a
representative of the Woodbridge community in opposition to a project proposed by the
Conger Group for property at Wells and Magic View. Our objection to that project was
based primarily on the density and we felt that the R-9 density which they requested
would have had a long-term detrimental effect on the Woodbridge community. The
Planning and Zoning Commission approved that project by a vote of five to nothing.
Now, while we were opposing the Conger Group, we became aware of the project
presented to you this evening by Mr. Jones. My wife and I and others began a
campaign to encourage him to bring his project forward. We are pleased to give it our
support, because Mr. Jones and his associates have spent considerable effort trying to
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
November 2, 2006
Page 44 of 53
develop a harmonious project that will blend with and not detract from that which
already exists. We support this project and not the other, because the impact on the
Woodbridge community will be significantly less. This proposed density of R-5 is
approximately half that of the Conger project. In addition, the architectural design,
quality of construction, and landscaping are more in tune with the nature of the adjacent
communities of Woodbridge and Greenhill. Had the Conger plan been similar to this
proposal, I would have supported it and I am on record as having stated that. I
encourage you to, please, give your blessing to this application. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Dawn Mitchell. From the audience she says that she's been
spoken for. Rich Allison. And from the audience he says he has nothing additional to
add. Is there anybody else that would like to testify in this application?
Pearcey: Good evening, Commissioners and young lady. My name is David Pearcey
and my wife Betty Pearcey, we live at 675 Wells Street in Magic View Subdivision, Lot
No. 7, just south of -- across Magic View from the project and I'm in -- we are both -- I
and my wife are definitely in favor of this project. We feel it will benefit and help us, the
whole community, and back in '93 1 and my wife was on the committee of -- when they
first started the committee for the Comprehensive Plan. It will show on the records.
And they told us at that time that -- we were told that if everybody in the Magic View Sub
signed a letter -- and the letter should be on record -- stating that we wanted to change
all our property to L -O, that we would just have to bring it up before the committee and
shouldn't have any problem, so we signed the letter. The letter is on record someplace.
Supposed to be. And so that was our intention and I know the talk was -- they wanted
to have it for -- kind of hold that area back in there for a lot of doctor's offices and things,
but back in that area I would probably be 95 or 100 before they ever got any -- any
office back in there, because it's quite a ways back. But this project would really -- well,
to be honest, it would help me. So, whatever you folks come up with, that will be great.
Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this
application? Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Before we ask Becky to come back up, I'd
like to get comment from the Commission. Commissioner Moe, do you have thoughts
on this application?
Moe: Well, I guess what I would tell you is that I, too, quite frankly, think this is a very
nice project and when the property to the south came before us, they were all right, we
did unanimously approve that at the time and it got to Council and they had denied that,
as far as for the Comprehensive Plan amendment on that project, that's probably why
that they did deny that. But, quite frankly, I do like this project a lot and I really have no
negative comments about this project.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I agree with what's said. The only comment I would have is I -- I really don't see
the difference between allowing the property -- allowing multi -family in existing L -O or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 45 of 53
making the change right to start with. I think the end intention is the same and in my
mind I don't think it's any different and it just makes sense to me.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. To me the guiding factor would be the intention of this area
overall to be a mixed use area. I don't have any problem with designating this as L -O
and at the same time establishing it as a multi -family residential area. It looks to me to
be a good project. Several times the project that was offered by Conger Management a
little bit south of this has been mentioned and my recollection of that is we sent them
back for redesign several times and finally ended up with something that we couldn't
find a reason to deny. I feel definite about this one. I think there are reasons to
approve this. I think it would be a good addition to the area. I'm particularly attracted to
having Magic View completed and connected. I think that would be very helpful to
everybody in that area. I personally would be very much not in support, but enthusiastic
about this project. And particularly if it's going to be condominiums. I think we need to
be doing a lot more of those in Meridian. Its sort of a new thing and this is only the
second residential condominium project that's been presented to us, but it certainly is a
good thing in other places.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: I just -- the other thing I didn't mention -- the other thing that makes this different
-- at least for his Commission, is to have representatives from both neighborhoods here
and all of them are in favor of it. Normally when -- when -- if they don't have any
objection we don't see them. The only people we see are those that are opposed to
something, even though others may be in favor, they don't usually bother expressing
their views. So, this is very unusual to see a turnout of the neighborhood, too.
Rohm: Thank you.
