2006 12-07
s::
- i
"IIIi
~~i~icn ~~ ~~~
lU.AHO 1~
,. ,,
"~.
,,,,,
~r
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
`Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. "
1. Roll-call Attendance:
_X Keith Borup _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay
_X David Moe _X David Zaremba
_X Michael Rohm -chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve
Recognition of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
3. Consent Agenda:
a~ A. Approve Minutes of October 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
B. Approve Minutes of November 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning
s Commission Meeting: Approve as Amended
' C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 6,300 square
foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas
' ,
LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road: Approve
4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Gene and Freda Babbitt by the City
= of Meridian Public Works Department - 2570 S. Locust Grove Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
5. Public Hearing: AZ 06-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.0
acres from RUT to a L-O zone for Ada County Highway District Locust
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 2006 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become
ro
t
f th
C
_
;~ ~ p
per
y o
e
ity of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at lea
t 48 h
s
ours prior to the public meeting.
:~
}
.~
-7~
-'~i
1:
>.k
_~
~#
.~
CE
{t:
iy
!~
.c/~ 6T1tl~{8
'~I~I
J~ ~~ ~s ~ s
~
,~ ~ y~ s e:< ~pg ,~~
~.
'Si "x ~lAs ~ 'i
S QQ 6
- ~"
~ I - ~
4
1l~~~ ~ 6
Y
~
IC ~~rt `1
1
F
rt~ 1
F ~
4
tr
J ta-
i L~ a9~?
F
r
,~
~F ~y j~~. i
l ~ r..,.yyll~~ ~
k 1 7j ~ -' S ~~; I'~y1! ~
a
} ,-
h
{~, ,'~,
C'
Y
~ i S _ ~
yyf,~YY
~4 Z(
~
'~
_
/
S
~
e
iL 1S
r,
4~'~ ~4 it fi i. - ..
:F ~ECa4 ~` ~ Fi,~..
K
~~~ yHl'.~ ~~ ~~a ~•'
C
~i~l~~~~ ti': 1~
i,
.
N
~~
~
r}
~ :car ~; ~,
,
~.X'.lr..a ~ 1!. ~ 1f~1.f~~
_e TT „y,ti .. -
f
{
~+~kr e ~ r ~
;`
~
~
.
.y ~,
~~~< `*~~''' Pik ~4'~''~-
i~s
~
+ + tick j. ~~ ~$di r~`' ~
r
~
F ~: 4 is i, ~ it .
~ i.
~
M1
-
~
-
•Y~«I.
..
2~~ f 72.
~
Ill~i'~F~,S r?3'' .~ ~~~II~ . . ~ ~
~I fi
,
> h
fi"
:ti
• •
~` .
" Grove Road Pon
d by Ada County Highway Dlstnct - 1280 N. Locust
Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
`"
"'
6.
Public Hearing: CUP 06-038 Request for detailed Conditional Use
'
~ Permit approval for office uses in an L-O zone per requirement of the
a:
`
1 Development Agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision Buildings "A &
4~:. ':~~ B" by Babichenko, LLC - 503 S.W. 5th Avenue: Approve
{ :: ~~
7. Public Hearing: CUP 06-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
,~~
~ group daycare for up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes
~
: Childcare by Pamela Minshew - 672 E. Baldwin Street: Denied
3 t.
~ 8. Public Hearing: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing
~ Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional
''
t use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry
x K Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434
1463
:~`
' ,
,
1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: Continue Public Hearing to December 21, ~'
~ 2006
9. Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing from October 19
2006: AZ
trt, ,
06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to
~,
an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-
,;~ Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood
~ ~~ Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65
acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge
Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
ryfi' Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
~~
~~ , 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: PP 06-031 Request i
~ . for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11
commercial /other lots and 16 common /open space lots on 290.87 acres
in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge
Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-056 Request for Annexation and zoning of 5.2
' acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -
,~' ~"~ 1035 E. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
~.' Y
~ :' 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
,_ ~ residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.2 acres in the proposed R-4 zone
~~~ for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill - 1035 E. McMillan Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
ti
~ 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 lots
' on 39.28 acres in existing I-L zone and C-G zones for Seyam
.~-
~~' Me ridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 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.
