The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 11-16v �j IDAHO A f MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: _X Keith Borup X David Moe O 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X—David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC – 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Application Withdrawn 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: 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: Approve 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Recommend Denial to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Recommend Denial to City Council 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to an R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition by Treehaven, LLC — north of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects — 1760 S. Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 4, 2007 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects — 1800 S. Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 4, 2007 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC — NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to January 18, 2007 14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC — 1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Application Withdrawn 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Application Withdrawn Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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 0 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Recommend Approval to City Council 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Recommend Approval to City Council 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 18, 2007 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to January 18, 2007 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. �� N� c,� hGH L� � - �1 9 Lj� j� L� �� CITYOFMERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING �I(JlIG�%I REGULAR MEETING IDAHO AGENDA h City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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: 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC — 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 6,300 square foot Daycare Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. ? T•:`i} il' t i 5 3`'RU,I 00" 9 ^ 3: s-�S= ah+a _. w�C�'e.'` '•�sa$#.i � S asy�r ,^a { '", i ' . 4 V 1 !r r s �m*� �•�d dU� P{� ��LS S; �i � 6 ky 7 M 4�w k 3 ..A'? ? hak x4 ' a "J, a} i ? �lt Vit• ,s1 41, t - Ve t A ^ T � tr d � A� Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas, LLC — 3475 E. Ustick Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: 9. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to an R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition by Treehaven, LLC — north of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Ten Mile Road: 11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects — 1760 S. Meridian Road: 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects — 1800 S. Meridian Road: 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC — NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: 14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. ti } S T G j T & k g a W101 zC,t i - NII j-: F. � t� 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. RX Is 4 # tzi , I Y yy6� ....ccam� yy pp t i§,q., i -rkX �, ' 3.� `y`' ' b �.- k: tc 9'v, -k' j` £ %Pr�atk ifat`1 4 3+:.}#r Tg„i�p` ,v�y^�� 3� inL'd£";. c Y +} { 3{ 'S 1i rtl"r - NiR R u„ ,53' I 1W Transmission Report 'w Date/Time 11-17-2006 06:22:47 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11" 4j T !11,41!1 it City of Meridian Idaho Line 1 Line 2 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridien no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Couno4 are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ablltiy of the presenter: 1. Roll -call Attendance: -X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X David Moe X David Zaremba -O Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3, Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 0& 034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport In the n -T zone for Kelley Carport by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East a Street: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 200$: CUP 06-028 Request for a Condiftonai Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres In a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Application Withdrawn S. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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 Fars - 570 S. Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2008: PP 08.036 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: Recommend Approval to City Council Meftmt PlenMng wW ZmIng Commlaslon Meedng Agenda— November 16, 2408 Papa 1 of 3 AN matadeta presenW at pubUc meetinge shaft becane property dtfw Mly d Meridian. Anyone deW** acoommodWan for ft"Iles refaced to dots surlier hearbt, please content the City C*Ws Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the pubflc maeft. Total Paces Scanned : 3 Total Panas Confirmad • n No. I Job Remote Station Start Time Duration I Pages I Line I Mode I Job Type ." 001 1263 13810160 06:09:23 p.m. 11-17-2006 00:00:00 0/3 �F JG3 I HS FA Apry,�+te 1 K., "T d I 1W Transmission Report 'w Date/Time 11-17-2006 06:22:47 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11" 4j T !11,41!1 it City of Meridian Idaho Line 1 Line 2 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridien no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Couno4 are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ablltiy of the presenter: 1. Roll -call Attendance: -X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X David Moe X David Zaremba -O Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3, Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 0& 034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport In the n -T zone for Kelley Carport by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East a Street: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 200$: CUP 06-028 Request for a Condiftonai Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres In a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Application Withdrawn S. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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 Fars - 570 S. Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2008: PP 08.036 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: Recommend Approval to City Council Meftmt PlenMng wW ZmIng Commlaslon Meedng Agenda— November 16, 2408 Papa 1 of 3 AN matadeta presenW at pubUc meetinge shaft becane property dtfw Mly d Meridian. Anyone deW** acoommodWan for ft"Iles refaced to dots surlier hearbt, please content the City C*Ws Office at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the pubflc maeft. Total Paces Scanned : 3 Total Panas Confirmad • n No. I Job Remote Station Start Time Duration I Pages I Line I Mode I Job Type Results 001 1263 13810160 06:09:23 p.m. 11-17-2006 00:00:00 0/3 11 JG3 I HS FA Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local PR: Polled remote 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 x tit T ysai"'t'�a,'ffi f.. r � s y� Apry,�+te yt. K., "T d x T ysai"'t'�a,'ffi f.. r � Y. x T ysai"'t'�a,'ffi f.. Y. Broadcast Report Datef ime 11-14-2006 09:53:24 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Lord 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" �r e MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 18, 2006 at 7.00 p.m. °Although the City of Meridian no longer retWhvs swum test/mony, aN presentabbne before the Mayor and City Counraff are expected to be "ful and honest to best of ft abNNy of the pr saw ter. - 1. Roll -cell Attendants: Keith Sorup David Mae 2 Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Zaremba Michael Rohm - chairman A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Daniel: CUP 06- 034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the QT zone for Kelley Carport by Larry and Judy Kelley — 403 East a Street 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006: CUP 06.028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a DrIve-Thru facility on 2.96 acres In a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagte Three, LLC —1330 E. Fairview Avenue: S. Continued Public Hearing tram November 2, 2008: AZ 08438 Request for Anrom lon and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors — 570 S. Linder Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: PP 06-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lobs on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fore — 570 S. Linder Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 00433 Request for a Conditions[ Use Permit for a 6.300 square foot Daycare Meridian Planning and Zoning Cotmrdasion Mleal% 4genda _ Novmnber 16, 2= Page i o} 3 AD materials pnseented at pubHo mesHngc she8 t properly of the CUy of Meridien. Amione de*WV eownsmodation fwd]eabiHfies miated to doaumerte andfor fearing, please crnda,s the Ctry Clark's OfRoe at 858-A483 at WW 48 hwse prior to the W310 meeting. Total Pages Scanned : 3 Total Pages Confirmed : 51 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 236 3810160 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS FA 002 236 8989551 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:49 3/3 1 EC HS CP21600 003 236 8848723 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:01:17 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 004 236 8886854 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:41 313 1 EC HS CP28800 005 236 8985501 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:01:17 3/3 1 1 EC HS CP14400 006 236 8467366 09:21:12 a.m. 11 -14-2006 00:00:41 3/3 1 JEC HS CP28800 007 1236 8950390 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:40 3/3 1 1 EC HS CP31200 Broadcast Report Mw Date/Time 11-14-2006 09:53:33 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 236 208 888 2682 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 009 236 208 387 6393 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:01:17 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 010 236 2877909 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:01:18 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 011 236 2088885052 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:40 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 012 236 8881983 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 013 236 2083776449 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:01:17 3/3 1 EC HS ICP14400 014 236 4679562 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP26400 015 236 2088886701 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:38 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 016 236 8884022 09:21:12 a.m. 11 -14-2006 00:00:00 0/3 1 — HS FA 017 236 3886924 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP26400 018 236 8841159 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:40 313 1 EC HS CP31200 019 236 2088840744 09:21:12 a.m. 11-14-2006 00:00:48 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 CITY OF IDAHO S �c R 'T. v� isos MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, November 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: X Keith Borup _ X Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe X David Zaremba ® Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda:. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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: Appro-ve, 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC —1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Wi+hCLrd_UJ UCWiU-) 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: kcOMa-e-nd PWV6vcJ +6 C+LA N ROJ 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: 4 e0p1(1MCr'Id M VdA +0 °(.Lt�n 0 CW A Lu I 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: CUP 06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 6,300 square foot Daycare Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. i z '{N;iW"JFrd Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas, LLC — 3475 E. Ustick Road: &(bMMer d UvoJ -0 LLL;CUWAW 8. Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: WO'nimmd QCM( 00fS IDIS V01 t fel 9. Continued Public Hearing from No' JiLkS�-cls-- &VI t� 06-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approve ing lots consisting of 46 attached single-family t htl% Cjt� e -family units and 6 common/other lots on 20.5, C(An1y�d zone for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision ership — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. C st of N. Spurwing Way: Rte0ff R)tnj WOJ 10 Q-IVYGUYl ° ' I 10. Public Hearing: AZ 06-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to an R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition by Treehaven, LLC — north of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Ten Mile Road: I&C` )M 0-ra 0 AA� 6V -W to Cl Q, 11. Public Hearing: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Buildin��RS Architects 1760 S. Meridian Road: (�on+Anue 1A(�, 10 �J� 4 Zool 12. Public Hearing: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Buildin B b BRS Architects — 1800 S. Meridian Road: Cs(1�1�IY11 e Kiat" 402 13. Public Hearing: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC — NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: f -t -inuc- Pubue,tO 0LnUVx� I �1 2-00117P 14. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: VV1+hd 0_VJ OLP Rt ORG - 15. Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by. Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: V%+d PVpI tCOthGr\ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 2006 Page 2 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. .fr S iii ;b ,Y �.c#fiti`'j'3 - F. } & 3 � $ yF M l Y s� V%10, r S �.c#fiti`'j'3 - zt & 4 p c r { 16. Public Hearing: AZ 06-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC -230 &240 Edmonds Court: RkC0fflMeYL0 YU,,�(a In QAI-Li OuM W 17. Public Hearing: PP 06-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC -230 &240 Edmonds Court: VJCCffld AFr-VOA, k ^ co ww� 18. Public Hearing: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: ftrl inLAC RIJ=UC, k.►ItS toTWIU0.sem, I S, 2 -CO -7 19. Public Hearing: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: On+i n u -L PLuDu o; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — November 16, 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. x R Meridian Plannina and Zoning Meeting November 16, 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 16, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David Zaremba and David Moe. Members Absent: Chairman Michael Rohm. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Caleb Hood, Bruce Freckleton, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba 0 Michael Rohm - Chairman Moe: 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 16th, 2006. Begin with roll call of Commissioners, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: At this time first on the agenda will be the adoption of the agenda and we have got a couple changes to make and I want to go through those. We have some hearings that will not be heard tonight and although they will be open and continued and such in the order in which they are, but for people in the audience I will go over those items right now. Item No. 4, which is Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru, they have requested to be withdrawn. Item No. 11, Southern Springs Building A and Item 12, Southern Springs Building B, they did not adequately post, so they will be also continued. Item No. 3, Fairview Lakes also did not post properly, so they will be continued. And, then, Items 18 and 19, Kilgore Heights Subdivision will also be continued. Those dates have not been solidified totally, but I'll give you a few of them that are requested. Item No. 11 and 12, Southern Springs, will probably be continued to the meeting of January 4th. Item 13, Fairview Lakes, January 18th, 2007, as well as the Kilgore Heights also on the 18th of January 2007. With that said can I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Zaremba: So moved. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning • o November 16, 2006 Page 2 of 63 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: 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: Moe: Next item. Can I get a motion to accept the withdrawal of the Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru, CUP 06-028? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Zaremba: Let's see. I'm song, was that last vote the adoption of the agenda or the Consent Agenda? Moe: I'm sorry, I didn't move -- that was the adoption -- I did forget to go through these on the agenda. I'm sorry. Let's back up and start that over. Zaremba: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for denial of CUP 06 -- Borup: That's what we just did. Zaremba: That's what we just did. We have now done both of them. Moe: Well, did you guys get the -- the impact -- I realize we are the -- but I just want to make sure you got the information I think from the applicant on that as well. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm confused. We are getting there, folks. Moe: Okay. I'd like to open the -- to reopen the continued hearing for Public Hearing -- Public Hearing for AZ 06-038, request for annexation and zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to R-8. t i�. ffi S 1 g �0V`�aP�t;`.y�nb�Y 4.a 3, i q{.CS l s"��M,'tix;}-�{�, .'.*i'}� Y 5 4e f�C h rk ?A(+.µe .r`c,I,Q .k4X- t { 1 �¢F .+ 43 4- h, "* F,,i'sY �y,eK 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 3 of 63 Baird: Mr. Chair, I hate to gum you up. We do need to deal with the Dutch Brothers first. Zaremba: You started and we interrupted you. Moe: And here I was all set to -- Baird: We will take a deep breath. Moe: I'm sorry about that. Baird: No problem. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006: CUP 06-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru by Seagle Three, LLC —1330 E. Fairview Avenue: Moe: Can I get a motion to accept the withdrawal of CUP 06-028, the Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru. Zaremba: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the withdrawal of CUP 06-028. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Moe: Now I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-038 and PP 06-038 for Nursery Subdivision. And do the staff report, please. Lucas: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, and Commissioners. As stated, we are going to begin with a brief summary of this staff report for the Nursery Subdivision. This was discussed at the prior Public Hearing that was held on November 2nd and from that low, -4goom�- - n' u a MMA 41 -.'Sit.`" "'iR}*sY,�'"i''rv,`w �' +yet nr 7'4W�i��t e',izfi i 0..;§. IV r i r1 SKF0 } Y 3 '. ^)[ fisc a9,1W 4''^ 3 t it g .,,'. ... � 1 i f it "e X�itt" ..&01 _ obxj`t} x£ 3 M Meridian Planning & Zoning s � November 16, 2006 Page 4 of 63 hearing the Commissioners recommended that the applicant basically bring some answers to some questions that you had to this hearing and we are going to discuss just those issues that were raised at the last hearing. I'm not going to go into the full staff report on this -- on this subdivision -- proposed subdivision. The three issues that were of concern and that the Commissioners asked for some clarification on were, first, the storm drain lot located behind Lot 20, as shown on the screen. Second was the additional 18 feet of right of way that was required by ACHD to be dedicated along Linder Road. And the third was the 20 foot wide easement in favor of the Nampa - Meridian Irrigation District that runs along the southern boundary of this project, which can be seen in brown on this exhibit. Since the last hearing the applicant has provided some further information about these three issues and I will go to an exhibit to explain how the applicant proposed to -- to address the issues that -- the questions that were raised. On the screen we can see the revised section of that preliminary plat with the storm drain lot still behind lot now 19. You can see the adjusted buffer and how that shifted with the 18 feet of right of way and also how the -- how that common lot kind of wraps around to get to that Lot 20. This exhibit -- this proposed redesign was reviewed by staff and staff has a favorable recommendation when it comes to the redesign. We thought that the applicant did address those issues of -- as we have stated earlier, shifting the buffer over that 18 feet and also making sure that the — the required storm water facility was accessed through a common lot and not an easement upon a build- able lot as was discussed in the last -- in the last hearing. As the staff report stated, staff is -- has a favorable recommendation when it comes to the redesign. The other issue and probably the more complicated issue was the letter acquired by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District about that easement along the rear of these lots. And in a letter dated November 8th, 2006, the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District stated that after preliminary review they believe a fence placed 15 feet from the Kennedy Lateral would be acceptable. And, basically, that's kind of a partial answer to your question, but the original condition read that the applicant would be able to either get a license agreement for the entire easement area to put the fences on that rear property line or place it into a -- into a common lot and the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District basically said, well, we can give you maybe five feet of a license agreement. They didn't guarantee that, they said it was possible. So, staffs original recommendation when it comes to this area on the southern property line basically remains the same that -- and the condition is worded as such now that any -- any area that is encumbered by that easement that cannot be entered into a license agreement for, staff believes should be placed into -- into a common lot, whether it be 15 feet or the whole 20 feet. Let's say they could get a license agreement for that five feet, that would be fine, but the remaining 15 feet would need to be placed into a common lot. I hope that clarifies the issues that we discussed at the time last hearing. And, once again, staff approves this - - is supportive of this project with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Moe: Are there any questions of staff? Okay. At this time can the applicant come forward. Also at this time I'd like to make sure the applicant understands that we are just speaking of the items in question. k��'3'R € �A ffi dam y s o Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 5 of 63 Reliford: I understand. Kurt Reliford representing the applicant Gary Fors with J.J. Howard Engineers. Yes, we understand that you would like that in a common lot. We would accept that as the -- I think it's Lot -- Lot 8 that's the common area lot -- am I wrong, Justin? Lot 8, the common area lot, the park area lot? Lucas: Yes, I believe so. Reliford: That shoestring lot and, then, we would include the -- yeah, that would just become a common lot and, then, on Lot 1 of Block 1 would, then, have its own common lot as well to address the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District's request as far as where the fence would be placed. And that would still leave us with build -able area and meet all the needs of the ordinance. Moe: So, you would be entering into a license agreement with Nampa -Meridian -- Reliford: Yes. As a portion -- Moe: -- and if they are only giving you the five feet -- Reliford: Correct. Moe: -- you're putting the rest in a common lot. Reliford: Correct. Moe: Any questions? Zaremba: And the common lot would be maintained by the homeowners association? Reliford: Correct. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Reliford: Thank you. Moe: At this time we have one person signed up. Mary Hagedorn. Hagedom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was one thing that was -- s Moe: State your name and address. Hagedom: I'm sorry. My name is Mary Hagedom. I live on 1505 West Pintail Drive. My lot backs up into the nursery area here. I have been a neighbor of Gary's and the nursery for a little over 12 years now and the applicant has been a good neighbor, a good citizen of the city, and I think that what he's doing is the right thing and how he's plotting this. The question that was brought up at the last meeting that was not Fu X Y ^i xl n5.k. .s=J r° i' 3 y ) A".' - X ,. ,.? � x x , t { #i 46R + ?77 $'e". -a k NA, vE .T x ;. Y r �y�d xi 454 t" t ai*}'i'X�T*'c j^`9 �t'..