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may -- and not to be a kill joy on this
party, but staff was recommending denial and feel I need to bring up a few additional
points. I don't think that the project is a project that wouldn't be a great addition to the
city, but for the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property. There are some
other things. I'm not going to dwell on that too much. I want to get into the specifics,
though, in Sonya's report that she wrote regarding the design and the zoning that's
being requested. There are quite a few issues with the way it actually lays out on the
plan. Land use buffers and the stub street -- I particularly want to call the stub street to
your attention, too. There is a stub street here. It's not on the applicant's property, but
when this parcel develops extending that stub street you will double front -- have a
double fronted parcel here. So, there are some design issues. And I guess I bring this
up, because for us it's fairly early in the evening and our upcoming hearings are going to
be into the wee hours of the night, so I think these issues should be discussed tonight.
If the applicant, in fact, had a chance to look at some of those things in the staff report,
there aren't any conditions for approval. Based on going down the line, it sounds like
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 46 of 53
you guys are moving towards that. I would prefer to have those discussions this
evening, if the applicant's all right with that, because, really, our hearings -- we are not
going to make them -- through them, the upcoming hearings, we just have too many
things going on. So, I really think the merits that -- the specific details of this project
need to be discussed if, in fact, you're all in favor of this project in this location, that's
your prerogative, but there are some UDC requirements of the L -O zone for multi -family
projects that the project does not comply with if we disregard the Comp Plan and all
that. So, I would like to -- I'll let Sonya kind of -- if she wants to walk through that, but
there are some pretty significant changes. Again, L -O to residential requires a 20 foot
wide buffer. Now, it's a residential use, but the way the UDC is written is between an
L -O zone and a residential zone, you provide a 20 -foot wide buffer. The common
driveways. There is a unit adjacent to a common driveway that's not proposing to take
access, so how does that -- how does that work out? There will be five units that would
be adjacent to a common driveway. Things like that that need to be -- rather than
continuing this to bring that staff report and have a discussion again with a possible
another continuation to look at the final plan, I just think it would be a good idea
anyways to go through the actual design of this project and we can explain what the
design issues are regarding the project. Not elevations, I think that it really is a nice
looking project, but there are some constraints when you apply the UDC requirements
to this site, so -- if that's what you would like to do, not to put Sonya on the spot too
much. I can kind of help her out a little bit with that, but we tried to, in the staff report
list, essentially, the changes that we are looking for, although not in condition form. It
really is the UDC requirements and the impact it would have to the site as laid out. So,
with that I just -- I just wanted to add that and, again, I think that's -- with it not even
being 10:00 yet, I'm sure these folks have other things to do with their evening, as I
would rather be home, too, but I'm looking at the upcoming agenda, I think it's great to
just get this out on the table tonight, discuss it a little bit more, and maybe we can save
ourselves some really long nights in the upcoming future.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while they are presenting their -- their report, I would be
interested in the property to the east. Is that what the testimony was, that it was
approved for multi -family? Is that -- be able to comment on that? And, then, the other
question I'd have: Is there anything that would prevent this from being annexed as an
R-15.
Hood: Commissioner Rohm, Commissioner Borup, the -- there is two different issues.
One is the property that was shown as L -O on the other side of Wells is actually shown
as commercial on the Comp Plan. Multi -family is a use that's specifically talked about in
the Comprehensive Plan as being allowed in areas designated as commercial.
Borup: So, what was on the screen was incorrect, it's not really L -O?
Hood: No. No. It's -- the difference is --
Borup: The Comp Plan designation is different.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 47 of 53
Hood: Exactly.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: Everything on the inside of this is commercial and the designation for
commercial in the -- what we are looking for in commercially designated areas actually
talks about multi -family being something. Now, that project has not been approved.
What has been approved is the L -O zone with a concept plan that shows multi -family.
That will come back before the board for approval if, in fact, they decide to put multi-
family four-plexes on there.
Borup: Okay.
Hood: But they do have a concept plan that did show that. Is that the only -- is that the
project to the east you're referring to?
Borup: Yes.
Hood: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Hood: Sonya does have a staff report up. We can put it on the screen, we can kind of
go through them real quick.