'~,',y~ Ni~~~S~t
:~ a~ri~BlE~ieM t +aaac.irroo,:
.. ~ ^ .~., e.. ~_ .:? ~'_ ~r_;..~.s~Z"_:u~,~,. r ,gym . `.,~~^ ;'aZ.~~'~?~~#.. <r', , ,' ~`
~. .A r'y~„ t, :cY 31 a ... ,,i ... ~' q '~~~'~ ? '~ ;~.
5i
I :Y
.h
.F
4
itr
^4~
~
f
.F
a
I'
.
1 ~
I
r: .
!
iiii ~~} • i~ {
% 111 `~ . ~ I
,
1 i
•~~ ~
I x
.
~
~
I ;
.
r.... ~ y ,
ri i
. ~ .,~;
.I
:.t
I~ s g 1 •.. . ~:=
{~tHd~'.rtr'V Y:is:c:
s~t~~i~'>~, ~Xs !; Pik rte I T
' r.• ~ ~ ~
~
~Rg~ - J 7'. ~ ~: ~
~}`C ..~r' V ,. ~ .a
~
M1
.
1 iy ~S•~.. r~ ~({l~~hI = ~~ 3~~ ~~
'! ~k a.
YM{
S4 Z
S
.
i
v V . ,fie i~~'
y ,'
~~ ~ hy~y ~~S';~
~k ~~t~
t i~ ~~ Ix~!~.
,
: ~
~F E. C i., '~.. ~
'
'{
s
~
i
~ ti
a\
1.
~• -
S ~
T /
.l:1~ ~ V C., ~ ~}'~
~~ r
'
~. 1'F'
.
~'~.F
~
Y
Y
~.
`
!~
t
~{~y~
S~'
~l~ `a „ 3i i~i
'
~ ~ ~ J
~ .
i
3 4
JJ
~~
1Y i T ~ 'y-
~~ ~ ~ p'~'F~
i
~ ~
?.
~
.
g1
pp _
:?c ~'"k• ~ '~.~J.S
~ .4I ~ ~r~~~.
r+°
~
1
,
fi~ -~
'~~
~~ 1~~1~°
~ W
~
}
...
t
}
.=~
~~ ``r P ~` '` t ;',s
y:,
7~ h ~ I il,{~ i
JI~
I
~
as ,
.~ '
I
"-~;~
~: ,
~
,,.:,
z~
f
'a.
~ ~~`xri i~~~~ ~ ` ~~ `n
a
tt
4 . y ~~~* F~ S~ f'
iR . ~
: ~ S 'i ~
f
ti
' F i
~ ~ -i
~
. >}..
;
~ ~• nt 1 I~ y .
~
~ Z ~ ,;y iY
,
, ~~'. '~I:
.~
1 ~ {erg t. 2 ~~ I
~ yY ! 1~
.
F u' f
-~, lei x~ e _~J;
~
,
~~rir~~ w.';~ ~~ IRY''
_
~~~C~~ Y ~~ l~f~~.
~~.r to t
<'F
~" ~.~:~
a'
t,
;;~ Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - 3660 E Lanark Street: Recommend
;a
Approval to City Council
`~ ~A 14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91
acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River
~~ Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Continue Public
~~~ Hearing to February 1, 2007
"°~ 15. Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
F:
residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15
;, ,~ zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055
& 6185 N. Jericho Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 1, 2007
16. Election of Officers for 2007: Michael Rohm, President and David
Moe, Vice President.
'.
Adjourn Meeting at 12:51 P.M.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 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.
.ate
..
F..
•~J i.
i
1
~~ ~ i
.
r ry Fi
I
Y~
I
II
~.~~.~
CY
.. ~g ~~
~
°
~
. ~::
fi LL22 Y.
-
I
t
.
y
~
y
,~~,, 3
S7 ~~1~N i E f~ ~ r ;.f~
~a ~~ .' ~' h -av i~F
~
~~. ~,
~t~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~>
` ~ z
~
~ ~~t ;, ~ ~, s~~,
. ~
tk~ M. •. ;6k .yH~.'~
} ~ i sC
7 4~~§'f'~ 3,5 ~'L ~. ~...