�EFN`ai �' }ixh '°'iA�i4,. .. y . P,�(? .3'¢ 4 . F..rrt �7� s B byC®r 1,1.1 4r y i p��..., � aipf'gyp`'9,�"N*TTp1�,�'Si �1 U Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 6 of 63 addressed -- I didn't hear it being addressed -- was the egress and exit for emergency vehicles into the entire area that's serviced by Linder. We talked about the -- we only have Linder going in and out and, then, there is a couple of emergency areas for fire and for ambulance on the eastern side of all of the subdivisions in there and I think that we need desperately to do something to make sure that -- to open those entrances up so we can get fire and emergency rescue into the entire area for all of the subdivisions. We have got a bridge that goes under Linder. If we have any kind of a food, if we have any kind of an issue at the comer of Linder and Franklin that stops traffic, which happens now quite frequently, because of the freeway issues and things that we have, we are going to have a pretty major problem. We have got a -- this is a safety issue that I think P&Z absolutely needs to address. The current egress that we have into the entire area is not adequate for fire trucks. We might be able to get some emergency vehicles, ambulances through there, but it's not adequate fire trucks and fast response. Moe: Would staff like to respond to that? Hood: Yeah. I can. I don't know the exact location, but there is an emergency access connection from Linder Road -- excuse me -- yeah, from Linder Road. It's not a full public street, we hope to get there soon, but -- and I don't know the exact location. I believe, Commissioner Zaremba, do you know exactly how that's constructed through there? I have not seen it, but I understand from the fire department that they do have now secondary access from Meridian via Waltman Lane, they can swing back up through, rather than having to go down Franklin to Linder and down, so -- Hagedom: The access through Waltman is a trail that's about eight feet wide -- maybe eight feet wide that's got fences on both sides and has a post in the center of it, so you have to knock the post down in order to come through there. In fact, I don't think it's eight feet, I think it's seven feet, because my truck won't fit through there. So, I just -- I wanted -- I wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware of that, because it's a safety issue and although we are working towards resolving it, I think if somebody has an emergency and it's not resolved, somebody will be liable for not allowing or not making allowances for that ambulance or that fire truck insure that they had adequate access into that area and I just want to make sure that we all understand this is an issue and an issue quite some time. This is not to say that I think Gary's area there shouldn't be -- shouldn't be approved, because I think it should be. However, we are building a lot of population in this area that's serviced by one street and one street comer and we have got to do something about that in order insure the safety of the citizens that live in that area. That's all I have. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: I guess I need to clarify on that same subject. I asked a very similar question in the earlier part of the Public Hearing on this and I went away with the impression that the public street was being completed across the canal that would connect to Waltman. Is that not the case? �Os ? Q,;4 Meridian Planning & Zoning • • November 16, 2006 Page 7 of 63 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that is the future case. My understanding is right now there is 20 foot wide emergency access. The eight foot wide that that gentleman may have been referring to -- there are some micropaths as well that are out there. They do have some bollards. Again, I haven't been out there, I don't know exactly where this is at, but my understanding from the Fire Marshall is that there is a secondary access -- not a full blown public street, but emergency access back to the side of The Landing, essentially, from Waltman Court back through one of those stub streets. But, again, I can't point it out to you. Mr. Cole at the last meeting had it -- I don't think he went on record said this is exactly the path, but it is in and that's why you don't have the comments here as you have had in previous subdivisions in this area from the fire department saying red light, you know, we don't have adequate access in this area, because that has now -- my understanding it has now been addressed. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Okay. No one else is signed up. Is there someone else that would like to come forward before the applicant -- feel free to come forward. Okay. No one -- seeing no one, will the applicant please -- we do have someone. Come forward. Please state your name and address, please. Fors: Gary Fors. 843 Lilac Street, Meridian. Yeah. There is -- he's very right about the access. There is an emergency down there, but it's -- I don't know if I can pinpoint it on the map. I need to get a little bit further east to show you exactly where it is. But it's there. It's a gravel road and I know what Mary is talking about. That one is just a little bit further to the north from that access and there is a pole right in the center of it. It's a walking path right to Waltman Street or Waltman something on the other side of the east side of the subdivision. Now, you get further towards the freeway, there is an access point for emergency use, but isn't open to the public. Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Fors: Thank you. Moe: Any questions of -- okay. The applicant can come back forward now. Newton-Huckabay: That was the applicant. Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question. I was absent during the 11/2 hearing and did not hear the bulk of this and have not read the minutes from that meeting. Can I abstain from voting on this? Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, because you haven't reviewed the minutes and you weren't present, I would suggest that you are not -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 8 of 63 Newton-Huckabay: Qualified. Baird: -- qualified, for lack of a better word, and I would suggest that you abstain. Since we have a quorum it shouldn't cause any defect in the procedure. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And having not have done that before is that just abstain as my call during the vote? Baird: That would be my suggestion. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Baird: If we were in a situation where you had to vote, we'd have to continue to allow you to review the minutes and, then, reconvene. But since we still are able to move forward I'd suggest that we do that. Newton-Huckabay: Great. Thank you. Moe: Commissioners have any other comments? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-038 and PP 06- 036. Borup: Second. Want me to go ahead? Zaremba: Just as discussion, I'm the one that keeps raising the -- and not the only one that thinks about it, but keep raising Linder as a cul-de-sac. I am reasonably satisfied, if there is a -- if there is at least an emergency access available, the theory is that the fire and police would use that for incoming, but if there were some kind of disaster on Linder, I'm sure the public would be allowed to cross that access to exit, which makes me a little more comfortable. This project, I believe, meets all the requirements and is satisfactory. I would encourage anybody that lives in the area to pound on ACHD and ITD to get the bridge across the interstate at Linder. That needs to be done and in my opinion that's a little farther off on the radar than I would like to see it. If there are no opposing comments, I will make a motion. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036, to include all comments of the staff report for this evening, November 16th, 2006. Borup: Second. ` 05 p PT z }..YVgg i r. 1-� t t✓"s#�a�' 9s, F�rE ,,Y Zi t 4 '.1. " R I'iO4 t Y" }..YVgg i t Zi t Y" Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 9 of 63 E, Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of November 16, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Newton-Huckabay: I abstain from voting. Moe: And Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has abstained. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, could I make one comment. There seems to be a lot of ambient noise this evening and it's very distracting up here and it's very distracting in the audience. If we could -- Borup: Close the doors. Zaremba: I have other times suggested that we close the doors and the response from legal counsel has been this has to be an open public meeting and closing the door gives the appearance that it's not, so, unfortunately, we do have to leave the door open. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: 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: Moe: I guess I would say that if the folks are going to be out in the foyer, they need to be out across to the sides and not in front of the open doors. That will help, but I guess we will start speaking up a little more. How is that? At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing on CUP 06-033 for Una Mas Day Care. At this time hear the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Commissioner Moe. Commissioners, this item was continued from the last Public Hearing due to improper posting, so I will be giving the full staff presentation. The applicant Una Mas, LLC, is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to operate a day dare center for up to 75 children in this C -G zoning district. The proposed child care center will be located within a 6,300 square foot building on the southern portion of a 9.5 acre parcel generally located as shown on the map, approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads on the south side of Ustick Road. It's this long, thin, parcel here and the day care is proposed to go on the southern portion. As I stated earlier, it's located in the C -G zone and a Conditional Use Permit is required for day cares within that zoning district. The adjacent land uses include to the north the Smitzger Subdivision, more commonly probably known as the Lowe's shopping complex, which is zoned C -G. To the east are some rural residences, zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. To the south is some undeveloped the commercial land that is zoned C -G. Currently mostly vacant land. And to the west is the approved Gateway Marketplace project that has yet to begin Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 10 of 63 construction. We will start with a little explanation of the access in this area, which, really, is the main question that comes up with this application. The development agreement for the Una Mas annexation, which is the history kind of behind this parcel, restricts any access point off of Ustick Road to this property. Due to this restriction the applicant is required to take access from the proposed Allys Way, which will in the future be located adjacent to the proposed area right here or through a proposed cross - access driveway through the approved Gateway Marketplace project. For this Conditional Use Permit application the applicant is proposing to take access from the proposed collector roadway Allys Way, which will extend south from Ustick Road, as I just discussed. Currently, the land on which Allys Way will be constructed is owned by the Ada County Highway District and it is important to note that at this time the subject property technically won't have frontage on that street. The only frontage they will have is on Ustick. When Allys Way goes in, they won't have frontage on that one either, but there will be a remnant piece owned by the Ada County Highway District, but that is in the process -- there is some negotiations in the process between the applicant and ACHD to purchase that property. And even if the applicant were to purchase the property, any future landowner would be required to grant a cross -access over to this other parcel. Let's move on to some more of the specifics of the site. Here is kind of a site and landscape plan layout. This area over here is -- shows the required street buffer that will have to be constructed along Ustick Road to the north. And this -- this isn't a whole picture of the site, this little separation here. This is really kind of a blow up of just that southern portion of the site and north is facing this way. They are proposing to locate the day care on the southern portion of the site, with a parking area here and an outdoor play area in the rear of the day care. There is ample parking provided. And the -- and the applicant is aware of all of the day care standards as outlined in the UDC and is aware that they will have to comply with all those as the staff report states. I believe there is some -- this is another view of the site, kind of a full view, with Ustick up here to the north and the proposed day care area down here. It's kind of hard to see, but that's kind of the general location. And this also helps to show where that proposed Allys Way will be constructed and also the access points that will, in the future, go into this piece of property. The day care is, obviously, just a small portion of what will end up being here in the future. This is proposed to be a large commercial project. Here are some elevations of the proposal of the building and as stated earlier, the applicant's proposal generally complies with all of the standards for the day care. Anything that they did not show was written in as a condition of approval. The one issue that should be discussed at this hearing is the applicant has submitted a site and landscape plan that, as they stated, may not show the exact location of the proposed day care due to the applicant's dealings with ACRD. The applicant is requesting some flexibility regarding the exact location of the day care building and that's due to the fact that early on in the process ACHD had a condition with the annexation that required a -- possibly required a public street connecting to Allys Way all the way across over to Eagle and, basically, the condition of the annexation said that if ACHD requires that, you have to put it in. But we have received through an ACHD staff report notification from ACHD that they will not be requiring that road and that that road is not something that they are interested in and the city also at this point sees that as probably not a -- not a good idea to have a public street connecting all the way through like that and that's ACHD's ^" P v' W P �v 100 V 01,!1110 Y i. K @6 yb j k 4 ,lam R i _y y h�'� niA a 3 f Meridian Planning 9 & Zonin • • November 16, 2006 Page 11 of 63 position also. This area down here and the access points will be discussed at length at a later date when a preliminary plat is submitted for this -- for this parcel. So, I don't think it's necessary that we go into all the details of how this parcel could develop in the future, because this is simply a CUP application for the day care and not anything further than that. And as I stated, many more discussions will happen on this property as it goes through more applications. With that stated, staff is recommending approval of this CUP application and also through the conditions believes that if there are any minor modifications to the site, whether the building be shifted around or the parking be moved a little bit, staff believes that the applicant will still be able to meet all of the day care standards and believes that through the conditions that staff will have the ability to review that site and insure that all the conditions from the CUP are met. And with that I stand for any questions. Moe: Are there any questions from the Commission? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Having none, would the applicant please come forward. Loster: Jeff Loster. 2928 East Iowa Avenue, Nampa. Moe: Okay. Loster: I'm the applicant. I represent Una Mas. Moe: Okay. I assume that you take no exception to the staff report -- Loster: None whatsoever. Moe: -- and all conditions in the report? Loster: Everything seems fine to us. We show the road over there, because we -- it's a bit of confusion. We are thinking that the city did require that. But, obviously, if they are not requiring it, if ACHD is not requiring it, then, we will be glad to get rid of that. Moe: Okay. As far as the conditions in regards to your site plan changing -- Loster: That's no problem. Moe: Okay. Does the Commission have any questions? Zaremba: Any idea how much progress is being made negotiating with ACHD on that remnant piece of land? Loster: I understand an offer has been made and probably will get accepted, so -- s� z r'4�'�r`.i��aa S �,l 4'.. ,.• `I a 'Rl7,<>i �. .' ..,.G ., � -.` i �. � ..=a w t L 40, +inFi§303 3 �' #¢ �s3��rt. �'�,.";�""�`�l4�,tjl �. ,. ;: tom#, ,..# �Y t"„�7�'�'�' `Y ♦ F�"�«�£ .,n.� ��d�y `��4u`SvG j6IA r{!og RNiir. t i{ 1 � > h i . , .- # . :: lives ` � 11 ' .{ ., } E W +}' X 5iry'ri�$ T 1 _ °�^,.. ��k �j, �Y �i^i'#'�' p`'.4 v t yt 9 6 q Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 12 of 63 Zaremba: Hopefully so. Loster: Yeah. I think so. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: There is no sign up, other than Jeff Loster, so if there is anyone else that would like to speak to this, please, come forward. I see no one coming forward. Therefore, does the Commission have any comments? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-033. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06- 033. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: My comment would be I don't think this is any surprise. We didn't know exactly which things were going to go in this property, but their negotiation with ACHD has been known to us before and we all hope it's going to happen. I think this is a good spot for a day care and as long as they meet the city and state requirements, I'm in favor of it. Borup: I agree. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman -- Newton-Huckabay: As do I. Moe: All right. Zaremba: -- I move to approve file number CUP 06-033, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006, and the site plan labeled A0.00, dated June 29, 2006, with the following -- I'm sorry, with no modifications. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on -- are we having a meeting on the 30th? Borup: December. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that would be on December -- Borup: 7th. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 13 of 63 Zaremba: -- 7th. Okay. End of motion. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-033 and move it on to City Council. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, before you go to the next item, I just have a couple of just real quick things. Commissioner Zaremba brought one of them up. You do have the option -- I know no one is real favorable about special meetings, but if we need to there are five Thursdays in this month and if we don't get through the agenda items and you so choose to have a meeting on the 30th, that is an option. The other thing I would ask is that due to the number of folks that are in the audience this evening, maybe just a quick here is how we hold our hearings, three minutes, if there is a neighborhood -- you know, just kind of run through that I think would be appropriate. Moe: I can do that. Hood: Thank you. Moe: As Caleb has mentioned, basically, the way we will work this through, as we already have, staff will give their report, at which time, then, the applicant will be coming up to give their presentation in regards to the project. The applicant will have I do believe it's 15 minutes -- or ten minutes to give their report and their comments, at which time, then, the members in the audience will have their opportunity to make their comments in regards to the hearing itself. Those will be a three minute comment. I would state that if you have a homeowners association that you're all in this -- within the same hearing, if, in fact, you can show a sign of hands that, basically, you're a group and you have a spokesperson, that's spokesperson, then, would get extended time to make comment and if you signed up, at which, you know, you had already had a spokesperson stating the comments for you, we just appreciate you letting us know that you -- that they are speaking for you as well. But it looks like we have a large audience tonight with probably a couple hearings and so a couple things -- and I just make some comments in regards to this next hearing, which I'm sure quite a few are here for on the Spurwing project. You know, we have heard that and we have heard comments prior to this meeting. I would state that the comments that were made from the people that spoke last time are in the minutes and are part of the hearing, so I would hope that those people would not, basically, say the same thing a second time tonight. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 14 of 63 — NEC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spurwing Way: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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: Moe: So, with that in mind, then, I'd like to go ahead and open the continued public hearings for AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 for the Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision and have the staff report. Watters: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and variance request for Spurwing Patio Homes Subdivision. The property is 20.65 acres in size and is currently zoned R -R, rural residential, in Ada County. The applicant has requested this property be annexed and rezoned to the R-8 medium density residential zoning district. This project was previously heard at the October 19th Commission meeting, at which time the Commission directed staff to prepare conditions of approval. The subject property is generally located northeast of the North Ten Mile Road, Chinden Boulevard intersection. If you look up here on the overhead. And it's an existing lot in the Spurwing Subdivision. That parcel right there. Access to the site is currently provided by North Spurwing Way, which is right over here, via West Balata Court, both local public streets within Spurwing Subdivision. An emergency access is proposed from Chinden Boulevard at the southwest comer of the site, right down here, for emergency access vehicles only. Since the last Public Hearing the applicant has submitted a revised plat with the following changes. First, the common area in Block 1 has been reconfigured and approximately half an acre of open space has been added. Two building lots were removed from the northeast portion of Block 1. Right in here. Lots 58 and 59 and the open space between Lots 30 and 32 at the northwest comer was shifted to the east for a more central location right here. These changes provide more visibility to the common areas as requested by the police department. The lot sizes on a few of the lots along the north boundary changed slightly, but still meet the requirements of the R-8 zone. All other lots stayed the same. The ponds and meandering creek have been removed, which provides more usable open space for the subdivision. Although the revised plat provides more visibility to the common area along the north boundary, the police department still believes there is a lack of visibility from the street to the open space proposed behind the residential lots on Blocks 1 and 2. The proposed development consists of 71 single family residential building lots, consisting of 44 attached units and 27 detached units. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 3.46 dwelling units per acre, which generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of medium density residential. The applicant is proposing 19 percent open space with landscaped common areas. A variance is being r. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 15 of 63 requested to exceed the maximum block length space allowed in a residential district. However, the Commission is not required to make a recommendation to Council on this " application. The issues highlighted in the staff report before the Commission are as Yx follows: First, this site is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 1, of Spurwing Subdivision, but it also includes a portion of Lots 2 and 4 of the same subdivision. A property boundary adjustment application that matches the configuration of the property as shown on the is currently in process at Ada County and will be required to "'42 proposed plat be completed prior annexation ordinance approval by Council. Second, the goal of the { `rye Comp Plan is to require new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to 4 the existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening or transitional densities with larger, more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities. The applicant has complied with the landscape screening portion by proposing a landscaped common area with a six foot tall stone wall fence as a buffer to the existing residences. However, the police department is not supportive of the design of the open space areas that are located behind building lots as they do not offer natural surveillance opportunities, a Apotential p safety hazard. They are also not supportive of the six foot tall fence on the perimeter on the north. Further, the proposed lots along the north boundary do not provide enough of a transition from the existing one acre lots. Larger, more comparable lot sizes and lower density should be provided to buffer the interface between urban and T>a rural residential densities in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Last, in addition, r r on transitional lot sizes, the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that residential uses #�. north of Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes ' ranging from half to one acre in size, insuring compatibility with Spurwing Country Club V,, r to the east. Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the nonresidential and rim property is encouraged. Written comments on this project have '.: been received from the Joint School District No. 2, Andrea Ness, Holly Catoskey, „:'.. Nichole Black, Randy and Kathleen Rudeen, and an unsigned, undated letter stamped received by the city clerk on November 2nd. For the reasons previously stayed and t " those stated in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the subject application. P 9 1 PP That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Commissioners, any questions at the present time of staff? Okay. Having none, . would the applicant come forward, please. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just briefly I will kind of -- L; t5y,Moe: Would you, please, name and address? ' i McKay: Oh. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I will just kind of go over the discussion that I had with Bob Stowe. At the last Public Hearing the Commission asked us to get with the police department and to discuss some of their concerns to see if there could be some modifications made to alleviate the issues that they had. In the original plan we had lots that went clear over to -- that adjoined these existing lots here. What Bob Stowe asked me to do is to eliminate a Y k � ' i', " t ' .+a_""+. �„ f ; ui i r a y_ Y ft # T,yA^y'^. f'b.'4-kKiPf�t^ Hifi�X ¢`4'� t %' q ,5 t43'.c�f i'6q 4},451 SNF F n .-s ;Y t 0`0 W1#0 V05 VNWI, k rpt s m„ "�.. '. 'd 4+r'.'S4�y-�`y� ��v,R 2 'S i t 3, d y'&+'�u1 a,+p s r - < p t ", ^'s� `oaf QA 14% a 01 sit 1 a$ P f ^u `<"m`.�.'+ +.' S'"t'E#''u,'qui"i,...ern.`#..,,B.�i.'ii:$i'�vii ✓.. e . u -,.. .esi.n...4 '} v ... ..xtEv.a 9.�',3*'1!"e°'Sas"..+ n e Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 16 of 63 couple of the lots that would create a view corridor into this open space here. He also asked that we create another view corridor, which we did here. We opened this up and allocated some additional open space at this location here. There was a pond shown so that these properties would have a water amenity. Bob's concern was the fact if there was a drowning or something in that pond, if emergency access was necessary back to the pond, would that be difficult. So, we agreed to eliminate that pond and have that be greenscape only. He had a concern about people installing fencing, like sight obscuring fencing along this area here. The applicant agreed in writing that we -- he would restrict that fencing, there would either be no fencing allowed along this side of the lot or that it would be limited to wrought iron, so it would be non -sight obscuring. I asked staff -- Bob had a concern about the masonry -- the six foot masonry fence that we were proposing here. The ordinance does allow us to install a six foot fence on our perimeter. It is internally with the open space that the ordinance does not allow the six foot sight obscuring. The Commission also asked that -- the question did we have any elevations. I did submit elevations to the staff. She can put them up on the overhead. We also brought some large ones. What you're looking at there -- that particular drawing would be the attached unit. So, as far as the garage units with a side entry here, you would have entrance here and, then, what you can't see, it would swing around at this location. So, that is an attached unit. And here is a color rendering that I can show you. Which is identical to what's on the screen. Just a little brighter. The detached unit looks like this. Just as Mr. Hewitt indicated, he's going with a stucco, single level type dwelling and this particular one has the tile roof. Bob asked that we get Joe Silva at the fire department to discuss with him any concerns that they may have concerning the project. If Sonya could put that site plan back up. In my discussions with Joe I asked him that fact that we do have 71 lots in this area with one point of ingress and egress. He said that was not a problem as long as we had this secondary emergency vehicle access. It will be 20 foot wide paved. We needed to meet the fire department radiuses, which we did on our revised drawings show that we can meet that inside and outside radius of 28 and 48. As far as the emergency vehicle access, the fire department has asked that we put signage here and signage here, emergency vehicle access only. The fire department prefers gates with their special fire department locks at each end. This one would be inset enough that a fire truck or emergency vehicle, if they had to utilize that access point, could pull in off of Chinden, but, yet, is still visible from Chinden, so that no one tries to utilize that as an access into the project. The police department says they don't have keys to those locks and so they prefer some type of a bollard system. So, Joe Silva indicated to me that he would get with Bob Stowe -- this has kind of been an ongoing problem that's not related just to this project, but to other projects and they would try to come up with a solution, possibly providing that key to the police department or coming up with some type of a system that's acceptable to both entities. I asked Joe if he had concerns about the open space with us making these additional changes. He indicated that he did not. So, I believe that we have satisfied the concerns of the fire department and we have done our very best to satisfy the concerns of Mr. Stowe. This particular space here -- it's almost an extension of those lots. When -- like I indicated to Bob, when you don't have perimeter fencing here, it's an extension of the lot that is kind of what we call on the green, which is Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 17 of 63 popular now in a lot of designs. Does the Commission have any questions that I could answer? Moe: Becky, I do have one in regards to that same area we are speaking of. You got rid of the pond, basically, because of the safety concern. In fact, you have got a grassed area and you're playing out there and you still have a safety concern that -- McKay: The only other thing, Commissioner Moe, that we could do would be to eliminate that as open space and extend those lot lines back and, you know, it could still be green space, maybe a landscape easement, which we do on some other projects. And, then, eliminating -- we do have like a 20 foot access to get back to there. If it's a common area, you have to provide access for mowing and maintenance. If the lots were extended back, then, obviously, each individual lot owner would do their own maintenance or sometimes on these types of units where we have snowbirds, they hire a company to come in and do that full area. We see a lot of that. I did a big project in Idaho Falls that was that way and no one took care of their lawn, it was all farmed out to a particular landscape company. But if that's the wish of the Commission, I mean we could accommodate that. We are at 19.5 percent open space. So, we far exceed the five percent requirement. Moe: All right. Okay. Any other questions, Commissioners? Okay. None? Works for me. Okay. Again, if, in fact, like I spoke earlier, if -- I assume that there may be somebody that is being spoken for between you guys, but, anyway the first one on the list is Ron Ashley. When you come up, make sure and say your name and your address. Ashley: I'm Ron Ashley. I live at 6851 North Penncross, Meridian, in Spurwing, and I have been a resident for 63 years in Ada County. I built a new home out there five years ago and I was led to believe at that time that there was going to be condos over in that area and I told it was going to be 35 and it would be ten years before they came, because of the sewer. Well, actually, the sewer picked up speed, so I was led to be -- it would be 35 condos and I believe there is 70 lots out there now in Spurwing and the traffic is a problem there now, because you have got stop light, stop light, and you just put a new stop light, what, at Lochsa Falls -- two or three hundred yards east of Spurwing, new subdivision going right across the street, all bermed up, no road there, so there is not going to be a stop light there. So, you're going to have a traffic problem when you dump the amount of cars that's going to be in that area now. If you have got 70 condos and 70 houses, you're going to double it up. That's all I have. Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, sir. Baird: Could I make a suggestion that you inquire whether there is a spokesperson, then, we would have that individual speak first and, then, if folks have been spoken for, they can indicate that on the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 18 of 63 Moe: That would be great. As suggested, is there a spokesperson for most of the folks that have signed up? Borup: It doesn't look like it. Moe: I guess at this time I would kind of like to have a show of hands as to who she's speaking for. No. No. If she's speaking for you and she doesn't bring up something that you want, you can at least do that, yes. Basically, what we are trying to do is give enough time for one person to give all the comment of the group here, as opposed to trying to do this three minutes at a time and hearing pretty much the same thing over and over and over again. Okay. Thank you. State your name and address, please. Engle: My name is Jenna Engle and I live at 2819 West Balata Court in Spurwing. Moe: Thank you. Engle: I think first and foremost it's really important for us all here to consider the fact that Spurwing is not just an average subdivision, it's a golf and country club and what we have there, quite often, are special events, weddings, parties, anniversaries, golf tournaments, plus the normal traffic that we generate when our women's groups and men's groups have their golf tournaments, there is a lot of traffic going in and out of that one entrance and I don't know what the situation is currently with that access for the fire department, but if it isn't in writing, if we don't have it pat, then, I definitely think that this should be continued until they get it. So, my information was that this is the same plan, minus two buildings that we looked at in December of 2005 and, again, in March of 2006 and not much has changed and looking at what we have been told are the parameters for developing this property, is that it needs to be medium density, not high density, which is what we are seeing here. So, for that reason alone I think that everyone here is pretty much in agreement that this applicant should be denied and he should come back to the drawing board with something that fits the picture that everyone was given years ago of 35 units, not common wall, shared units, but separate units. And that was our understanding when we bought our property, too, and we haven't addressed garages and parking areas. How does that look? How many square feet are these units that were presented today. We don't even know what they are. The applicant has never provided us with that information and with that number that is proposed there, I mean we more than double -- we are looking at 70 units doubling, quite possibly tripling the amount of traffic going in and out of that one entry onto Chinden. So, if we don't look at it in a little bit different way, again, we are looking at being trapped within a country club area that we can't get in and out of, let alone the fire department and the police. So, the fact that this doesn't comply with the Comprehensive Plan, that we don't have fire department and police approval, seems to me like three really good reasons that this does not get approved today. When I talked to some other folks that were original home buyers, most of whom live out on the rim, they were told that there was going to be fire access provided for the 70 houses that are in there now. To my knowledge, unless somebody knows differently, that fire access t r zit adim y M= 4 vC 2 S 31 t r zit adim Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 19 of 63 still isn't there. And the only way in and out of Spurwing is through the main gates. So, I'd like to know more about that situation before this applicant is approved. I don't get the -- the idea of calling the attached houses patio homes. The definition on Google of a patio home is that they do not have shared common walls. These are duplexes. Duplexes are not appropriate for Spurwing. They just aren't in the same genre as the rest of that complex and my understanding for years is that development is supposed to improve property and it looks to me with what's proposed here is that rather than improve it it's going to degrade the property. And I don't understand why the applicant would want to do that to this facility. It doesn't make sense. So, whether or not they have actually met open space by removing the water features -- to me I couldn't -- I couldn't make head or tails of that. Maybe somebody else can. But I still don't think that Spurwing golf course should be considered a greenbelt for this proposed subdivision. As far as snowbirds go, we heard about that last time we were here and, initially, some of the folks that bought homes in Spurwing wanted to buy some of these patio homes and they are not snowbirds, they are year around, 12 month of the year, residents. We want to maintain our community and maintain the safety within the community for our family and our children and grandchildren in many cases and I don't think that with what we have been hearing for the last month or more about this project, that this will get it for us at all. So, I am opposed to the application in its entirety and I will -- I will close my remarks and, hopefully, you will see fit to deny this application and get the applicant to come back with a suitable plan. Thank you. Moe: Questions, Commissioners, so far? Zaremba: No. Moe: Next on the list was Dede Ashley. From the audience she says she's fine, she's spoken for. Next -- I can't get the first name. It's Brown last name. Okay. Byron is what that says. I got the o -n. Yes. Come -- Brown: Byron Brown, 7019 North Penncross Way. 83646. This will be very brief. I think that I would second all the thoughts that Mrs. Engle has proposed. I really think that there has been a major breaking in faith with the original development, because everybody that bought initially out there -- and we have been out there for -- well, we bought five years ago and the tale was 35 patio -type homes. My wife and I lived in a common wall building over in a subdivision in Meridian. We didn't call it a patio home, we called it a duplex, and that's what these are, these are duplexes. The other thing is, too, is that I think one has a difficult time messing with the rights of people to develop their properties in appropriate ways. And I think the key word there is appropriate and it's appropriate for the developer -- it's also appropriate for the people that live in the development and I think the people that live there now have the history, we have the promises -- well, maybe they aren't promises, but at least we have the initial plot plans that reflected 35 units. I think you have been told by the fire department, the police department, the staff that this development should be DOA, that's dead on arrival, and the last thing I would really like to say is that there is only one way in and one way out of this subdivision. The proposed emergency portion over there in the southwest comer f s 3 L Nifit vt �p { AP t �y F n f� t l s 4 � z, ;' s z Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 19 of 63 still isn't there. And the only way in and out of Spurwing is through the main gates. So, I'd like to know more about that situation before this applicant is approved. I don't get the -- the idea of calling the attached houses patio homes. The definition on Google of a patio home is that they do not have shared common walls. These are duplexes. Duplexes are not appropriate for Spurwing. They just aren't in the same genre as the rest of that complex and my understanding for years is that development is supposed to improve property and it looks to me with what's proposed here is that rather than improve it it's going to degrade the property. And I don't understand why the applicant would want to do that to this facility. It doesn't make sense. So, whether or not they have actually met open space by removing the water features -- to me I couldn't -- I couldn't make head or tails of that. Maybe somebody else can. But I still don't think that Spurwing golf course should be considered a greenbelt for this proposed subdivision. As far as snowbirds go, we heard about that last time we were here and, initially, some of the folks that bought homes in Spurwing wanted to buy some of these patio homes and they are not snowbirds, they are year around, 12 month of the year, residents. We want to maintain our community and maintain the safety within the community for our family and our children and grandchildren in many cases and I don't think that with what we have been hearing for the last month or more about this project, that this will get it for us at all. So, I am opposed to the application in its entirety and I will -- I will close my remarks and, hopefully, you will see fit to deny this application and get the applicant to come back with a suitable plan. Thank you. Moe: Questions, Commissioners, so far? Zaremba: No. Moe: Next on the list was Dede Ashley. From the audience she says she's fine, she's spoken for. Next -- I can't get the first name. It's Brown last name. Okay. Byron is what that says. I got the o -n. Yes. Come -- Brown: Byron Brown, 7019 North Penncross Way. 83646. This will be very brief. I think that I would second all the thoughts that Mrs. Engle has proposed. I really think that there has been a major breaking in faith with the original development, because everybody that bought initially out there -- and we have been out there for -- well, we bought five years ago and the tale was 35 patio -type homes. My wife and I lived in a common wall building over in a subdivision in Meridian. We didn't call it a patio home, we called it a duplex, and that's what these are, these are duplexes. The other thing is, too, is that I think one has a difficult time messing with the rights of people to develop their properties in appropriate ways. And I think the key word there is appropriate and it's appropriate for the developer -- it's also appropriate for the people that live in the development and I think the people that live there now have the history, we have the promises -- well, maybe they aren't promises, but at least we have the initial plot plans that reflected 35 units. I think you have been told by the fire department, the police department, the staff that this development should be DOA, that's dead on arrival, and the last thing I would really like to say is that there is only one way in and one way out of this subdivision. The proposed emergency portion over there in the southwest comer Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 20 of 63 runs across the connecting area between two golf holes on the Spurwing golf course. Is that going to be a tunnel? Is that going to be on the surface? I would hate to be the guy driving across that road when the ambulance comes down the street. Or walking across that road when the ambulance comes down the street. Or fire department. Or the police department. So, my feeling is is that this is not appropriate for our area. I think the key part of the staff report -- could you read the part about that lot size back -- Baird: Mr. Chair? If I could remind the speaker to speak through the chair person and not directly with staff to maintain order. Brown: Could we ask the staff to reiterate the comments about the lot size out there? Moe: I sure can. Could staff do that, please. Brown: The very last part of the report. Moe: After that you'll need to wrap up your comments, please. Watters: Well, I don't have a -- Commissioners, I don't have an exact figure on lot sizes with the revisions. Brown: Is there recommendation of the lot sizes relative to the preexisting lots at Spurwing Subdivision? Watters: The Comp Plan designates this area to have lot sizes ranging from one half to one acre, compatible with Spurwing Country Club. Brown: I think that pretty well spells it out. Moe: Thank you. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, I might add -- if we could avoid displays of clapping or booing, it - - it will move along here. Your comments are appropriate for the record, but it's not appropriate that we clap after each speaker. Moe: If you would, please, hold your excitement down, I would appreciate it, so would the Commission. Next on the list was Beverly Brown. From the audience she says she has been spoken for. Next was Joy Compton. Compton: Good evening. My name is Joy Compton, I live at 7014 North Spurwing Way, Meridian. 83646. I'm sort of in a transition spot there between where the real rim starts, but I do overlook Hole No. 18's tee off position. I want to very quickly -- I don't think it will exceed the three minutes -- read you a letter that I received -- my husband and I received from Jock Hewitt when we purchased our property or made preliminary plans to do so. Dear Chuck and Joy -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 21 of 63 Borup: What was the date? Compton: June 6th, 1996. 1996. June 6th. Dear Chuck and Joy: Spurwing Country Club continues to be the talk of the town. In quotation marks. Spurwing's fabulous golf course has received rave reviews from both amateur and professional players. The new clubhouse features all facilities required of a first class club and has greatly surpassed the expectations of members and nonmembers alike. The consensus is that Spurwing Country Club is one of the very best. As you know, the Spurwing residential area has only 70 home sites. Only a few of the 22 lots in phase one remain and over one-third of the 30 lots in phase two and three are now reserved. Before long Spurwing will be sold out. When you think about the many wonderful reasons for building your home at Spurwing Country Club, also consider the following: Spurwing Country Club is unique in that club memberships outnumber home sites 492 to 70. As a result, the fortunate seller of a Spurwing residence will very likely find more than a few members who will want to be one of the 70 and live at the club. Residential lot sales are the obvious beneficiary of this outstanding country club facility. Again, I'd like to read that. Residential lot sales are the obvious beneficiary of this outstanding country club facility and they are now running a year ahead of our projections. We are, therefore, developing phases two and three concurrently. Construction should begin in 30 to 45 days, with closing on your Lot 46 at that time. We will keep you posted as to progress on the date of construction commencement and closing. Sincerely yours, signed Jock Hewitt. What I'm seeing up here is a subdivision being proposed in the subdivision of Spurwing Country Club. I think it is remarkable only in the fact that it is being proposed at all. And I strongly ask that you deny this application. Thank you. Moe: Next on the list would be Gary and Mary -- I can't read the last name. From the audience they said they have been spoken for. I will go ahead and move on and, then, if you signed up and you still need to speak, then, we will do that at that point. You know, I thought I had bad writing. Claire? From the audience Claire has been spoken for. Bob. What would be the last name, sir? Trerise: I am Bob Trerise and we live at 3011 West Balata Court and we are new one year residents of Spurwing. We just moved in last year. And we absolutely love it. We love all our neighbors. And you can see it's a lively group. We own one of the lots on Balata Court that is the acre lot that backs up to the townhouses. When we bought the house a year ago we were informed of the townhouse project and we are very supportive of it. We think it will actually add value and help the club. Our only concern is the density and our concern is also about the quality of the townhouses. So, again, when we bought our house what we received information on was that it was something more in the neighborhood 35 to 40 townhouses that would go in and also that they would be really upscale townhouses, that these would be really premier, high quality types of townhouses that would not deteriorate the value of our lots and our home. So, that's our concern. I think that's been stated and we agree with Mrs. Engle as well. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning O November 16, 2006 Page 22 of 63 Moe: Thank you very much. Next would be Sarah and Mike. From the audience they have been spoken for. Amy Jorgensen. From the audience she has been spoken for. Kathleen Rudeen. From the audience she states she's been spoken for. Do we have an Olivia? That might be an X. Yeah. From the audience she says she's been spoken for. Stephanie. From the audience she's been spoken for. Let's see. I would assume that's Gina's husband. Have you been spoken for as well, sir? Okay. Andrea. From the audience she says she's been spoken for. John Flaherty. from the audience he's been spoken for. I think the last name is Houst. From the audience he says he's been spoken for as well. That is all that is noted here. Actually, I think there was one name that I just could not get, so if there is someone in the audience that would still like to speak to this, come forward, please. One at a time. We'll get you both. Peterson: Grant Peterson, 7082 North Penncross Way. I have a couple concerns, which are mainly traffic driven. I, for the most part, share everyone's views here and do believe that a guy should be able to develop his property and so forth, but I don't believe -- in looking at it and even looking at the drawing up there -- that it's just too dense and we do not have the roads and the infrastructure with only one access point to be able to handle it. I have not seen anything in the report and I have not had a chance to look at the report, but I'm wondering if a traffic study is required or requested or if one has been done in that neighborhood and I would ask the Commission -- I don't know how much traffic this will generate. You guys have all the data. These traffic experts have the data of how many trips per day households generate. Jock and I spoke last night and we threw numbers back and forth, but I don't know those numbers and I don't know -- I'm not a road engineer, but I know that we only have one engineer -- or one road to get in and out of this subdivision and I don't believe that it's adequate. We are lined up many times because of the backed up Chinden thing and we have no signalized access. So, my main concern is the traffic. Obviously, the quality of the subdivision is paramount and what is done there. But I do think that a lesser density is the right way to go and I would like to see a traffic study to see if the infrastructure can handle it and if there is another creative way to be able to move the traffic in and out of the subdivision that will work for the developer and work for the neighborhood, so -- amen. Moe: Thank you. Come forward, sir. Tucker: My name is Myron Tucker and, Mr. Commissioner and guests, I live at 2582 West Penick Pointe Court in Spurwing. There is -- I guess that's why there is two sides to everything, but mostly they speak for me, but they really don't speak all the way for me. I am very anxious and looking forward to the project. I, for one, will move in there. I'm tired of mowing an acre and I'd like to downsize and I'm looking forward to it. As far as the traffic goes, which seems to be the biggest complaint, it's not the traffic of the subdivision, it's the traffic of everybody below and above us. It is very difficult to get onto Chinden Boulevard. So, I don't really think that that's a problem within the subdivision. And as far as I'm concerned I'd like to see the project go. Moe: Thank you very much. F^ •�T y 'rye < �'� Meridian Planning & Zoning } {%. November 16, 2006 Page 23 of 63 Rice: I didn't get to sign in. n 4.. Moe: You're fine. Rice: Okay. My name is Tina Rice. I live at 2851 West Balata Court. My property backs into this -- this proposed development. I'm also a realtor for Holland Realty and what I want to say is that I applaud the fact that when I took a look at the plans I was worried whether we are going to have the houses backed up into our one acre lots. But they were all single story. He moved the road back away from the homes. Now this is where -- Moe: Please take the mike there. No. Right there. There is another one right there. Rice: Okay. What he's done that I really really appreciated is that he's moved the roadway between here and a backyard of the lot. Number one. They were all single story homes and the fact is we keep hearing this 76 lots. In fact, we have 44 of those that are duplex lots, whether you want to call them patio homes, adjoining walls, whatever. These homes are, basically, going to be 22 out of the 44. So, it will be 22 structures versus 44 four. So, I want you to keep that in mind. We are not looking at a total of 76 individual homes. And it will be sitting between right on the center part of the r lot and these lots are approximately a hundred feet wide and a hundred feet deep, ,x x which I don't think is unusual when you look into a patio situation and not only am I a realtor, but I'm also a baby boomer with elderly parents and I might not want to do a yard, an acre lot, and I appreciate the fact that we are learning to get density in areas that we don't need acre lots. We don't need to water them, we don't need to mow them. cy So, what they are going after -- and this developer has done an A-1 job in the developing of the original development and I except him -- and I'm sure he will perform .• to that level again in these patio homes or whatever you want to call them. So, I hope that gives you a little better perspective of the density that we are doing. Or not me, but { what the developer is doing. And -- okay. Anyway. And I also have another letter from k a neighbor that I need to turn in. m Moe: Give it to the clerk, please. Okay. No one else has signed up. Again, if there is got someone else that wants to come forward. u Davis: Ed Davis, marketing director, Spurwing Country Club, 6800 North Spurwing Way. On behalf of the club I have a letter and it's addressed: I'm writing in reference to the subdivision that is being proposed for development by Jock Hewitt. We feel the addition of the proposed housing development will be a valuable asset to Spurwing Country Club and the surrounding neighborhood. We have been aware of this planned development since Spurwing Country Club was first built and we will continue to support . ,, its development. Signed sincerely Don Larsen, General Manager. Moe: Okay. The one thing I want to make a point that that's why we ask for 4 ' spokespersons and whatnot. If you have a comment to something other than what was already discussed, that's fine, but I'm not going to have all you folks coming up here just --g-go k' F s + a} N ,ter } w J i 4'Y S '.P $ „r k' t a 41 M Tit,-,. .t h Y f �;'Aa a� yF hb 'R:' '?$ W p 's ,31 �� N 4"Ak A U11 'N .)4, N""t,,n.`d 7'n%, .`5'33`u`} `+ri f<,t"ifj# k5'.?2 z4 i, •- is. Y`s:s i } i r t d �^� W ✓"Oft, 4 2 �`ti"f. �@g"s ��z . ,. r } >•�x "#?Y„ asc7• S '?'� # Z;n �zr s�° 341 . .*.6 g quer .ci _ { f is E f Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 24 of 63 asking single things. So, if there is anyone that would like to speak, please, come forward. Niss: Andrea Niss, 2932 West Balata. We would just like to state the fact that Mrs. Tina Rice who just stood up here is a sister-in-law to the developer for the fact for the Commission. We just thought that was pertinent. Moe: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back. McKay: Thank you. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, some of the comments have been made that we have not satisfied the police department's concerns. I believe we have. I met with Bob, we went through item by item, we sat down with the client, we addressed each one, and I sent my response in writing to the staff. The only outstanding issue is whether this should be eliminated or not. Secondly, the fire department. Joe Silva is satisfied. He indicated to me that he looked forward to having the ability to have a secondary emergency vehicle access into this neighborhood, because at this point in time there is one point of ingress and egress. Now, comments have been made, well, what if somebody is walking across there and an ambulance comes through. A second emergency vehicle access is only used in the event that the primary access is blocked due to an accident, construction, or whatever the case may be. These are used as a secondary emergency access only as a safety value. They are used in many municipalities. We use them in the foothills where we have restricted and limited access up into subdivisions that are at higher elevations. This project I think we discussed last time is a unique project, being on the golf course. You have these acre lots that came in under the county. They have septic systems and now this area is becoming urban. Central services are available. City limits are extending out. The area of impact is moving. This project I think reflects what we are seeing elsewhere. I took a trip here a couple weeks ago down to California to look at some of the new -- what they call leading edge projects and looked at the product that they are coming out with and we are seeing diversity. Diversity is very important and we are seeing attached six-plex type townhomes that are right across the street from detached single family dwellings and it's done in a fashion that it all interfaces. I mean we are talking residential to residential here. These are not some crummy little four- plex rentals that we are trying to stick up next to one acre large estate type homes. These are going to be luxury homes that are going to go in here. We got the golf course surrounding it. We are creating also interior open space to compliment this subdivision, to create buffering and to provide an amenity to all the lots in the homes, which, obviously, adds to the value. We believe that this is -- is a good project. Your Comprehensive Plan talks about diversity. It's promoting providing alternative types of homes and lots for differing lifestyles and I think that's what we have provided here. I wasn't involved in the original Spurwing project, so I can't speak to what was said or letters written or whatever the case may be, but I feel that this is a good project. There is support out here. There is some people that object. And that's not surprising. But I believe we have got an excellent project that should be recommended for approval. Do you have any questions? 1% + f <,0 i & v 2 k x 7_'�'n • k x } b 3 3'� gL S.x A vb, vi,.• s NA-, 'ON= *40411 N k { �a AN W U1. t � P � R� �n-, ` k rP� V , .,7, .r .,. r wzd°d .. 'v'M✓h.l y.;{ . .t C., o ;' 4 a� VbS',+3Y,ffitr.. 5 � Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 25 of 63 Moe: Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman. Becky, you have already mentioned you aren't familiar with the previous plans, but are you familiar with the -- several comments that have been made on a 35 lot plan previously. Do you know anything about that? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners -- Borup: I mean it sounds like it would have to be -- half the space would have to be open space or something. McKay: -- I can't speak to that. Mr. Hewitt would have to speak to that. I was not involved in the original one, so I could not. Oh, I did forget about transportation. The number of vehicle trips generated by the existing homes is 700 vehicle trips a day. As you well know we calculate approximately ten vehicle trips per household. Our particular project, based on Ada County Highway District projections, I think is 622 vehicle trips per day. That was with the 73 lots. Of course, we have gone down, so it's about 8.52 trips per day per unit. As you know, the attached units they calculate less vehicle trips per day, because the households are smaller. As far as access on this, this is a collector. A collector roadway can carry up to six to eight thousand vehicle trips a day. The local street we calculate can cavy up 1,000 trips per day. And I agree with what the gentleman said, a lot of the problem is the fact that Chinden has high volumes of traffic on -- I think it's three lanes there. And the signal -- when it's operational at Lochsa Falls should help with that stacking. Borup: True statement. McKay: Commissioner Borup, would you like Mr. Hewitt to address that? Borup: I would. Moe: Very much so. Hewitt: My name is Jock Hewitt and I'm the developer out here. I live at 7212 North Spurwing Way. I will be affected by whatever traffic results from this project, just like anyone else. This is the first plan that has ever been done with regard to this property. And from time to time people would say, well, what's going to go on over there and I'd say, well, patio homes. How many are going to go over there? I'd say, well, I really don't know. We haven't done the plan, we haven't done the density studies or anything like that. No plan was ever done that outlined 35 units or 30 units or whatever else. And comments of number of units have ranged from anywhere from -- I don't know what. But when we got ready to do this plan here, what we wanted to do was do something that would meet the market and we believe we have done that. The problem with the traffic, again, is Chinden and you're all aware of that and the problems that we have in the area. But this plan here, we have had some comments, a lot of rumors circulating, are the duplex units going to be trashy units, some -- all sorts of things like Meridian Planning & Zoning O November 16, 2006 Page 26 of 63 that, that they are going to devalue. I'd like somebody to explain to me how a 15, 16 hundred square foot unit that is probably going to cost at least 300,000 dollars, is going to be a trashy unit. There is no way that's going to happen. All of these units in the development, whether they be detached or attached, stucco exterior, probably some stone trim here and there, they will be either slate or tile roofs, the interior of the units are going to be finished out appropriately and they are going to be spendy units, because those are the types of people we want to attract to the club. They make good members of the club and a good number of these people that buy these units are going to be members of the club already and so their trips in and out of Spurwing will be eliminated. And one of the reasons they'll want to move in here is so they don't have to make that trip in and out getting on and off Chinden. If there were a light at Ten Mile, for example, that would go a long way towards helping everybody up and down the way and the lights will come at the right time, you know, whenever there is money available, I suppose. But as far as this project's concerned, we have done our very best to make it a unique project within the development to minimize the impact of the homeowners, but everybody that purchased lots in there knew that there were going to be patio homes and it was going to be a higher density development and any subsequent purchasers I can't speak for them, but there are several people here tonight that will assure you that it's been common knowledge that there were going to be patio homes out here from day one, even before we, you know, had built our first single family home out here. But this is a fine project, it's going to be well done, and it's going to be a real addition to the club. I'll take any questions if you have any. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Hewitt, I just have one. How many phases were in the original Spurwing? Hewitt: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: Or how many phases did you do when you built the original piece of it and how many houses were in each one of those? Hewitt: The original Spurwing which was platted out was 70 estate lots and we initially did that -- were planning on doing that in four phases. We wound up doing it in three. And of the 70 home sites out there, there are two remaining to be sold. Newton-Huckabay: And did you -- what numbers did you -- well, phase one was how many homes, phase two was how many homes, phase three -- Hewitt: I think the first -- the first phase, which was on Penncross, I believe there were 22 homes in that phase. And we just developed this out based on what the market would absorb. You have to remember at that time that it was before the real boom took off. Some of the rim lots in the first phase sold for in the neighborhood of 150,000. Now those rim lots are well up over a half a million. And some even higher than that now. So, that there is tremendous appreciation. I have as big of a stake out there in my =4 4"" u} Q v - ! f�. #.3�5. T3"":u }�4 h p,A a.ic,a � vi+f� Pr C'd`Ek ?-�arkr�``J � 'es .ry,t; .. .- mze s -n,-`• .(?, ,<.*�;3�,� t'*if;VSs�%L _ LL .y x '+18�'.,['..z d 7, 7 y el k � +;, d'u� iy$ a. �ti i> 4 W7`f �t $0,,Q,,`� p s� z ry x. 1taa f`kF..„_.� A _,N _ '.,`��"'E.'i? d.1 ,�"��i' Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 27 of 63 home as anybody does and I certainly wouldn't be doing anything that what I thought would devalue that, nor would I do anything that -- out there that I think would devalue the properties of anyone else or be a detriment to the club. This will be a very good thing for the club and what's good for the club is going to be good for all the members that live there, whether they live in a big one acre lot or if they live in a duplex unit or a detached home. Any other questions? Moe: No. Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, any comments? Newton-Huckabay: Shall we close the Public Hearing? Moe: If you'd like to. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing -- just a second -- on AZ 06-053, PP 06-045 and -- do we have the variance open? Okay. Moe: No. That's it. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Is there a second? Commissioners, is there a second to close the Public Hearing. Not as of yet? Zaremba: I'll second. Moe: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I'll second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06- 043 and PP 06-045. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Now, do I have comment from the Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have got a question of staff. Moe: Okay. Borup: And that's on the staff comment on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Is that in the 2000 -- what page is that on? Is that of no -- half acre to acre lots on everything -- well, I'm trying to figure out what that means. It says north of Chinden and within a quarter mile from the rim. Meridian Planning& Zoning 9 November 16, 2006 Page 28 of 63 Watters: Chairman Borup, give me a second -- Borup: North -- I mean north of Chinden -- I mean that goes forever. So, what happens when it gets to a quarter mile -- or when you get within a quarter mile it has to be an acre. So, is that a redundant statement? And so if this is in the Comp Plan, then, does that apply to every project that we are looking at that's north of Chinden? This has never come up before on any of the other projects we have looked at. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may, while Sonya is looking for the page annotation, I can let you know that that section of text was adopted just this last March when the city, in fact, added the area north of Chinden to our area of impact. Borup: Okay. That's what I was wondering. Hood: It's six months old. As far as the verbiage, I did not compose that and I'm not ready to interpret it, but that's how new it is in the Comp Plan and was adopted as we included this area, as well as some larger parcels on the north side of Chinden within our area of impact -- or future land use map. Borup: That's what I was thinking. That's probably why I don't have a copy of that. Well, that's good enough. I wouldn't have anything to reference it to anyway. Zaremba: I was going to say we have dealt with some other parcels that are north of Chinden and I don't remember putting those requirements on them. They may have been before the Comprehensive Plan amendment was -- well, no, the Tree Farm couldn't have been, because it wouldn't have been annexable. So, we didn't put any of these requirements on the Tree Farm, which was a huge piece of property. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may? Moe: Yes. Hood: And Commissioner Zaremba and the rest of the Commissioners, the timing was a little bit odd on that. Tree Farm, actually, was acted on by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the City Council actually taking action on including that area within our area of impact. We held off on that development application getting to them, because we wouldn't -- we'd need to have a future land use map actually adopted by them before they could act on a project in there. There have been some zoning designations within the Tree Farm that have been granted that could have home sites that are -- that aren't -- don't appear to comply with that portion of the text. However, again, they were in process before that text was actually adopted. So, it's -- just the timing of it, it was so new and fresh -- there were policies like that that were going through almost simultaneously with that one and Knight Hills Estate I think were two that were right -- right at the beginning of when we were looking at making these areas part of the city. So, just so -- £ t Nq Z y. 3''" d t'w'a,5�"x s`7 ye } z � Icy l�=T� k MB J .; .. � -( � ,:., €r0 3 n � ,, i t � ,:. v } f S,y�§��v�N��Rd��?i ->` .;. .: .. C Az r'i� ] „��'.; a✓: S Tx }r? �*�"y. � fl u A=".v it 'rL 1 'k3 'iXt yam, M1 �. 5 afs» � r iux$x'NON u Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 29 of 63 Zaremba: Is that the one at Linder and Chinden? Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Yeah. Watters: Also, Commissioner Borup, for clarification, you had asked about the specific area that that Comp Plan goal was speaking about. It was -- it appears to be all the area north of Chinden and west of Spurwing that that applies to that's within our area. Borup: West of Spurwing? Watters: West of Spurwing. Borup: So, then, Spurwing wouldn't be included in that, then? Watters: Well, it reads specifically -- it says the Comp Plan specifically states that residential uses north of Chinden and within a quarter mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes ranging from half to one acre, insuring compatibility with Spurwing Country Club to the east. Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of small lots adjacent to the nonresidential and rim property is encouraged. That's word for word out of the Comp Plan. Borup: And that does sound like west of Spurwing, then. Okay. It sounds that like doesn't apply here, then. Zaremba: If I'm thinking of the right thing, Tree Farm we asked that the properties that they have that would have bordered Spurwing be larger properties, but I think that's the only place we put that requirement. Spurwing has R -8s -- I mean not Spurwing -- Tree Farm has R -8s in it. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- is this a critical piece for you on your decision on whether or not you're still in the favor of this project? This statement. Zaremba: I have flipped a couple of times. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I'm talking specifically to the statement. We could spend a half hour deciding how we wanted to interpret it, but -- Borup: Well, it was one of the reasons -- it was one of the reasons for denial on the staff report, I assume. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 30 of 63 Newton-Huckabay: On the staff report? Borup: But if it doesn't apply, then, I wouldn't want to take that in my consideration. Like you say, there is other things besides that. Moe: Although you made comment, Commissioner Borup, that it didn't -- doesn't apply, is it somewhat noted that way when it was stated that it's as per the lots in Spurwing, as far as size designation of the lots in Spurwing itself. Am I confusing you? I'd probably have to go back through that again. Borup: No. It indicated that -- I think that is a true statement. Anything west of Spurwing is what that's referring to. Watters: Excuse me, Commissioners. The applicant's stating that it's just beyond that quarter mile area. I can't personally verify that. I don't have that information on hand, but -- the applicant is -- Borup: Oh, right. I think I understand what it's saying. Zaremba: This project is -- Borup: Anything -- anything a quarter mile from the rim is in that -- is what this is referring to. Watters: Yes. A quarter mile or less from the rim. Zaremba: And this is more than a quarter mile. Is that what we are saying? Watters: The applicant is saying that it is. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comments on this at this time? Newton-Huckabay: I have a few comments. As I went back over and reread my comments from our last meeting in which I was waffling a little bit on my -- whether or not I supported this, I still believe this is an innovative project. However, I was disappointed to see that some of the water features were removed. I thought that was part of what made it an innovative project, particularly on the north -- north property line. And we also have about four times the amount of testimony this evening against this -- this development, which would leave me to believe that I would need to probably withdraw my support. I think if I lived in a development like this and had so many people against it and had a commission of four people voting in favor of it, I probably would not be very happy. I think it's -- I think it will be a mistake to go with predominately single family homes in this development. I think the fewer buildings that you're going to get with these upscale duplexes and having seen developments like this, I think it would have been a very nice addition to your neighborhood, but I don't feel Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 31 of 63 strongly about that enough to go against staffs recommendation and I will withdraw my support on the project. Moe: Commissioner Zaremba, do you have any comments? Zaremba: Actually, I do. Thank you. Quite a number. As I stated during the first part of this hearing, of which this is the continued part, I came to that meeting feeling that this was inappropriate in this area. The discussion that went on during that part of the hearing led me to feel that I would like to see what conditions of approval would be if we were to put it forward. I live near another golf course in Meridian that does have patio homes. None of them are common wall, they are all separate on lots, but they are smaller lots than what I live on and they are a good part of the community and as we ended the previous part of this hearing before continuing it, I was inclined to support this, since I find that my neighbors are a good part of my community and they have much smaller homes. That seems to work out. Even so, I still feel that this is maybe too much density for these roads and I have to be sensitive to the people that already live there. I mean quite often we have subdivisions that have been built and the applicant comes in for a totally separate piece of property that's maybe next to it and a higher density and we have taken the view that it's nice to have a mix. I feel differently about this one. I view the whole of Spurwing as a whole and I feel it's important to listen to the other property owners who are saying they would happy if this was 35 or 40, but in the 70s is way too much, way too many, way too much traffic and that being the case at the moment I'm inclined to agree with staff to recommend denial. Moe: Commissioner Borup, do you have any comment? Borup: I'm not sure. I think it's a very good project that can add a lot to Spurwing area, but if the neighbors aren't happy with it, they -- I have a hard time supporting it, too. You could end up with something a lot less compatible with something that would meet - - meet all the ordinances and the development -- well, they already do meet all the ordinance and development code. So, I think you're -- we are eliminating a lot of -- a lot of people that it would be appropriate for them to be in that neighborhood, those approaching retirement age and that don't want an acre to take care of, they are being eliminated. Those are the people that are not going to be using the roads during the high volume times, because they are going to stay home until the traffic is less, but, still, I guess -- I guess I have a hard time approving it the way it is. Staff has already stated they don't have any problem with the overall density, just the design and layout of existing property. So, there may be something else the developer could come up with that could satisfy more the neighborhood, I don't know. That's all I have got. Moe: Well, I guess a couple comments I would like to make. I pretty much am in agreement with the other Commissioners' comments. The one thing I was somewhat very surprised at the first meetings we had that there wasn't a lot of attendance and when we went through it, quite frankly, the project is -- looks to me to be somewhat fairly excited project, other than the fact it was a little bit -- the density was a little bit too much as far as I was concerned as well. Tonight through the testimony and whatnot we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 32 of 63 have a little bit of a discrepancy as to who said what and how many units were going to be in this -- in this development and whatnot. I guess I kind of get the sense that if it was 35 to 40 there wouldn't be as much opposition as there is tonight. So, therefore, again, because there is so much opposition I -- I, too, have a real concern of trying to vote for something that the neighbors that live out there are strongly opposed to. So, having said that, can I get a motion from someone tonight? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Go ahead. Borup: Well, I was going to make a motion. I just think I'm -- some of the comments -- Moe: Do you have anymore comment? Borup: What -- 35 units is -- the lots are going to have to be three times as big as they are, which defeats the whole purpose of that design. Either that or it all goes into open space. Okay. Go ahead. Newton- H uckabay: The 20th hole. I don't appear to have a -- Zaremba: Page two of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Is it on page two? Okay. I got it. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045, as presented during the hearing of October 1 gth -- and do I add -- Moe: And continued -- Newton-Huckabay: -- and continued until November 16th, 2006, for the following reasons: Overwhelming resident opposition to the project, continued density is felt to be inappropriate. Borup: Staff didn't say that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's opinion. Zaremba: Well, I think it's germane that the public opinion is people that are on the same property. Newton-Huckabay: Exactly. Zaremba: This is not people from somewhere else. Newton-Huckabay: Is that appropriate for my motion? End of motion. Borup: Second. yr �: is n 2y� III Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 32 of 63 have a little bit of a discrepancy as to who said what and how many units were going to be in this -- in this development and whatnot. I guess I kind of get the sense that if it was 35 to 40 there wouldn't be as much opposition as there is tonight. So, therefore, again, because there is so much opposition I -- I, too, have a real concern of trying to vote for something that the neighbors that live out there are strongly opposed to. So, having said that, can I get a motion from someone tonight? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Go ahead. Borup: Well, I was going to make a motion. I just think I'm -- some of the comments -- Moe: Do you have anymore comment? Borup: What -- 35 units is -- the lots are going to have to be three times as big as they are, which defeats the whole purpose of that design. Either that or it all goes into open space. Okay. Go ahead. Newton- H uckabay: The 20th hole. I don't appear to have a -- Zaremba: Page two of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Is it on page two? Okay. I got it. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045, as presented during the hearing of October 1 gth -- and do I add -- Moe: And continued -- Newton-Huckabay: -- and continued until November 16th, 2006, for the following reasons: Overwhelming resident opposition to the project, continued density is felt to be inappropriate. Borup: Staff didn't say that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's opinion. Zaremba: Well, I think it's germane that the public opinion is people that are on the same property. Newton-Huckabay: Exactly. Zaremba: This is not people from somewhere else. Newton-Huckabay: Is that appropriate for my motion? End of motion. Borup: Second. a .� Z"o 0140S.'�'Y1�rtA,;,t �NOaC t a .� Meridian Planning 9 & Zonin • November 16, 2006 Page 33 of 63 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to deny AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045 as also denied in the staff report. All those in favor of denial? Opposed same sign? The denial has carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, may we take a break? Moe: That was denied. At this time -- Borup: I abstained. Moe: -- we are going to take a 15 minute break and we will reconvene at 9:05. (Recess.) Moe: I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 16th, 2006. Before we get going I'd like to make a point. On the last hearings for the Spurwing Patio Homes, AZ 06-043 and PP 06-045, that Commissioner Borup had abstained in that note and the other three were ayes for denial. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to an R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition by Treehaven, LLC — north of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Ten Mile Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-050, request for annexation and zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, the application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located at 6745 North Black Cat Road. The property is currently zoned RR in Ada County and the applicant is requesting to annex the property with an R-8 medium density residential zoning district, which complies with the Comp Plan designation of medium density residential. No new development is proposed at this time. The subject property is generally located on the west side of North Black Cat Road, approximately a quarter mile north of Chinden Boulevard. This property currently has direct access to North Black Cat Road. This portion of Black Cat that this property has frontage on is only a 20 foot wide street section with 30 feet of right of way that is improved with gravel. No new streets or accesses are proposed or approved with this application. The conceptual street layout proposed in the concept plan has been previously reviewed with the Tree Farm application. The site contains an existing single family home and associated outbuildings. The surrounding property is currently agricultural, but was recently annexed as part of the proposed Tree Farm development with a conceptual development plan. The annexation of the surrounding Tree Farm property resulted in 001ONs ik $�'�-, 0 ' �'M -.'.' 4AC is `iF �k^^Y � # - i ,• s.. ," R3�, 7'�X2V �'�, x �' �, 6 � y L.t, x zs ,+zt .�k, e,.�#k t. `e! .Y �gs� �.yi,wg ''a"�v4c.viXr'L e 3. ¢ Ps xi ?p�<n.#.'h #4,9?�tF, S � §"00 d.�i�;?� P i ry «; . r `J:9C�'7�^'n 3 a J ` R" "! `y i, to RAP, Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 34 of 63 the property -- the subject property being an enclave. If you look on the overhead here, here is an aerial of the property and the property to the northeast and west was zoned R-8 and the property to the south was zoned C -C. The subject property is designated on the conceptual development plan to contain lifestyle housing, which consists of townhomes, assisted living, paired housing, and cluster courtyards. These uses are permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district. The property currently has no sewer available to it. It's master planned for sewer to the future North Black Cat Trunk, which will not be available until late 2007 or early 2008. There is no City of Meridian water main currently available to the site. United Water and the City of Meridian are currently in negotiation that would allow United Water to provide service to this site. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but will be required upon development of the property. A development agreement modification is also requested to incorporate this property and the existing development agreement for the Tree Farm. All conditions and terms of the existing development agreement shall apply to the subject property. Also, I want to just note here that the subject property is this little piece right here. The blue outline that you see all around the development is the boundary of the proposed Tree Farm development. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the applicant and stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Do the Commissioners have any questions? Okay. Would the applicant, please, come forward. O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derick O'Neill. I live at 191 East Twin Willow, Boise, Idaho. And I'm here representing Tree Haven, LLC, tonight. And I have read and reviewed the staff comments and I am in agreement with them. I'd stand for questions. Moe: Any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you very much. Well, no one has signed up for -- to come forward. If there is anyone here that would like to speak on this, feel free to come up. Seeing none in the audience -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-050. Borup: And? Moe: That's it. Did I get a second? Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-050. Those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion is carried. Fis Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 35 of 63 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: I don't know if we need any discussion, but I, for one, am glad that they worked it out with the Rabehls and I think this needs to be moved forward. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: It's a shame it couldn't have been worked out when the original applicant came through. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I see heads nodding. In that case, I'm ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Please do. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-050 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16th, 2006, with the modifications to the recorded development agreement that are recommended in the staff report. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of AZ 06-050. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects — 1760 S. Meridian Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects — 1800 S. Meridian Road: Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Item CUP 06-035 and CUP 06-036 with the intent only to continue them to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 4th, 2007. Zaremba: So moved. �r Meridian Planning & Zoning ' November 16, 2006 '# Page 36 of 63 x Borup: Second. µwfi Newton-Huckabay: Second. t � s Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 06-035 and CUP 06-036 concerning Southern Springs Buildings A and B to the regularly scheduled Planning and m Zoning meeting of January 4th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. r Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC — NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes > t Avenue: 't Moe: At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing CUP 06-032, requesting for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial shopping center for Fairview Lakes for the sole ix purpose to continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor signify by -- Zaremba: So moved. Details. So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Moe: Thank you. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing CUP 06-032 to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. ' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. t n qy. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request .,,.� for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place b, i' Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: n Item 15: Continued Public Hearin from October 5, 2006: PP 06-043 Request 9 q for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a s proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, =� LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: =jx Moe: I would like now to open the continued public hearings on RZ 06-007 and PP 06- ' = k 043 on Danville Place Subdivision and hear the staff comments. ti h; i " t a i c terra K gg h ��,y keK4 �. n 5 t - VAN �71741 $. 1 '1 ^h. .''t `piE4�-i *•i w.ySg 5k a''f ktx �. #� fi�� Q _ 43 r * pol'i" #aSc 4P g, r' v OT ON h> t Z Ca i Biy Fut 0 u, ti I .,.y"+,e�. .y}'v 1 dk5�3jc # yK sy ��`'wN*u„ .. n,r'''e_"y�".'34 .e , T 3 ::'.s' t;f;y�� i'jf�*'i, ? a ^i4..,.` N�n ,Wt. �5.^.k '` Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 37 of 63 Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Danville Place Subdivision. Danville Place is generally located 500 feet north of Chert' Lane and a third of a mile east of Linder Road. To the east there is the -- show on the Powerpoint here. The Deerfield Subdivision along here, which is zoned R- 8. To the north and west are residential parcels of one and one half acres in size under the jurisdiction of the city. However, they are not organized within a platted subdivision. This application was scheduled to be heard at the October 5th, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At that time the applicant proposed rezoning of 2.28 acres from R-4 to R-8 and preliminary plat approval of eight single family residential lots. Staff had recommended denial of the application. The applicant has now submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is more compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. The revised preliminary plat eliminates one build -able lot and fast forward to there. It proposes a public street which connects Northwest 11th Avenue and Leisure Lane. Northwest 11th Avenue will serve as the primary access to the subdivision. Here is Northwest 11th Avenue. Here is Deerfield Sub over here. And this is the proposed Danville Sub. This is the proposed public street stub that will connect to Leisure Lane, which runs along the western boundary of the property. Staff does believe that the best way for this property is to develop in conjunction with other one acre parcels that also utilize Leisure Lane, such as the ones I'm pointing at right now. However, the applicant has provided the public street connection which does allow for the opportunity for redevelopment of the area in the future. There are several issues staff would like the Commission to note. First, the five proposed 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lots which front Northwest 11 th Avenue do not provide an appropriate transition to the one to one half acre parcels to the north and west and the 8,000 square foot lots to the east and the south. Staff believes that at minimum 7,000 square foot lots would better suit the area. Second, the sole access to Cherry Lane for the two large lots within the proposed subdivision is by way of Leisure Lane, which is a private street. Per the UDC, single family developments are not to take access from private streets. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed to construct a private street, West Danville Drive, to provide connectivity between Deerfield Manor Subdivision and those properties who utilize Leisure Lane. The street connection will provide the neighboring properties with access to public streets, thus, providing the opportunity for their future redevelopment. Staff believes that this provision of a public street is necessary for development of this property to be in the best interest of the city. Third, the applicant and the applicant's neighbors share interest in Leisure Lane through a recorded easement. If approved the applicant should be required to record a document which releases all interest that the subject parcels have in Leisure Lane. Additionally, the two large lots within this proposed development should be required to take access from West Danville Drive and not Leisure Lane. Borup: Why weren't they told that last time? Hess: Despite these concerns, staff does find that the zoning proposal is compatible with the future land use map designation for the site and is generally harmonious with the surrounding area and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Meridian Planning & Zoning e November 16, 2006 Page 38 of 63 staff recommends approval of the Danville project as long as all conditions of approval are met. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Okay. Staff -- or any questions of staff at this time? Borup: Yes. You're saying you're recommending approval with all conditions, so that would mean 7,000 square foot lots. Hess: Correct. That is one of the conditions of approval. Borup: Okay. How much of a staff report did we have last time? Hess: We had a staff report -- Commissioner Borup, we did have a staff report, but it recommended denial and, therefore, there were no conditions of approval. Borup: Okay. That's what I was trying to remember. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Whitehead: Hello and good evening. I actually prepared a slide presentation for everyone this evening. Just for the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead and I'm here on behalf of Briggs Engineering and Danville Homes. My office address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And tonight we are in front of you concerning what was supposed to be kind of a small in -fill and has kind of taken onto its own much bigger than we had ever predicted. If we could start the slide slow. Great. Tonight we are requesting a rezone from R-4 to R-8, with a total of seven lots. Two would be the existing homes and five would come off of 11 th Avenue. It's not working? I think you just click over -- I kind of want to go through what we originally had proposed and how all the changes have taken place. Originally, we had just a normal plat with -- it was -- there was going to be six lots off the back coming off of 11th Avenue, with the two existing homes as they are taking access off Leisure Lane. That was our first original submittal. Well, the city had some issues with it and we came back and we talked to the fire department and we are like, okay, we will provide a fire -- a 20 foot fire emergency access at this point with bollards, bringing sewer and water down and water up for fire flow. Well, we submitted that and there was issues again. So, we kind of had to go back to the drawing board having to go back to ACHD and the City of Meridian, kind of coming to a compromise of what would be our best solution. The City of Meridian felt that a public road would be the best solution for this area, for any future redevelopment, and the issue being was that due to Leisure Lane being a private road. The private road has basically been the major part of the issue for one time believing that the city wants to eliminate Leisure Lane completely. They'd rather have a public road. And so this is going to be providing a stub road for future redevelopment and whatnot. So, that gives us our basis now. Well, we preferred having the 20 foot emergency ingress - egress, layout number two, for several reasons. One, it will be improving Leisure Lane for that -- it's going to be providing an emergency access turnaround that they currently do not have. I don't know if you have ever been out on the road, but it's not in good Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 39 of 63 40 shape and there is not an adequate fire turnaround. Two, we are providing city services for this area, so we would be stubbing up here for future connection when these other lots do re -subdivide. Now, while these lots are a little bit smaller, our overall density still is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan. And so that is what we are presenting this evening. I think there is some neighbors -- there is going to be some concerns with the public road. It seems like they would rather have a 20 foot emergency access with bollards as well. So, I will stand for any questions that you may have. Moe: Does the Commission have any questions at this time? Newton-Huckabay: Ms. Whitehead, are you not willing, then, to make the lots 7,000 feet? Whitehead: Well, I think their overall compatibility is fine at this point. We would have to talk to the developer. I mean -- and let him speak and answer that question, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Again, we have quite a few folks signed up here. If, in fact, you have a spokesperson amongst you to speak that would be great. Can I get a show of hands that this gentleman would be speaking for, then? Okay. Walters: My name is Allen Walters, I live at 1720 Northwest 11 th Avenue. I'm a little confused, because at the last meeting we didn't like that proposal at all and at this meeting I am not entirely sure what you are proposing, because your staff seems to be proposing a road and I think there was five units across the front of Northwest 11th and two on the other side and a public road and this lady -- she's proposing something quite different I think. An emergency road. And I have to admit I'm a little confused. So, what is it -- what is it we are being proposed? Borup: She said she had originally wanted an emergency road. What's being proposed is what we see here. A public road accessing -- Walters: Okay. It's a public road and five across on -- Borup: Five lots. Five new lots. Walters: Five across on Northwest 11th Avenue and two behind; is that correct? Borup: The two existing -- yeah. The two existing houses would stay. Walters: And the other road, the private road, is going to become public? Borup: No. Walters: Or we are not sure? I have to admit that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 40 of 63 Borup: This would have no affect on the private road. Walter: Okay. I have to admit that given what you have just said, from the way your staff has proposed it, I really don't have any terribly objections. I will say one thing, though, there is so much traffic on Cherry Lane right now that I wish somebody could do something about it, but with that many homes being in there it's not going to be a big factor, so -- if you folks disagree with me, it's time to get up now, because I don't really have a lot of objections given what they are proposing. Moe: Well, hang on. We will go down through the list. Okay. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may ask a clarification of staff before we go on. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: And this refers to -- I forgot the name of the private road. Anyhow, the private -- Newton-Huckabay: Leisure Lane. Zaremba: Leisure Lane. Thank you. The requirement on this applicant is that they abandon their interest in Leisure Lane. Is it the plan that as other development happens on the other lots, they will be asked to abandon them as well? We are just setting that up so that it can happen? Hess: That is correct, Commissioner. Zaremba: Okay. So, Leisure Lane will never be a public street. Eventually the plan will be that all access -- if anybody west and north of here is going to develop, their access would be on the new public road. And at some point all of Leisure Lane will be abandoned. Borup: If everybody develops. Zaremba: If everybody develops. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: All right. Anita Disney. Okay. She -- from the audience she has spoken. Next on the list Ortiz is the last name. He's spoken for as well. No? Okay. Come right up. Ortiz: Good evening. My name is Elsa Ortiz and I live on 1744 Northwest 11th Avenue. We have no idea what kind of houses are being built. If it's two story homes I will be Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 41 of 63 definitely against it. And how will this affect our property, the value of our properties. I mean these are smaller lots than the others and we haven't seen anything about houses, what they look like or anything in that area, so I'm -- as it stands I want to see something more than this. Thank you. Hess: Commission Members, if you will look at the PowerPoint presentation, the applicant Sabrina has provided some elevations -- or proposed elevations for the smaller lots within the subdivision. Moe: Is there any other other than this one here? Okay. Next on the list is Lori -- is it Hiatt. Hiatt: I guess one of the -- Moe: Would you, please, state your -- Hiatt: Excuse me. My name is Lori Hiatt at 1768 Northwest 11th. And I guess another concern that we have is with this three that are right there together, they are going to be much smaller homes and, again, is that going to depreciate the value of our homes right across the street and are they going to become just run down real fast, because they will be inexpensive rental homes. Thank you. Borup: Question, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Yes, please. Borup: Ma'am, can you tell me about what the size of the homes are on 11th? Do you know what the square footage is or -- Hiatt: Ours is 1,628. 1,628 square feet. Borup: And that's about representative most of them on the street there? Hiatt: They are all about the same size. Borup: Okay. Hiatt: They are all about the same size -- Borup: Did you notice that these homes were 1,900 to 2,000 feet and above? Hiatt: Well, it says number six and seven, didn't it? I didn't see -- Borup: Well, I mean the ones that we saw. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 42 of 63 Hiatt: But, see, we are talking about the first three, though, too. Aren't they going to be quite a bit smaller, because there is going to be three packed into that first lot. And, then, two in the second lot. Newton-Huckabay: There is Lots 3, 4, and 5. Borup: Right there. Newton-Huckabay: 2,000, 1,700 square feet. Borup: So, the three would be over 2,000 feet. Hiatt: Okay. I missed that. I apologize. Okay. Thank you. Moe: Next on the list is Janet Sanchez. Sanchez: My name is Janet Sanchez and I reside at 1929 Leisure Lane and my husband and I did submit a letter to the city in regards to this, so I don't know if you have a copy of that. The letter was written before the revision to the plan. We are totally against the development, but we do have some concerns about it. One of those has to do with the irrigation that currently runs across the edge of those lots and I know that this is addressed in the staffs report and I believe the developer is addressing it as well, but that irrigation water feeds to our acre, which is at the end of Leisure Lane, which we use to maintain pasture for our livestock, so one of our concerns is that a requirement be that that irrigation be maintained at the current volume and access, so that we can continue to irrigate our acreage, as we did today. Moe: That is a definite and has to be met. Zaremba: That's a state law. Sanchez: Our second concern has to do with the public roadway. We have serious concerns and are opposed to putting a public roadway from 11th to Leisure Lane, because Leisure is a private lane and it is an easement through everyone's property and we share the responsibility and the cost maintaining Leisure Lane. Putting a public roadway access from 11th to Leisure Lane is going to allow traffic onto our private roadway for which we cant' all of the requirement for maintaining the road. The road is only paved part way down, it's gravel the rest of the way, and as you will see in the staff report, it is a substandard road, it's not of high quality, it does break down easily, we have already experienced problems on the end of Leisure Lane where there are two commercial businesses, both of which are now taking access from Leisure Lane. That portion of the road deteriorates quickly, gets potholes and there is a traffic issue trying to get on and off of there. With this road access from 11th across to Leisure Lane, we are going to see additional traffic coming across there, even if that's not the intention, because people will use it to cut across to avoid the traffic on Cherry and we see people now who come down our road just because they make a wrong turn or because they Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 43 of 63 want to see what's down there. And that traffic is going to deteriorate our road and we will be responsible for maintaining it, which is quite costly. So, we would prefer not to see a public road that allows any access onto our private road. We are not totally opposed to the original emergency access, as long as people can't get through and take access onto our private road. The other thing that was in our letter is just that if it is approved, we'd like to see a requirement that any of the construction activity be done only from 11th Street for those same reasons, in that construction equipment will deteriorate our road and cause decay. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Your comment on the increased traffic, does the north end of Leisure Lane tie into any other areas? Sanchez: No, it does not. Borup: It's a dead end, isn't it? Sanchez: Yes. Borup: Wouldn't another access decrease the traffic on Leisure Lane, because now there is another access to Cherry Lane and those people that live north of this street can go onto 11th, rather than even using Leisure Lane? Sanchez: Possibly, but that's only about three residences and our concern is that people who don't live on Leisure Lane will use the road to cut back and forth -- Borup: Cut from where to where? Sanchez: From 11th and drive down Leisure Lane, tum on Cherry onto Leisure and go down and cut across to get onto 11 th or come through that way getting back and forth to the dentist office, that kind of thing. We see traffic on Leisure Lane now where people who are coming and going to the dentist's office and instead of -- if they -- especially if they park on the street, which causes a traffic issue on Leisure, they will leave, they will drive down Leisure Lane, turn around in our driveways, that type of thing. So, if there is access between there, I think there is a pretty good chance that people coming and going from the dentist's office would drive further down Leisure Lane, so that they can use that access back and forth to 11th, rather than staying on the end and out onto Cherry. Borup: That clarifies that. Thank you. Moe: Next is Bob Wallette; is that correct? Wallette: My name is Robert Wallette, 1838 Leisure Lane, the triangle piece of property right there. The proposed road that they have now was not the original. It was an Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 44 of 63 emergency and as far as -- it was to be for an emergency exit or for fire with barriers up. Also, I see no reason to put a road in there, other than making -- your map doesn't really show it that correct, but right against Cherry Lane there is the dentist -orthodontist office and everything that's there, their curbing and sidewalk comes out in blocks, so, consequently, everybody coming in there -- there is no entrance off of Cherry Lane, they go in Leisure Lane and, then, tum. We have got the traffic that comes up there, that's only across that end up there is approximately 170 feet of road that they want to put in. The only thing this does -- all down through there that makes people come down now trying to tum around. They are finally getting wise and not coming down there, but if you open -- put a road in there, you're going to have more traffic on our street and like Mrs. Sanchez says, that's a private street in there, we are the ones that pay for the repair and everything else. Now, if you put main traffic running around through there, that's going to tear it up to the cost of us and as far as if anybody wants to know about irrigation, that is going to be a pressurized system by the contractor. If that goes through, that goes with it that's in there. And I don't see -- originally what I was told where the access is conceded when we made the deal and everything, there was -- I conceded there wasn't one in there, but I conceded to 20 and now to go for another 40 feet in there, you're dropping down the price of my existing house that's in there now, which is going to cut down, you know, on land value more, you're going to put more traffic in there, and you're just bringing my house right back down to nothing, when it's going up. Or was going up. The only thing that's going up on it right now is just the taxes. That's going to make it really infeasible for anybody -- whether I sell out or the next person or whoever comes in, if I should sell out. I have no intentions of selling out. I just think that the only -- for 170 feet I don't see why you would have a 170 foot long road that goes to nowhere. If they are going to access the rest of your property up there -- thinking of the future people, the people -- if somebody wants to come in there, we will just say bulldoze all them houses down, put a big housing tract and apartments in there. That's pretty unfeasible. I don't know of anybody on that street in there wants to move or enough people want to move -- I guess if there is enough money, but, then, you're making it a little too cost effective for any contractor to come in and do that. It also cuts down on the size of the contractor's lots that they are putting in in there, which -- Borup: Actually, they got larger. Wallette: Pardon? Borup: They actually got larger, because they eliminated one. Wallette: I'm sorry, I didn't -- Borup: The lots got larger. Wallette: Okay. But you also have -- if you get the larger lots -- now you have got it up there -- this is the proposed one there, for a total of five, okay, they have already cut it down, then. Because my original one they showed six in there. Also, they were supposed to put the taps in and we were to stay on our -- everybody there on Leisure Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 45 of 63 Lane is on a well -- was to stay on the well system that's there and the sewer system that we all, we all have septic tanks in there. Now, if I'm going to become -- or Mr. Weeks is to come into this and if it becomes Danville Subdivision, do the two owners that are selling the property there become part of Danville Subdivision and automatically go into the city sewer and water and the taps and all of that? The original plan was that excess or -- at the top up there was to be for a tap to be put in if anybody wanted it in there. There is no mention as to this becoming a city street. I also have not received anything in the mail from -- anything on this until I got down here. Mr. Weeks got a plot plan from the original one that we had. And since then we have got nothing, like meetings or anything else. I happened to call the agent that works for the contractor to find out about meetings being cancelled and everything else. Nothing was notified. Everybody's got all of these letters of what's to be done and what's the new pursuant act and I have received nothing. That really throws everything down the tube if somebody is selling property and one of the people in there is supposed to be getting some money and all of a sudden you find out, hey, I'm in the city limits, I lost everything, you're buying all these new sewers and taps and everything else. I guess that's about all I have got to say, then. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wallette. Moe: Hold on a second. Borup: I did have some questions, sir. Wallette: Okay. Borup: It sounds like you're unaware of this road going in to the north. I'm trying to understand property ownership here. At this point you still own this property here. Wallette: Right. Borup: Now, have you already sold this or it's optioned -- Wallette: No. It's pursuant to the sale. Borup: Okay. So, they have not contacted you about this road that that would take some of your property? Wallette: I heard that tonight when I come in. Borup: That was the first time? Wallette: Yes. Borup: So, it sounds like you're not in agreement to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 46 of 63 Wallette: No, not at all. Borup: Okay. I -- Wallette: Or becoming part of the city. Borup: You weren't made aware of that either? Wallette: Not of that either. Borup: That's problematic in my mind, because that's what all this was doing was making this -- Wallette: I received none of that. Borup: -- making this a part of the -- you would have to agree to the road going in also. Wallette: Right. Whether it's a road or whether it's a -- actually, I have already -- originally there wasn't anything in there and, then, they come through and said they are going to have to run a tap, city sewer and water from -- Borup: Yeah. I understood that. You had mentioned that. Wallette: -- over there. I says, okay, I'll consider that. Borup: It sounds like there just hasn't been very good communication with you between the proposed buyer. All right. Thank you. Wallette: Thank you very much. Moe: Next on the list is Margaret Wallette. M. Wallette: I'm Margaret Wallette, 1838 Leisure Lane. I am not going to be part of a subdivision. I do not like the road. I have children, I have grandchildren that play out there, I am not going to put them in danger with a road running at the end of my property. It will not go. I'm very adamant about it. It will not fly. Thank you. Moe: Next is Dan Lancaster. Lancaster: Good evening. My name is Dan Lancaster, I live at 3192 Daybreak in Meridian. I am known as the developer. When we originally submitted this it was under direction from meetings -- pre -app meetings that we had with P&Z department and so our original submittal for six lots was what we were given the direction for and may have -- as always, there may have been some misinterpretation as far as what we were actually told, but we all heard it, so -- anyway, the subdivision changed from six lots to five lots through the latest recommendation and the process of denial from the previous Meridian Planning & Zoning • 0 November 16, 2006 Page 47 of 63 go around. At five lots the project became less economical, much more difficult for it to pencil on a pro forma and, yet, we felt as though we were going to go ahead and go through with five lots. Now, the P&Z department is recommending 7,000 square foot lots and if you look at the three southern lots, they are currently about 5,600 square feet on the lower two and about 5,900 square feet on that middle lot or which I believe is referred to as Lot 3. It's not real clear. And, then, the upper two lots on the north end are about 6,800 square feet, somewhere in there. The two northern lots come the closest to meeting the requested 7,000 square feet, but if we were to redesign this again, it would be very obvious that we would net about four lots and, then, the project won't pencil. So, our request is that -- of course, this is kind of like our last -- our last go around as far as the request that we are making for this submittal. One of the questions that was asked was whether our project would reduce the property values in that area and to answer that I have -- I have been an upper end builder in the Boise valley for 16 years, approximately, since 1990, and have always been building in the upper end and I do build high quality product and this would definitely be the kind of product that would increase the values in the area and, of course, you can see that the square footage is larger than what is in that area right now. Do you have any other questions? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Lancaster, I'm curious on the comments that were made by the Wallettes in regards to the road on the north end and -- Lancaster: The original plan called for an emergency access and turnaround for fire equipment that would come in from the Leisure Lane access and there would be bollards that would prohibit vehicular traffic from 11 th Avenue to Leisure Lane. Since that time and since that recommendation for denial from the P&Z department, we went back and redesigned it and submitted it and we had another pre -app meeting -- what was it, in October, in which the P&Z department gave us an evaluation. I just received that evaluation on November 14th. Now, when it was published I'm not sure, but I believe Briggs Engineering may have gotten it a few days before that. So, any communication that has been given to the Wallettes has been in terms of letting them know that the city was requesting more footage out of the north end of their property. They at one time were willing to give up 20 feet, but now to find out that now they are being asked for another 20 and to turn that access into a public road, I can understand where they are coming from. Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe a question and a little bit of a statement. I'm comfortable with the number of lots you have based on the designs that you proposed and those footages and maybe -- maybe alleviate some concerns of a higher minimum square footage could answer that if you're comfortable with that. You know, 1,700 foot minimum or something. But it looks to me like your main problem is you have got one of your property owners is not going to consent to this. Lancaster: Well -- and it's understandable. bj. "ry ',x '�'� �14 •s Iv 3M .?^4 1 p ¢ p 4 k+N.�' �' 8Ile # s ,gg i ! 48% -k 1,10 �{�' Meridian Planning & Zoning M November 16, 2006 Page 48 of 63 Borup: And that kind of defeats the whole project right there, doesn't it? Lancaster: It does. Borup: And, hopefully, you have got a contingent clause in there based on city approval or something. Lancaster: That is correct. Borup: Okay. I mean, yeah, if one of the property owners doesn't want to comply, I'd say they don't need to sell it. Lancaster: They have the right to withdraw their sale. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: I do have a question, just a clarification of the numbers. Currently existing there are two lots; is that correct? Lancaster: Currently existing are the two homeowners, the Wallettes and the Weeks. The Wallettes own the north end parcel and the Weeks own the south end parcel. Zaremba: And both of those properties currently -- they would be bordered by 11th Avenue on the east side of Leisure -- Lancaster: That is correct. And those are currently vacant -- Zaremba: They go all the way through. Lancaster: -- vacant areas of their lot and they have combined in an effort to sell the backsides, if you will, of both of their properties and combine it into one sale, so that something can be done with it economically. Zaremba: The number I was trying to get to, though, is, then, out of those two lots you're actually going to make seven lots. Lancaster: Yes. The two existing and the five new. That is correct. And, in essence, that two point -- is it 2.2 acres -- or 2.28 acres, the total of the combined lots. Borup: .28. Moe: It's 2.28. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 49 of 63 Lancaster: Right. And we were requesting an R-8 zoning in order to meet the lot size requirement, where we knew that for the overall use of the property we wouldn't even be still reaching the R-4. We are, actually, like R-3.5. Zaremba: Thank you. Lancaster: Okay. Any other questions? Moe: Next on the list -- Ratcliff is the last name. Ratcliff: I'm Sherry Ratcliff and I live at 1926 Leisure Lane and I don't have any objections to the access road. I do have to the public road. And I would like to see them keep -- if they are going to build some houses there, keep it single level, because my backyard is right next to there and if they build a two story house I'm going to have no privacy at all. They can look right back into my windows. So, that's the only objection I've had. Borup: So, you would rather have a smaller home there, then? Ratcliff: Yes, I would. Borup: Okay. Ratcliff: One that's not going to look over the fence into my backyard. Borup: I mean but if you go to a single story you're cutting the size in half. Ratcliff: Well, whatever. Borup: Okay. Ratcliff: I like to live, you know, comfortably, too. But I don't want to have to keep my shades pulled all the time either. Borup: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Gary Weeks. Weeks: Yes. I'm one of the homeowners. Gary Weeks. Moe: Would you, please, state your name and address, please. Weeks: Gary Weeks at 1812 Leisure Lane. Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning 9 & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 51 of 63 Borup: It wouldn't go away until everybody agreed to it. It's going to stay there as long as people are living there. Weeks: Yeah. Well, there will always be somebody living there I'm sure. Zaremba: Well, in the current usage. Weeks: Unless somebody bought the whole place. Zaremba: The current uses. Weeks: So, if -- if the subdivision went like it is and we would only have the fire access, then, essentially, you would do nothing to Leisure Lane right now, until at a later date. Borup: Well, I can say from my standpoint if there was not a public road I would never vote for approval of any other redevelopment of any property in there. It would have to stay like it is -- Weeks: The only reason we was selling off our properties, really, for both of us was more for a hardship on our behalfs and also it would finish out 11th Street as a subdivision road. Borup: So, are you in favor of this project that -- Weeks: I'm in favor of 11th Street being finished out, because we would have sidewalks and curbs and -- Borup: Right. I mean as the project is proposed are you in favor of it? Weeks: I'm not in favor of the road going across, no. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Weeks: That's all I have to say. Moe: That was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to make comment come forward. Okay. No one else. Can I get the applicant to come back up. Whitehead: Again for the record Sabrina Whitehead, 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. And just for conclusion, you know, I thought we made a great compromise, we wanted to have staffs support. It looks like from the neighbors from the Weeks, our preexistent with their -- the 20 foot emergency access looks like it would be the best overall solution for this area and to keep everyone happy. Unfortunately, I don't know if the city -- unfortunately, the city wouldn't be supporting that, so I guess it comes down to you guys to decide if you were willing to go back to the 20 foot prior emergency egress easement in comparison to having the public road and that's my conclusion. Meridian Planning & Zoning • November 16, 2006 Page 52 of 63 Moe: Any questions? Zaremba: Not really. I just would make a comment -- as far as I'm concerned without the public road it's a no go. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Lancaster is wanting to know if he can speak again. Moe: Yes. Lancaster: So, I'm stuck on a logical question. If, as I hear, that the Commission would not vote to convert that private street to a public street -- Borup: We don't have -- that's not something we can vote on anyway. Zaremba: We don't want Leisure Lane. Lancaster: Okay. Now -- okay. So, I need clarification. You don't want Leisure Lane or you will never do anything with it the way it exists now? I'm not -- Borup: Well, it doesn't meet public road standards. Lancaster: Right. I understand that. Zaremba: The one I'm talking about is West Danville Drive. That needs to be a public road. Lancaster: That does need to be a public -- see, that's -- okay. That was my question. If Leisure Lane would never be changed from a private street to a public street and those private residences that currently access their property from Cherry Lane onto Leisure Lane, then, why is it that there has to be this 150, 170 -foot public road to access that property? Borup: In my mind it has to do with the name of this Commission is planning. That's one of the things we are supposed to be doing is planning for the future. Lancaster: Okay. Borup: I mean if nothing ever changed, this project wouldn't even be before us, they would all stay as acre lots. Lancaster: Right. Borup: But things do change and if that access isn't there, the next project that comes before us, what can you do on it? .'v^fh}h# Shy t } 6 e 'Meridian QN: Planning & Zoning a ., i. November 16, 2006 _. Page 53 of 63 ` Lancaster: Okay. Borup: Can you answer me on the dentist office down there, does -- maybe you're not familiar with it. There is no access to Cherry Lane from the dentist office? yam., Lancaster: There are two accesses onto Leisure Lane, both on the south and west portion -- ry Borup: And they are accessing that by the right that they were property owners and they owned part of that when -- Lancaster: I don't know. Borup: That's what I remember. t Lancaster: They have got two -- k Borup: Okay. I think that -- I remember when that came before us. I think that's -- that's correct, they bought the property, so they also bought ownership in that private 7,. road. Ak Lancaster: Okay. I believe that there -- this is their dental office building right there and they have got a parking lot to the rear that is accesses onto Leisure Lane and they have got this parking lot in the front that has access to Leisure Lane. Borup: Okay. That probably was a question that didn't need to be answered, because % it didn't really pertain. Sony. So, with that said, what is your -- what is your preference? y A f " Lancaster: What is my preference? ' Borup: You have got two property owners that are not in favor of the project. Lancaster: Well, I believe that the project would go through if we reverted back to the k_ 20 foot easement and turnaround for emergency access, but it sounds to me like the Wallettes are really not even interested in selling their -- the rear of their parcel with the design the way it is. fi F, current HI Baird: Mr. Chair -- Moe: Yes. F Baird: -- and Members of the Commission, we had a situation similar to this a few weeks back and I think at that time it was either your preference or the Council's preference to send the developer out to talk with the property owners, so that they have ' the proper communication and are all on the same page before acting to either deny or approve. City Council isn't going to want this coming forward on any kind of action z" 22' .x5yf'"2`y r fi t'x e s % 's f of b5"fi Si^ h fiyye. dry: Q a¢ % d = k ? vh"$`$�}�.'u^:' Ai S t {.._ i' 3 4 ya w.f. • >' 1 y, Ra h 1i;3 f r +i'1+�'F k:RF .'"s.. ervta -.x r7yz„`s.t'Q<?z``?*''k'•r,o-N`��,K.l{ .S' A, '. q F..3ry +'^r!Mt ft k t:,`t�.'�i `sziF's�Ui , p`.i+^tx} , t 1 `sr`i'ikKi m, hu.36 ,ra` �. rte,"4. f $ i fV `}.iAJsl'SdfiS'',fi711� i - h 9�� 3 x Meridian Planning & Zoning s ' November 16, 2006 K, ,: Page 54 of 63 without having this resolved. So, I would make a recommendation that you consider r either putting this to the end of the agenda to see where they are or continuing it for � n " another date, but -- Borup: That's the direction I was going. Baird: Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I didn't want to jump on your, but -- Borup: No. That's fine. Baird: It's pretty apparent. Zaremba: In that line, I would first suggest continuing it to the end of this same meeting w: � � tonight. We have one other project to talk about. That does not give them a whole lot n, time to talk but of about, -- » .� Borup: Would you rather do that or -- _. Zaremba: If there is no resolution, then, we continue it to another meeting. s Lancaster: Well -- I mean it's up to you guys. Moe: I think my concern is is that there -- you know, there is not a lot of time and would be a little bit concerned that they would be able to make some decisions tonight in order to this thing resolved. „ get Borup: Well, I think it's -- in my mind -- well, not speaking for the rest of the Commissioners, it's probably pretty black and white. The Danville Drive stays, so it's either yes or no, with that -- with the project as -- so, maybe it can be. Would you rather try to take some time while we do the next hearing or continue it until January? That A would be your -- I mean -- a.. Lancaster: Well -- boy. Borup: You can go out in the -- you know, down the hallway or something and -- a Lancaster: Yeah, why don't we do that at least tonight and, then, we can at least make r decision on where we are from here. a going „P a Moe: Okay. I ,P Newton-Huckabay: Continuation or -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the hearing on RZ 06-007 and PP 06- 043, both relating to Danville Place Subdivision, to the end of our agenda tonight. Ph r' m{ kFx s IT e �"p 3 ^€ i `N *i' k?'i t',y r 9. Y +vi i"' .r•'t a i`M r lh P Y a '' •.l s k*NMF ,�a91 , .. , , , .n,„R3 J. `' ;YI,Y�.yX.`Al tN*.3 A i K IJsd�� y- x Y,3 z .'c 114 { L 2' c wp xihry! S 4 -. i F •F Ila Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 55 of 63 Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 06-007 and PP 06-043 for Danville Place to the end of the P&Z meeting of November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. It will be continued until the end of the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Baird: Mr. Chair, since we are near the end of our agenda and everybody who wants to testify is in the room, I'm going to suggest we go ahead and close the doors. I don't think any open meeting hearing matters will be violated. I'll do that. Moe: Although you are going to do that, can we possibly get them to go off to the side, though. Baird: Sure. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC — 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing` on AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051 for Larkspur South Subdivision and hear the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Larkspur South Subdivision. This is an annexation and zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT, which is Ada County, to R-8, medium density residential, and preliminary plat approval for 67 single family residential lots and four common lots. The site is located on the east side of Meridian Road approximately a third of a mile north of Victory Road on Lots 5 and 6 of the Edmonds Subdivision. The Edmonds Subdivision is a county approved plat that was recorded in the 1970s. To the east there is phase three of the existing Meridian Greens Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the north Larkspur Subdivision No. 2, zoned R-8. And the south a recently approved subdivision Bitterbrush Point, zoned R-4. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 67 residential lots between 4,000 square feet and approximately 36,000 square feet. The primary access for the development would be from an existing public street, Edmonds Court, which connects with Meridian Road. And this is Edmonds Court right here. There are stub street connections provided both by Larkspur No. 2 to the north and Bitterbrush Point, which will serve as alternate access to the subdivision. The applicant has provided over one acre of the property is open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the proposed common area is provided along Meridian Planning & Zoning � s November 16, 2006 Page 56 of 63 the Kennedy Lateral which will be tiled to serve as a multi -use pathway. The first issue highlighted in the staff report for the Commission is that the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which designates the area as low density residential. However, per the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, the Commission and Council can consider a step up in residential densities on a case-by- case basis without the requirement of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To approve this development a step up in density from low to medium is required. Second, staff has not received commenting on the project from ACRD. However, staff is aware that the applicant has been working closely with ACHD as the updated plans do reflect a road layout acceptable to both parties. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission determine whether or not it is appropriate to forward on the subject application to City Council without first receiving and reviewing comments from ACHD. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of the Commission to staff? Would the applicant come forward, please. Sargent: Commissioners, Ron Sargent, 1883 North Wildwood Street. I guess the first thing to address is the -- I have, actually, received a copy of the ACHD staff report and I guess I was surprised to hear that the city staff has not received that. So, I guess -- we spent quite a bit of time with ACHD and the primary changes that we made is that originally our plan was to bring this road up to this location and, then, put an intersection and, then, come down to Edmonds Court. The highway district didn't like the way this intersection worked, so they suggested that we bring this road down at this angle, so this met here and they felt this intersection would work better under that arrangement. So, that was the primary changes that ACHD had recommended in their report and which we comply to and provided a copy of this changed roadway to the city staff in there. Borup: Was that the November 7th report? Was that the date? Sargent: That sounds correct. Borup: Okay. Sargent: It was fairly recent. There is also -- we had met with -- at Larkspur No. 2 to the north we had met with Meridian Greens Homeowners Association and had come to four items that we had agreed to. The first is that we agreed to a -- and we met with them again in regards to Larkspur south and those four items, the first was that we put a ten foot wide landscape buffer along adjacent to Meridian Green and in our landscape plan it shows that buffer. The second thing is that we would have all of these lots adjacent to Meridian Green would be a minimum of 6,500 square feet and we have done that. They are all at least 6,600 square feet or larger. And the other thing that they have asked for is that the backyard setback be 25 feet, because under R-8 I think it can be 12 feet as the backyard. So, we agreed that it would be a 25 foot back yard setback against Meridian Green. And, then, the fourth thing was that we would use 40 b a "4 P!W4, 5*zyg t440q2i i _" q#' '. 4, diW i a, r OR e lu QE, MROO { i 4 -4i 3,, � � ' �srt any ,E' �t �'g'�" tr ., L3 •:�� "l 4 � ?- � x 00 z y a Aj Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 58 of 63 x, Sargent: And one other item. When we met with the fire department, Mr. Silva, he requested that this roadway that's through here is 24 feet wide, rather than the standard of 20 and that is under the fire department code it provides two-way traffic. The other thing is the one thing we were concerned about was that even though we put no parking signs along that access that people park in, what we have done is we put some parking _ ' . spaces here and down here, using a total of 12 parking spaces that we have added on wk'i - there. So, we think that would discourage people from parking on that common driveway. ' Zaremba: Good idea. �f k Moe: Any other Thank very much. At this time there is no one signed questions? you up. If there is someone that would like to speak on this hearing, come right up. Well, guess no one is coming up. Zaremba: Should we hold our breath for a minute? =; Moe: I'm going to hold that thought for one second here. Anyone want to speak? r Biner: My name is Charles Biner. I live at 2485 South Avaco, immediately adjoining the subdivision and there is approximately a ten inch nonpressurized irrigation PVC pipe that's buried in the utility easement that's inside my property line and I was wondering { what disposition they are going to make of it. It daylights just north of my property or. right at the northern comer of my property and that land will no longer be flood irrigated and I'm wondering if this pipe is just going to be abandoned or if that is even a good . , idea to abandon ten inch pipe. That's all. Moe: Okay. I'm not sure I can answer that, but I know someone that could. y :.. Borup: Mr. Freckleton finally gets to say something. Freckleton: Isn't that cool? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if there are ' downstream users on that line, it would have to be maintained. If there are not downstream users, then, it's something that the developer and his engineering staff would have to look at how to abandon it. Zaremba: Come back up to the microphone. 4 Biner: Is it the developer's choice or option of what he does with that abandon line? 4 :y Borup: Not on your property, but if it's on his property and it doesn't -- R Biner: It's inside -- it's in the easement. I think there is, what, a ten foot easement along the property line. It is, in fact, on my property. Zaremba: You may have said, but I missed it. Are you actually using that? , r t , r s 1 x r Y .fi^ {` r 3'k'- 3 F k tv2 . $ y}j�SF }"`4"#N ^'SC'�1k''�isii. MR "8u 44 t E s S t 0k. w• "�$R P 4 fr 4t 1AY Fq� W's`Xi�x.f 4'}`i y {'3 j :. K1} ✓ C q y1 t r'S' 'Xa 1 } t i aieR [4 Y'i 1: q }d 3 q i " r 3 alt it yi,PE^i.`szL"'�k�¢�k/" f '' $ "pp4r °� {,. 'k' . t $ Y k 1 .^}! "i• i v xt qw x a, d '7nt9i1 ;q Z_.ra i 31 3d L ..%Yi �7rg�m r Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 59 of 63 Biner: No. No. No. I have never had access to -- Zaremba: Is there anybody downstream of you that would be using it? Biner: The supply comes south to north and the north end of it where it daylights is a part of the first phase of this. So, there is not going to be any flood irrigation in there. Now, what happens closer to the source of the diversion, I have -- I'm not sure. But it -- all along -- all along this -- what you see as development -- they won't have any outlets from it. Borup: No. They are not proposing that. Biner: So, my question is is the developer responsible for an abandon line or is this -- Borup: But you're saying it's not on his property, though. Biner: It's on my property. Moe: He wouldn't be responsible if it's on your property. Biner: Then I can take it out? Borup: Yeah. It's on your property. Baird: Mr. Chair -- Borup: Yeah. It depends on what it goes to. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Yeah. Exactly. Downstream of this project and downstream of the gentleman's property -- I mean I -- someone would have to make sure -- dam sure that there isn't somebody that's using that water. I think legal counsel made a good point. It certainly wouldn't be recommended. But if the line is not on the property that is the subject of this application, then, this applicant wouldn't have any -- basically any involvement with that line, so -- Moe: Okay. Anyone else want to speak to this hearing? If not, would the applicant come back up. Watters: Commission members, per the applicant's request, I have -- on this slide show provided some sample elevations of what will be -- what is proposed on this development. Is that -- Sargent: Yes. This is some of the other product that we have done in the Meridian area and other subdivisions, just to give you an idea of the type of construction and style that we would be proposing to put in here, to give you some idea. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 60 of 63 Zaremba: I appreciated the pictures that were supplied with our packet. Sargent: With the package. Zaremba: They look fairly expensive. Sargent: Sometimes a picture does better than explanations. Thank you. You know, these are all just recently completed and a similar type product that we would do here in this location. Ma'am, could you put on the vicinity map and I can explain maybe quickly how the -- the irrigation operates in the -- there is -- right here is the Kennedy Lateral comes down here, turns, and, then, goes up this direction. Right here there is a box and there is, actually, two lines that serves the Edmonds Subdivision that goes from here to Calderwood. One line goes here and, then, up this side and, then, moves across the property up here. There is another ditch that comes out of the same box that follows the Kennedy and, then, supplies the surface irrigation for these areas up in here. Since we would be building out all of these homes, providing pressurized irrigation, I guess our thoughts were to abandon this line that was on the east side of the property, but we have to continue to provide irrigation water for the property on the west side. So, overall, that was a -- that's a quick overview of what -- and we had some meetings with the Edmonds Subdivision ditch master and these are some of the things we have been discussing with him. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners, or do we want to close the Public Hearing? Zaremba: It looks like things have been resolved, Mr. Chairman. I move we close the Public Hearing AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16, 2006, and specifically referring to the revised plat dated November 1st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: I would add to the conditions of approval the four specific agreements that the applicant has made with the homeowners association of Meridian r, J y QS�b " 1, > 3 q 8 a�1Z- m; � r, J y 1, Nof � , � , � j�z ,.jad.}y� A-, # t✓.St R �j ;� C t .4 x � ,t E k, 3k �x �, .. Meridian Planning & Zoning • S November 16, 2006 Page 61 of 63 Greens. Do I need to spell them out or is that -- they are already in the record, I believe, aren't they? Moe: They are in the record. Zaremba: End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move forward to City Council approval of AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development — 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Moe: At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-051 and PP 06-052, both for Kilgore Heights Subdivision, for the sole purpose to continue the hearings to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of January 18th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-051 and PP 06-052, both for Kilgore Heights Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC —1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a 2- S td tf xi �i Y P-;, 3 # 444,i4;' ,t 3 4 y1 ' i' a s ,'aC`� p r'!'br 4 f#y, ? .�Ly 5 h ' A I .mAFV'.�%p'M(rfr� Y d z'x K d $k'T•,�i 2 ,s t h w n Meridian Planning & Zoning S November 16, 2006 Page 62 of 63 proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC — 1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Moe: At this time I would like to reopen -- reopen the public hearings for RZ 06-007 and PP 06-043 for Danville Place Subdivision. Would the applicant please come forward or his representative. Lancaster: We have a no sale. Moe: Would you go ahead and -- Lancaster: My name is Dan Lancaster. I live at 3192 Daybreak in Meridian. But, yeah, that was a deal buster for them. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Am I interpreting that the applicant would withdraw the application, then? Lancaster: That would be the next step, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Is that what you are wanting to do, then? Lancaster: Yes. Moe: Okay. Lancaster: There is no sale and the whole package has to go together in order for it to work, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: So, Mr. Chair, since you have on the record a request to withdraw, I would suggest that you entertain a motion to accept that withdrawal and perhaps we might wait just two seconds until Commissioner Newton-Huckabay comes back into the room. Moe: That is exactly what I'm waiting to do. I wanted to make sure that she is aware as L well. Baird: Thank you. Borup: Sony it didn't work out. I think that would have been an asset to the area. Zaremba: It could have been nice. Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the applicant's request to withdraw RZ 06-007 and PP 06-043, related to Danville Place Subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 63 of 63 Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to withdraw RZ 06-007 and PP 06-043 for Danville Place. All those in favor of withdrawal signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? The withdrawal is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: I'd entertain one more motion. Zaremba: I have got that motion. I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Moe: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:28 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED• N I Oyu C)% DAVID MOE - VI -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: �� r't C� -7�✓- WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK November 13, 2006 CUP 06-034 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Larry & Judy Kelley ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial- Conditional Use Permit to allow 200 square foot carport in the O -T zone for Kelley Carport - 403 E. 2nd Street Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: 17 Contacted: Emailed: ek,( (j) Materials presented See Attached Minutes See Attached Findings A,pvou,,-� n CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O -T zone, by Larry and Judy Kelley. Case No(s). CUP -06-034 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 2, 2006 (Denial Findings approved on November 16, 2006) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The decision to deny this request shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-034 - PAGE I of 4 fi z� 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. That the City has granted an order of denial in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the ; Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 6. That this denial is based upon the findings in the attached Staff Report for the hearing ,g s date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference. C. Decision and Order = r Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City" Code 11-5A and Idaho Code 67-6519 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of ; § p g g g Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The subject carport be removed from its current location within 15 days of final .. Commission action on this application. x 2. The following actions could be taken to obtain the permit requested: a. Obtain a license agreement from the Ada County Highway District allowing for 3� the encroachment in to the right-of-way; b. Completely remove any visual obstruction from the required clear vision triangle. ;� t D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits ' 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-034 - PAGE 2 of 4 0 0 Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-034 - PAGE 3 of 4 t o Tai q,vfi Y k fii" nrn 4Q' ak By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the I L day of NC'VrMbeur 2006. ` COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM _Ab x (Chair) ' COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED R 4 4 Y ' COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED �r COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED b� cif , COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED l Ito, Y y f j1 mom ; cx Cnoarmo -a�►c� Attest: ell " _ v r � U'l Tara Green Deputy Ci ler y �. Public Works Department and City a Copy served upon Applicantent, °��rrrirrt �. �• nin��,� �f F Attorney. f t( M¥ By: � �� Dated: _ % o-0% /l } Aa City Clerk 5' k x^l k* 1 i w CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -06-034 - PAGE 4 of 4 dtis" � 7 ,ria � C F � 111 3 ti r`i"9i S,s'ti{sVyb5r�' i 3Y�'�9k 14w., y Igi AV a" BMW +d X p q fi5dds* c ..'S'?iwi } ftT, zit f ��£. � " ��tk�t�v` iy �+ �5: r� - '� e� {Nii �, �*t"rN'v✓"# a,�, .