Watters: I previously mentioned that on the preliminary plat, that the UDC requires a
20 -foot wide buffer adjacent to residential uses. So, that will be required along the west,
north, and east property boundaries. Detached sidewalk, curb, and gutter are proposed
within the development adjacent to the public street. There will be trees planted within
the parkways. I'll just kind of scroll through these here. There is several multi -family
standards that the projects have to meet on these. Setbacks. Buildings have to provide
a minimum setback of ten feet, unless a greater setback is otherwise required by the
UDC. The building envelope shown on the site plan appear to meet the minimum
setback requirements stated. The service areas -- the site plan doesn't show trash
receptacles. We need this included on a future plan. Private usable open space.
Minimum of 80 square feet is required for each unit. I believe the applicant addressed
that, that patios would be provided on the ground floor of these units. Developments of
20 units or more have to provide the following: A property management office. A
maintenance storage area. A central mailbox location and a directory and map of the
development at a convenient location. This development does contain more than 20
units. These requirements are applicable. However, the applicant has not shown those
on the plans that were submitted. The UDC also requires multi -family developments
have to provide parking. Two parking spaces in either a covered carport or a garage.
The applicant is proposing garages on each of the units. I believe they are two car
garages on each of them. The applicant is nodding her head yes. The UDC also
required multi -family developments between 20 and 75 units provide three amenities
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 48 of 53
from separate categories, like quality of life, open space, and recreation. The project
complies with these standards as submitted and they are proposing walking trails for the
recreation, a grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size for the open space
requirement and a clubhouse with a fitness room for the quality of life requirement and
also an additional amenity, a children's play structure for the recreation. The proposed
project does meet the open space requirements. They have submitted elevations.
They appear to comply with the architectural standards. A certificate of zoning
compliance will be required prior to issuance of building permits for the multi -family units
and clubhouse building proposed within the development. Anything further to add on
that, Caleb? Yeah. Caleb previously mentioned the common driveways proposed.
Currently as the site plan shows, it does not meet the UDC requirements for common
drives or private streets. So, there will have to be some revisions made to those access
points. Also, the plan, as I mentioned earlier, that landscape buffer is required 20 -foot
wide around the perimeter of the development adjacent to residential. That will affect
the layout of the project, so it will change somewhat. Substantially, probably. That's all
I have. If you have some questions.
Rohm: Sonya, not to put you on the spot here. I think it's difficult to be able to point out
every single UDC that this project may or may not be in compliance with and I think it's
probably safe to say that the staff report's recommendation for denial was based
primarily on its Comprehensive Plan assessment, not on UDC, and it seems to me that
if we wanted to move this project forward with the stipulation that it has to be in
compliance with all UDC and the applicant comes back addressing all those issues
within that -- within ordinance, then, we have got something that's workable on -- from
both perspectives and -- because I don't, myself, think that I'd like to make a motion that
quotes the UDC verbatim line by line and it would lose any essence at that point. So,
it's -- I think that that would be my recommendation is that the applicant come back with
a response that complies with the UDC and we have already stated that our
assessment of the Comprehensive Plan give us the prerogative of moving it forward.
Does that make sense?
Watters: Yes, Chairman Rohm, if I may have a little input there. Staffs pretty much
sole recommendation for denial on this was because of the Comp Plan designation.
Staff doesn't necessarily have a problem with the transition between the single family
residential -- you know, the proposed multi -family and the commercial uses to the east.
All the conditions that I talked about and that are applicable to this project are contained
in the staff report, so those are on record and --
Rohm: Okay.
Hood: Mr. Chair? And I may just -- my comments -- wasn't trying to get where we are
writing conditions of approval for this tonight. I did want to get the applicant's thoughts,
though, on specifically I thought maybe the 20 -foot wide buffer around the perimeter, if
that's something that -- if they can, in fact, bring back a project that meets all of these
standards listed in Sonya's report in condition form, we can bring that back to you and
it's a quick hearing. What I didn't want to have is, you know, a big discussion about
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 49 of 53
private drives and we can't meet this requirement and the land -- you know, this 20 foot
wide buffer, we can't meet that one, we can't -- so, I would just like that applicant to -- if
she feels comfortable, you know, just maybe talking about some of these, hey, this is an
issue in our plan, it doesn't address this and we can't meet this requirement or, yeah,
okay, we can change, we can modify our plan, we will bring it back to you in a couple
weeks and we will meet the UDC requirement. That was my intent with having -- not to
have you try to cite ordinance and we come up with conditions of approval tonight, but,
really, any issues that we brought up in the staff report that they also have an issue with
compliance, maybe we could work through that tonight I guess was my intent, so --
Rohm: And I think that's a good thought, Caleb. With that being said, Becky, would you
like to come back up and we will -- I guess the first question that I have is you probably
know the UDC as well as -- better than most of us and I guess my question is of you is
are you going to have any problems bringing this project in line with the UDC?