~~ 9 ~•
.
F ~'r z ;' n~ I JY'~3 ~, - i-~x
~ ~
t
~
>>99~
;fir F ~< ,~i ~k _
,~ n n ~ i-_ og~ ~~~.,i
F u
9
~' 11j'"
A S
Y~
NPNN I
~
~ .trttq ~~ ~ Yi ~-..
a s ry': ~ ~~ { +~
R
~
FF
~~~ t1 ~ Ff`; ~
t.`
. J
~
S 2
r~"'r~ ~ ~ ~'' ~t~ 1~1a ~~~ t
}
, ~,
~u v^.: v t~-.
~
_ W
f~2~¢ ~ Yi ~f~ ~~~
6 a rt .e ~p
~
l a ~ ~ i '. f
4
~ ':m ~ 3~C..
~
,
~i 6i{!C~€ ~ ~~ ~4
.
~,
~ .
r ~~
,
y
~, • a
~ w
q r
3e~ ~ •
~ t ~;ty , ;~~ ins,.
•
~
F
,y~
.
}} .•~
> ,~
I~~ <, ~x
1
~:
~" =~'>
~'f
~`~,~~
:;~-
,.~t
x
~.. ...fry,
~:2
~:
_,:
,~-
' ~
~k
r* ~~
r
4.
3 {~k
thrS
:
~~ ...
~s~
'z7
~~~
"-
`~ `sue l~
d
F f -;~{~.
~' ~' CITY OF A~d~lii~G ~ ~~
~. %'1/I~r~Y1G~1GF' y~~,
~ ~~
1DAH0 ~~
yFc ~/
~q ~ Taens~ V n+~~ c
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
~~°~ City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, December 7, 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: /~,~.~,w~
Recognition of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of October 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: ~j ~
B. Approve Minutes of November 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: `~~2,~-,~~~ ~, ~l C-L~Y~~ ~~~'~n2~
C. Findings of Fact andC• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 6,300 square
foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas,
LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road: ~'G~I?t~
4. Public Heairing: AZ 06-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Gene and Freda Babbitt by the City
of Meridian Public Works Department - 2570 S. Lo ust Grove Road:
5. Public Hearing: AZ 06-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.0
acres from RUT to a L-O zone for Ada County Highway District Locust
Grove Road Pond by Ada County Highway District - 1280 N. Locust
Grove Road: '~G~:w~w~.vy~,e~1~~ .A~'`~h~Vlrc~.~ ~-~ C~~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 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.
ri
..~.. <:.
;':. >;
~~~.
,.~~ :.
:
~'
~ ~~ ~ ~~ i
;
< .
~ ~* ~' 6. Public Hearing: CUP 06-038 Request for detailed Conditional Use
`
Permit approval for office uses in an L-O zone per requirement of the
Or ".
~ gib.
r
~ Development Agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision Buildings "A 8z .
, .
r
B" by Babichenko
LLC - 503 S
W
5~' Avenue:
ay ,
.
.
. ~ n~L:~
U
f
7. Public Hearing: C
P 06-037 Request
or a Conditional Use Permit for a
'y. group daycare for up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes
' Childcare by Pamela Minshew - 672 E. Baldwin Street:
i~1
~r
~~
`~ ~' '
~~~ .
~
.
8. Public Hearing: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing
°
G ~ Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditi
l y
p~ ona
use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry a
~~~ Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463,
~ 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive: ~~~.,~~
`~l`2 ~ J~_~_ a~
~
+
~ ~
9.
Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing from October 19
2006: AZ :.,
'' ,
06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to ~ ,
an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-
~ ~~ Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood
~- Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65
' acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge
k ~
` Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: ~
Y, :. 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: PP 06-031 Request ~' ~
for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11
commercial /other lots and 16 common /open space lots on 290.87 acres
~~ in the ro osed TN-C,
p p TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge
Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
~~;
~ Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: ~, Ct~ rv ~lv u ~ l~~
~
~: ,
~~~ ~;~~~~~ ~ ~~
-
11.