� rd's - vvp f � i+ t { 1• W PIO Y y 4 01 '.. s k "�$�%'�" •- f � t �.., e zL f..X S }. G� k � ",U`S�,$ ¢� L m t J � } ^_ �', u3 .3 }}°. t e} .W @r f y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGQPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing. i. In favor: Judy Kelley, Larry Kelley, Arthur Campbell Robert E. Kelley Scott Chapin Kami Kelley Alan and Lola Dansereau (written testimony) ii. In opposition: David and Jennifer Bourff (written testimony) iii. Commenting. None iv. Staff presenting application: Justin Lucas v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. — Sight vision triangle; ii. — Encroachment into ACHD right-of-way; c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. — None 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Denial 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: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on November 16, 2006. Approval I move to approve File Number CUP -06-034 as presented during the hearing on November 2, 2006, and the site plan, no date, with the following conditions of approval: (add any proposed conditions). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on November 16, 2006. Recommend Continuance I move to continue File Number CUP -06-034 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 403 E. Second Street, the northwest corner of the intersection of Second Street and Ada Street, Section 7, T3N RIE b. Owner: Larry and Judy Kelley 403 E. Second Street Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: Same as owner d. Representative: Same as owner/applicant e. Present Zoning: O -T f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport to be located in the side yard of their Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 property located at 403 East Second Street. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): No Date 2. Date of Building Elevations (attached as Exhibit A): No Date h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: We have done everything we were told to do from the first time we went to the permit department years ago. We feel that since there have never been any neighborhood complaints about our little canvas garage, since the setback code is now right where the garage is and that it keeps one more car off the city street we would like to keep the little garage (please see applicant's submittal letter). 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 16"' and 30th, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 6th, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 23rd, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Single Family Residence b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This are is primarily a single family neighborhood. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family home, zoned O -T 2. East: North East Second Street and single family home, zoned O -T 3. South: East Ada Street and apartments/Duplex, zoned O -T 4. West: Single-family home, zoned O -T d. History of Previous Actions: None e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: N/A 41 Location of water: N/A Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: O -T 7. Size of Property: 0.08 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square foot canvas carport Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 PAGE 3 �ate. 944 UMMMMgA } a i `d 3 7 "�Y4', +v ik: xC iTi t + 6 (, �� P h M^ S N i "r�`� - kV r� n e 9 ' ^ �0. ' if Y �s f e da `A�`4 tr 4 5 f I k• ... .toSY`� y. 4..N 'd , a tVY�Sy ii li 1+ S `iib = >� 1w; h'S'{� ? y} 'I5 E �v�� F yj title 1 t € Yk y y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 2. Building height: eight feet or greater g. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the carport is taken directly form E. Ada Street. There are no sidewalks along this street and edge of pavement is approximately four feet from the entry to the carport. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On October 13, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Old Town" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): Chapter VII, Page 106: Old Town. This includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Uses would include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential uses, new construction of multi -family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be imposed. Pedestrian amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes a centralized activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the faces houses and buildings. Staff recognizes the importance of the Old Town area as the cultural and historic center of Meridian. The obvious emphasis on quality design as mentioned in the statement above is an important aspect of the Old Town District. Staff believes that this CUP application does not meet the intent or vision of the O -T district as described in the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in the Traditional Neighborhood Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-1 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the O -T zoning district. Canvas carports are not specifically addressed in this table. The Planning Director has determined that the CUP process would be best suited for this type of structure and associated use. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the O -T District is to accommodate and encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the OT District is to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi -public, cultural, financial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi -public uses integrated with general business, and medium-high to high-density residential is encouraged to provide the appropriate mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center. c. General Standards: The majority of standards that guide development in the O -T zone are set forth in the document Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. This document was primarily designed for commercial uses in the downtown core. Further design guidelines for residential uses in the O -T district are being developed but no specific standards have been adopted by the City. Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGWARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARODATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 d. Clear Vision Triangle: UDC 11-3A-5 describes the measurements of the clear vision triangle. This clear vision area is designed to ensure the safety of pedestrians and motorists at the intersections of two public streets or the intersections of a public street and driveway or alley. This CUP application deals specifically with the intersection of a public street and a driveway. The clear vision triangle in this situation is measured as follows: For a public street and driveway or alley, the area is defined by measuring from the intersection of the edge of travel lane and the corner of the driveway or alley twenty feet (20') along the roadway and ten feet (10') along the driveway or alley. The subject carport encroaches into required clear vision triangle, and may even partially be located within the right-of-way. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation Due to the unique nature of this CUP request Staff believes it is important to provide more detailed background information in this section of the report. As stated earlier this carport has been in place for a couple of years and is used to house a vehicle. At the time the applicants decided to erect the carport they consulted with the building department to see if a building permit would be required. They were told that a building permit was not required for a structure of that type and size. Unfortunately, and by no fault of their own, the applicants never consulted with the Planning Department and went ahead and placed the carport in the location shown in Exhibit A. The carport recently became an issue when one of the applicant's neighbors made a complaint to the Code Enforcement Division of the Police Department about the location of the carport, and potential safety hazard that it created. A code enforcement officer visited the applicants and informed them of the situation. The applicants were invited to consult with the Planning Department to determine the best course of action to legitimize the location of the carport. Usually in situations such as this Staff is able to refer to the setback requirements for the zoning district, and determine if the structure in question meets those requirements. For example, in the R-8 or R-4 residential zoning districts the street side setback to a garage is 20 feet. Unlike the standard residential zoning districts described above the O -T zone uses the document Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for the majority of its development standards, including setback requirements. Due to the fact that this document was designed primarily for commercial uses in the downtown core, the setback requirements are more geared toward retail storefronts that would abut the sidewalk. These zero lot line setbacks were not intended to be applied to single family properties. Residential design guidelines for the O -T zone are being developed but no specific standards have yet been adopted by the city. The UDC compensates for this (UDC 11 -2D -4D) by requiring a conditional use permit for any applications that do not meet the criteria set forth in the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. Staff determined that the subject canvas carport was clearly outside of the intent of the design guidelines and therefore would be required to go through the CUP process. Through this CUP process, and a more detailed analysis of the situation, Staff was able to identify various issues and concerns relating to the location of the carport. These issues are outlined in detail below: Clear Vision Triangle: After careful review, which included a site visit, staff has determined that the subject carport encroaches into the required clear vision triangle in this area. One of the main purposes of the clear vision triangle, as described in UDC 11-3A-5, is to ensure that Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 PAGE a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAP DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 motorists and pedestrians are able maintain a clear line of sight at the intersection of a street and driveway. As the photographs in Exhibit A show, the carport is located directly adjacent to the driveway of the neighboring property to the west. The location of the carport almost completely blocks a driver's line of sight to the east as he or she exits the neighboring driveway onto the street. This situation creates a hazard for both motorists and pedestrians traveling along E. Ada Street. Encroachment into the right-of-way: Upon consultation with ACHD and review of property lines in this area Staff determined that the carport appears to encroach into ACRD right of way along E. Ada Street. ACHD informed Staff that a license agreement would be required to place the carport within ACHD right-of-way. Currently the applicant has reached no such agreement with ACHD and it appears that the carport is unlawfully encroaching into the public right of way (see ACHD comment in Exhibit B). Design: As mentioned earlier in this report the UDC and the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines do not specifically address canvas carports. With that said, Staff is concerned about these types of structures being located adjacent to public streets on this site or in any area of the city. Staff believes that semi-permanent canvas and steel structures such as these should be located out of the public view, especially in residential areas. Staff is concerned that allowing for the subject carport to be located as shown in Exhibit A could set an unwanted precedent for such structures in the O -T district, and other districts were residences are principally permitted. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the subject application, CUP -06-034, for the reasons outlined in Section 10 and Exhibit B of this report. Staff also recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission instruct staff to prepare a letter addressed to the applicant, reauirine the removal of the carport from its current location within 15 days of final Commission action on this application. Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 k PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL* DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan: No Date 2. Carport Pictures (4) B. Department Comments 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Services 6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Kelley Carport CUP -06-034 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan Exhibit A Page 1 R\ -a I ' ` ,Z5 L th q, v v� r a Exhibit A Page 1 oo.n � a - t v r ; 3 rn � y. r� n I J i O Iv t,o Exhibit A Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIR DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 2. Carport Pictures View looking east down Ada Street. The neighbor's driveway is shown where the truck is parked and the majority of the Kelley property is behind the carport. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIV DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 ,Another view of the neighbor's driveway and carport. IV vIA6X�- I - Exhibit A Page 3 Wo - 4" 91 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAIV DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 ,Another view of the neighbor's driveway and carport. IV vIA6X�- I - Exhibit A Page 3 Wo - 4" CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 This view demonstrates the proximity of the carport to the carport to the neighbors driveway. Exhibit A Page 4 tt �.s 4} ii %it,' r*#+,Cbza "'fi ''k 's Y♦ $ Y �A.Y�',�#t"k r' "S�% �'y.)'Sa q�i' _ il'8' >: F a• d s Srh`P` OW WN s F r�{. yktA S MM �3.t �4.�zr'�. .. 41, ��Y' d�'#"Y t�'�'?ii.8'>:t. .. Ww fi5 �� S� tX� M t . .• '*"' S £ 4,', a `9 "+ a !e % ' rt ldY .,dX. :. i5'fp'S"Tt` ¢SS�ir*� 3 ^5" t 3 Y y' f .s k Q M r•*^� E. 4`0 'F5 .. t } CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 This view shows the carport and neighbors property and demonstrates how the carport encroaches into the clear vision triangle. Exhibit A Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 This view demonstrates what motorists traveling west on Ada Street may see. Note that the truck behind the carport is out of view completely. Exhibit A Page 6 Y 41 ti LSh&' h ^h .+ 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINOPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 B. Department Comments 1. Planning Department 1.1 The Planning Department recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission instruct Staff to prepare a letter requiring the applicant to remove the carport from its current location within 15 days of final Commission action on this application. 2. Public Works Department 2.1 The Public Works Department has no comment on this application. 3. Fire Department 3.1 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 3.2 The Fire Department is concerned about the clear vision triangle on this site and the ability of the neighbor to the west to back out of their driveway and maintain clear visibility. 4. Police Department 4.1 The canvas carport is adjacent to a driveway on the adjoining property. This configuration limits the neighbor's visibility to the east when exiting their driveway. This creates an unsafe situation for motorists and pedestrians traveling along East Ada Street. 5. Ada County Highway District 5.1 In an email dated October 23, 2006 Ryan McDaniel from the Ada County Highway District submitted the following comment: "ACHD has not entered into a license agreement with any applicants on that roadway for a carport. We will allow them, if and only if the individual enters into an agreement. All the research I have completed today leads me to conclude that the applicant has unlawfully encroached into the public right-of-way." Exhibit B Page I �i t, G r T'oS""''� . ' '>r �' y e r� a �* i,�DG q3f s $ga £nY. 'a �x. 4 W� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINAPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA* DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 2006 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds that the portion of the site where the carport is located is not large enough to accommodate the carport structure. The carport clearly encroaches into the required clear vision triangle and should be removed from its current location. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. i° Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Plan Designation for this property is Old Town. Commission finds that the location of the carport structure is not consistent with the or intent of the Old Town designation. purposes µ 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other t uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds that the carport structure is incompatible with neighboring uses. Commission also finds that the intended character of the Old Town area would not support such structures to be visible from public streets. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds that the proposed use does have an adverse affect on other properties in the _ e_i r `; vicinity.The main issue that Commission has identified is the safe hazard created b placing safety Y P g the carport in the clear vision triangle. >; 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. _v Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are ' currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation x and ACRD. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and XfA services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. a{ Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. ta Exhibit C Page 1 � 4` 3 { Via^ *Via 4MOWN_11k_M* ra� 4 IM Fi,� SFn f e at .,ut3 Y a � s r (s =n T L + , dJ "R 9 '� '4 N,`d.0 Yn''+4YOR A <s Y A aT j ,# .yXAlU'�•"-i� F+§ S k ., .. e '. i � r�`F� NQ y5 % '{ Ute. S R V �,-hzA� 8ypiih .2., i . . ."i�%#3 v ,,'4s 91 . $�nub ,ES-*,+" 3• RMIAMIFFIrl 0 0 November 13, 2006 CUP 06-028 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Seagle Three, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from September 21, 2006 - Conditional Use Permit for a 280 square foot Coffee Shop with a Drive-Thru facility on 2.96 acres in a C -G zone for Dutch Brothers Drive-Thru- 1330 E. Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Request for Withdrawal 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. 0 November 13, 2006 AZ 06-038 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Gary Fors ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006 - Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision - 570 S. Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Email from Kurt Reliford with Attachment Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 0 November 13, 2006 PP 06-036 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Gary Fors ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006 - Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision - 570 S. Linder Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. See AZ Packet Date: Phone: November 13, 2006 CUP 06-033 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Una Mas, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Healing from November 2, 2006- Conditional Use Permit for a 6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C -G zone for Una Mas Daycare - 3475 E. Ustick Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • November 13, 2006 AZ -06-043 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. S REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 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 INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Email from Andrea Nist Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 13, 2006 PP 06-045 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11/02/06 - 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 property of the City of Meridian. 0 0 November 13, 2006 AZ 06-050 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 4.64 acres from RR to an R-8 zone for Tree Farm Addition - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment No Comment No Comment INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Pontin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 9 11 November 13, 2006 CUP 06-035 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A - 1760 S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See Attached Memo for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ® 0 November 13, 2006 CUP 06-036 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B - 1800 S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See Attached Memo for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. 0 November 13, 2006 CUP 06-032 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) - NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments IDAHO POWER: See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian 0 0 November 13, 2006 RZ 06-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Danville Home, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/5/06 - Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone Danville Place Subdivision - 1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Revised Plat Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 13, 2006 PP 06-043 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Danville Home, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/5/06 - Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision - 1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See RZ 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. • November 13, 2006 AZ 06-049 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Greenspur Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision - 230 & 240 Edmonds 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 See Attached Comments See Attached Comments 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. • n November 13, 2006 PP 06-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Greenspur Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision - 230 & 240 Edmonds Court 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 property of the Clay of Meridian. n U E - November 13, 2006 AZ 06-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation & Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision - 835 & 655 W. Victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting / Letters from Concerned Citizens Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. November 13, 2006 PP 06-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING November 16, 2006 APPLICANT Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision - 835 and 655 W. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.