McKay: Mr. Chairman, I think that we can make some minor modifications that will
satisfy the staff. Right now on our perimeter we show 15 feet. Therefore, we are -- we
have got to find five feet on each boundary. So, that's, you know, minor, not a lot of
discrepancy. As far as the common driveways, those were designed by the architect,
so I will need to get with my client, get back with the architect. The architects take a
little bit of -- you know, they are looking for esthetics, so the specifics in the UDC
sometimes go under the rug. But we will get with the architect and I believe that we can
make some adjustments that will satisfy the requirements of the UDC.
Rohm: Okay. I guess my next question would be if we were to continue this to a date
certain when -- how long do you think it's going to take you to go through this process?
McKay: Well, I have got to deal with an architect, so I would say you better give me a
month. Two weeks goes by like that.
Rohm: Well, I -- and I think that just in fairness to you and fairness to our staff, if a
month is the minimum, how about six weeks? Can you live with pushing it out until after
the first of the year, maybe, or --
McKay: Thirty days should be adequate. Typically, Mr. Chairman, we have trouble
within two weeks -- I mean two weeks goes by so quickly.
Rohm: Okay.
McKay: But typically a month gives us ample time to get our coordination together and
make these adjustments.
Rohm: Okay. Our first regularly scheduled meeting of P&Z in December is the 7th.
How does that agenda look?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 50 of 53
Hood: Mr. Chair, I have covered that one. We have 11 items already on that agenda.
The 21st we have nine right now. It 30 days -- the 4th of January we only have four
right now. The cutoff for that hasn't even occurred yet. However, I think that if 30 days
is what they can say they can have plans back to us, we need to give -- I mean there is
-- the changes I don't think are going to be all that dramatic. But I would like to have a
couple of -- you know, allow Sonya a couple of weeks, anyways, to draft the revised
staff report for approval. I don't want to give her, like the other projects, a day to write
the revised report. I'd like to give her a little bit more time. I'm sure she would
appreciate that right around Christmas. So, 30 days away, you're still talking about the
first of the year, in my opinion, from, you know, today's date. I guess a -- you know, a
couple few weeks to write the report and I think we can give you a comprehensive
report with a recommendation for approval, if that's what you all want on that agenda.
But we will not get through everything on the 21 st or the 7th. I just don't think the 7th of
December is even -- South Ridge, which you saw, we had a packed house here, is on
the 7th. If every one of those people wants to -- all of those want to speak for two or
three minutes, we are going to be here just on that one project and there is ten others
on that agenda. So, it's ugly until the first of the year. I'll just -- I'll leave it at that and I
can show you our agenda if you want to see it, too, but that would be my
recommendation and reference. I apologize if it pushes them out a couple few more
weeks than what is ideal for the applicant, but it is really what's doable for staff.
Rohm: It looks like that's where we are going to be. Okay.
McKay: We take what we can get. And holiday season always throws us a few curves,
so understandable.
Rohm: And I'd just like to say for the record that we appreciate people like yourself
taking the time and coming in in support of projects like this. It helps us move forward
as well. So, I think what we will do, assuming that the balance of the Commission is in
concurrence --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I probably am in concurrence with the direction that you're
going, but before you do that I have one more question I'd like to ask. Mrs. McKay has
hit the major subjects that staff has brought up and certainly there is a forecast of what
they are going to ask for on pages six, seven, eight, nine of their — one of the biggest
issues -- you have talked about landscape buffer. You have talked about the common
driveways that -- the other one that I think we would probably need to have some
discussion on tonight are -- is the stub street or specifically what is happening with an
off-site stub street that appears to go along your east property line, not having
properties that have two frontages. I would think it would be useful to have a discussion
on that subject as well before we go forward.
McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, Greenhill Estates -- I think I
was at the hearing when Woodbridge came through and was making a connection up
there off of Beau's Drain. Interconnectivity to Greenhill Estates will probably be
controversial. I want to discuss that with Ada County Highway District. We are kind of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 51 of 53
seeing somewhat of a trend if that interconnectivity is duplicated somewhere else, as
with the stub street to the west, they are allowing us in certain circumstances to make
pedestrian connections. We have had projects like the Redfeather project where we
ended up with a gate on a public street connection. So, the sensitivity to the
interconnectivity with the acre lots or the five acre lot subdivision, you know, we are --
we see it going both ways. I'm not convinced that that stub street is going to go
through. And I guess I'd like to talk with the highway district and get their feelings, but I
suspect that Greenhill would object to that -- any connection to it. But we will look at,
you know, worst case scenarios also.