Public Hearing: AZ 06-056 Request for Annexation and zoning of 5
2 ~
f
~~ °-~°'I .
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill - _
~ 1035 E. McMillan Road: ~~cz'y~~~~~~ .f}~2~Jr~~'~~.Q_ .1-~ ~~
f
12.
..
Public Hearing. PP 06-054 Request for Prellminary Plat approval of 11
~
" residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.2 acres In the proposed R-4 zone ~
for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -1035 E. McMillan Road:
r'V l~-eC~t~~~~.1"VI.Z~b1C~~ ~~Y~i!/r'-~-~, ~ (~~~
D ~~.
13. Public Hearing: PP 06-055 Request for Prelim
inary Plat approval of 8 lots
~E~. ~:.
on 39.28 acres in existing I-L zone and C-G zones for Seyam Y. ~ ~: ,. -K.
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - 3660 E Lanark Street: '`
14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zonin
f 9
91
g o
.
acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River
e?; Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185
N. Jericho Road:
~~ 1
~~ 1 I /~lGi ~ ~ C7~Z~7
~~ ;
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 2006 Page 2 of 3
r:
~' All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
An
on
e desirin a
y g ccommodatlon for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
~ ` please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
r
f~ y ~ I '
~"
~` s
S~
~~' +
!
,
~1
d _
t ~~~v~ ~
trt:
_
r
t
F;
~.
~ .~,
.s;
i.
fk _
~~ ~~ ~Yi~~
~ ~ f~i
c
`
t i
~ i
$.~^ ~T•
use -~~ w
~ ti
9
`_~
`
,
v.!
'~~ Ka
i
' 4r~
qR7~ ;; y
.. l
.
..
nr
.~ I
'~~ ~
~ ~
i I ~
~.
~
'a '~ .y
~ 4 ~ `
~„ ti :'~.
u ~ Z
3 R ~~` z ,
,~
F
~
~ ~ ~ tf i'~ `~~
I
~. ..
~ ~ -
B ~
w
~
. .. ~.;
_
I
,
.. ,-- ~
~~
t,
..
',~.
.
4- ..
~.
,.
s~~.
, ,. , .,.. ~. .; ..
r ~, *
n y ~ ~ ~
~~~~_ J,
~~
y ._._.
;a~.
w
(,~
`~/~1 a
~' `~ ~... '..
~
~ ~
' ~
,, ' 4
~ [
~ ~ ~
ii
"} u
_~
< p Mkt ~~'E4~c! 3!~ +~:{ ~~:
~
~~
t ~
~ .
i
l: ',:, ..~ ~ r
~a
4 9• c ..:
~ ~~.~ „~
r
'
~ i _ f i
~~ {
..~
~7'1'
~~
~~ ~ ~~ t 3: a i
~ H:
r '
3
. ~
N"
!
+ i
x
~ ~
f
A ..
~, _1~~A ~~?l4 ,fir
.
~t,~~
~ .i'/,t .~'.. - ,,{
'~
r
~
~ _ ~ ~ { /may 5
G~~t~ r}~tij ~{' - tv
~ •Z~ ~.
1
{•
~b
~
y µ
' y~~
W K'~:S
] X g i~ k~ i
?~ 3 ~ e 'F f
~~~ ~ 1L ~~ S
y ~ ~ 11 t
~ J ~t~rZ K
_y
~~ V
y ~ ~ ~~~,
f
,
,
,
t. b
w .
~ ..
r
~~
u
:
^~i~
'r: ~~++~FF't. ~
4
C ~t r
~J
~«
"~.5~' S
.s ~ c ~T
d3~'
~ ~
-~.'}.3 r3.,:4 ~. 'k=. ~ ~.
~-:~'. _4 Mi"=vi~~. _.
~ ;
,
,~~r
~ ~
'
Y". 1
n'.,!y
,~_,
°.i L.a.
r{~',
~~
~ti:,ti
~,:~~. r,
'~.,t7'+k~.
~ ~r
~~{.