Rohm: Thank you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Zaremba: That was it for me.
Rohm: Okay. I guess at this point probably the thing that would be in order would be to
make a motion to continue this item to the first regularly scheduled meeting in January.
But if there are comments from any of the Commissioners that are germane to possibly
giving the applicant some direction from your perspective that you would like to see the
project to include, probably that would be good information as well. So, Commissioner
Zaremba, do you have any additional comment?
Zaremba: Actually not. I think that the staff and the applicant probably will get together
again and discuss the items that are on page six, seven, and eight and the applicant
has already said anybody else they need to discuss it with, such as ACHD, they will
contact them and work with and I think -- I think among the discussion the applicant
knows what direction we are going. Staff knows that we, eventually, would like to see
conditions of approval. I'm comfortable with what's known at the moment.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have any --
Borup: I don't think I have any extra than -- the UDC doesn't seem to talk a lot about
condominiums and I don't know if we have enough definitions and addressing of that or
-- I mean it looks like it's more treated as multi -family, but it's separate ownership and
it's -- there is similarities and there is differences and, you know -- and I'm sure that's
what makes a big difference to the neighbors, too, is the separate ownership, rather
than, you know, normal rental units. You were going to say something?
Hood: I can just answer that question in general. There is, really, only one section in
the UDC that talks about condominiums, because it is just ownership of the unit's air
space, essentially. It's in the short plat section in Chapter 6, 1 think, of the UDC, and it
does -- it is just an administrative approval, really, because they are multi -family
buildings. Regardless of ownership, they are multi -families in one building. Now, the
ownership of each section of that building is separate. But they are still a multi -family
structure. So, they are viewed the same way in the UDC, because, again, there are
kim
9.
Meridian Planning & Zoning O
November 2, 2006
Page 52 of 53
multi -families living in that structure. Ownership does make a difference, however, and
general upkeep, for the most part, just to generalize developments. You know, they
take more ownership in individual condominium units than they would a four-plex, for
instance, but that's how they are addressed.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Actually, I don't have any other comments, I guess, other than just maybe a
question of staff or a point to make and that is is that I guess the applicant should
probably not just take the staff report verbatim right now, basically, verifying that there
could be other items within your -- your review of the project now to meet the
requirements that you may find something or whatever that would be a requirement as
well and that you just don't take the report as it is. Although it was a great report.
Watters: Commissioner Moe, I did -- I did review it quite thoroughly. There may be
some things added, but for the most part that will be what the conditions will be based
on.
Rohm: All right. With that being said, I would entertain a motion to continue this project
to the first Thursday in January.
Hood: It's the 4th. January 4th.
Rohm: January 4th.
Hood: I would ask, too, in your motion, if you could give them a deadline to submit -- 30
days was discussed, but if you can say by, you know, the 15th of December, give them
45 days or whatever, I mean at least a couple of weeks, so some day to get a plan in
with conditions or work with staff for whatever, but some deadline so we can have a
plan review.
Zaremba: We normally say a minimum of ten days. With that being a holiday season, I
would add some days to that. December 15th would sound right to me. I see the
applicant nodding her head. Therefore, I will restate the motion. I move that we
continue the hearing on AZ 06-047 and PP 06-049 and CUP 06-030 to our regularly
scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007, with a condition that applicant have final
revisions to staff by December 15th.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-047, PP 06-049, and
CUP 06-030, to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. Folks, thank you for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
n=ce
k.
t
}
$.r
6
fi
i
Meridian Planning & Zoning
November 2, 2006
Page 53 of 53
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I make a motion to adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: We are done.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:08 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROV
MIC AEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:SI-710619
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK
i
M1
;.
x
[ X..
�
? C* £< # I
r
9
f' °1
itr
_y
x }
k
Ni9
n k�2x 4 ti
lii
October 30, 2006
x
,
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A
REQUEST Approve Minutes of September 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
fi
...'
v't
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
rn
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:1���
CITY ATTORNEY
o
CITY POLICE DEPT: L
N
CITY FIRE DEPT:
r
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
�w
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
_<F
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
k
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
A,
44;,
-
,
i C
M` - a a i
�3 4
¢
4
y�"a
aQ,'1
IQ
r •" �
13
yy
}
d
!* y
� d %
{
i r+.
U-1
9 •
October 30, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B
REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 5, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
r;"l7tt4059-_p
tt
4 ,E
•
October 30, 2006
AZ -06-043
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 - 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. 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:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet/ Attached Minutes / Staff Report
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See AtFached Email from Andrea Niist/ Email from Holly Kotosid
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0
October 30, 2006 PP 06-045
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/19/06 - 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 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 properly of the City of Meridian.
October 30, 2006
RZ 06-010
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Ron Van Auker ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 2.20 acres from I -L to C -G zone for Lanark
Property - NWC of Eagle Road & Lanark Street (Lots 1 &2, Block 1 of Olson & Bush
Industrial Park)
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
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.
0
October 30, 2006
0
AZ 06-046
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Great Sky, Inc. ITEM NO. 7
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4
zone for Harcourt Subdivision - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Rd and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon
Drive
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Memo for Continuance
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Letter from Brady & Teresa Turner
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
October 30, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Great Sky, Inc. ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots &
6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision -
3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See AZ Packet
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
iN^"E
t `
a
z
� 8
October 30, 2006 AZ 06-038
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Gary Fors ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006 -Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres
�kk
S Y
from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision - 570 S. Linder Road
§
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet/ Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Memo from Mike Cole
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
,r
'
Y �
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
r
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
Y,
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
Y.:.;
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
Y£ °
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
'
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
'#
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meefings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
�k4 Si
��
i Y a'+
56
M° k�
{
i
y
l nu
i
s }
yn Y
A�ibef�'4
'
z.
r
t
z;
,'u`i- r.
> yy
,t �
A,1�''�r.En.4'ii 0..
October 30, 2006 PP 06-036
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Gary Fors ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential
lots & 3 common lots on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision -
570 S. Linder 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 30, 2006 CUP 06-031
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Joint School District No. 2 ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for lighted fields adjoining a
residential district for Heritage Middle School - 4990 N. Meridian Road
urive
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
See Attached Comments
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
No Comment
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting/See Attached Email from Scott Henson
Contacted:
Date: Phone:
Emailed:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian
0 •
October 30, 2006
CUP 06-033
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Una Mas, LLC ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a 6,300 square foot Daycare
Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare - 3475 E. Ustick Road
Drive
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report /See Memo for Continuance
No Comment
Contacted: Date:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
October 30, 2006
CUP 06-034
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Larry & Judy Kelley ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas
carport in the O -T zone for Kelley Carport - 403 E. 2nd Street
Drive
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: See Attached Letters from Cifizens / See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted:
Emailed:
Date:
Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
October 30, 2006 RZ 06-008
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Farwest, LLC ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006- Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 45
Lochsa Falls Sub. No. 12) from R-4 to C -N zone for Lochsa Falls Office/ Commercial Addition -
south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Email Request for Continuance
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.
e
October 30, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Farwest, LLC
11
MCU 06-002
November 2, 2006
ITEM NO. 15
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006 - Modification of the approved CUP / Planned Development
to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls
Sub No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office/ Commercial Addition- s/o Chinden Blvd & w/o N. Linder 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:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
COMMENTS
See RZ Packet
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
#
:u
.a
p,
}
RRr.
t
+7
M
q t yy &
4
l .iaQ 4 R Y
it?:P
d ii rte€
i
q +
l 1 {
#
#
:u
.a
RRr.
M
q t yy &
n51
•
October 30, 2006 AZ 06-047
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Vacation Village Villas, LLC ITEM NO. 16
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 5.3 acres from RUT to an L -O zone
for Waverly Place Subdivision - 2510 E. Magic View Court
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting / See Attached Email
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
October 30, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Vacation Vlllnnr- Villnc I I r,
•
November 2, 2006
ITEM NO. 17
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 6 multi -family residential building lots
consisting of 24 multi -family units, 1 clubhouse building lot & 3 common / other lots on 5.3 acres in a
proposed L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision - 2510 E. Magic View Court
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.
O
October 30, 2006 CUP 06-030
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 2, 2006
APPLICANT Vacation Village Villas, LLC ITEM NO. 18
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi -family
development in a L -O zone for Waverly Place Subdivision - 2510 E. Magic View Ct.
AGENCY
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:
COMMENTS
Contacted: Date: Phone: _
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.