.. - =~~
~~ ~
., ~:.
,;t
Y pry.
w
Y~ ~;~~'~
:, ~,
~:.:,
;" ~,
:=~
., "`ti^~:
{_
~;. 'n
~a~:
'~~ ~S~ u
_~~'
i
-. ~.nf'
~f
~.
~:;Zi
t '~t
~ '~~y~:
~ ~J
S'~ ~aF`
9~ '
t, ~.: r~_
F
' <:
~ rE.;
~ ~{,~a4
{
~- ,~,~
s,
~;;A
~~a;; ,
,,... _
~9.4~
p
15. Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15
zone for Jericho Sub~Jivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055
& 6185 N. Jericho Road: h~~,-t ~, ~~~ ~ ~- v~_~~`7
16. Election of Officers for 2007:
,~GiL~~ - L'~lC~~~i~~~~~
. ~~
~e~ c'~G~l L ~ ~
J
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 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.
}.
~:
~..
~>
~K 1'
x ~_
~~r
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
;<
,,
~;
~;
~'
~_
'~"
~; ;
;_;
~~;
w
r-> .:
~~ ~_ ,
4~
{'--
~:,
:d
1
t
Z
Y~ F
i~
~ '~
e~
~'
K
f
~;~
~3d'
h$'
i,
.k
~5 .
~~
b~
~ ~ ~
f
,'~ ,~- CITY OF ~
~ IDAHO ,~
tiF ~j'
c
~R ~ TREnsu[~ V n+~Ey
1.
`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."
Roll-call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe David Zaremba
Michael Rohm -chairman
2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
Recognition of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of October 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of November 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 6,300 square
foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas,
LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road:
4. Public Hearing: AZ 06-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Gene and Freda Babbitt by the City
of Meridian Public Works Department - 2570 S. Locust Grove Road:
5. Public Hearing: AZ 06-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.0
acres from RUT to a L-O zone for Ada County Highway District Locust
Grove Road Pond by Ada County Highway District - 1280 N. Locust
Grove Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 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.
4
`~ 5 ~ ~ ~
~ y~
~ ~ ~£1f
~~
i ..
~ ~i
~~~ ~
1 , ~1'i ~~{
~
J ~ ~i ifi
f
y~~
y
~tEL.kY''~T h y.
Q~ ~' R~t~
§
4; t ~ ~~ .
#
~'~ g t -
• g~,
dr 'Y "
csa
~ y.
S
a ~.~ L ~
6 +Y
z
~ It
`~i'ri~ d ~ s;' ~~
r
F<+;, r; ~
E
~ tt .~%~.'~i
W ~~•~ T ,,~7 ' i ti. ~ L
F t ~ a ~•-
L 1.~ ~ ~ ~'
.
~
,.' 1
s~ +
,- Q
'~.~f ~ ~ rd•.~.
i ~Y7- f he <~.
~~ ~~#` ~i~ r 1 -
~$
f
~, ~ ~
is
''~ ~~5~, y. y[
.
V"P '
.
'- si' ~+
f
h ~~
r
~ k ej ~+
~y
~
~p
~..__
74:4" ~` 41h ~6~
r
i
ta
~ 'r r
.
~
;'t ~.~ '~
~CC .t i".~.
~ y
`
1` .
~ MS ~
I
.
~~ k
~ ~
A f' {~ d`~`.' _
I~' ~ 4 ~ '
Z
Cf ~i ~ ~ }~~
~ 1.FM~
~[j`
'1 f
S~ ~' ~4
I~ '9 y iii:
L ~ ~~~ ~'
` 1
•
,~,, .3f ~ ~7 ,. .
.!! '!!'~~P,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
~ "~~ vA.
.Y
~ ~I
~~'•
~~a
~ • ~ ~
6. Public Hearing: CUP 06-038 Request for detailed Conditional Use
Permit a _
pproval for office uses In an L O zone per requirement of the
. .
Development Agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision Buildings "A &
;` ~ B" by Babichenko, LLC - 503 S.W. 5~' Avenue: ~~
;~ 7. Public Hearing: CUP 06-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
„ ~ ~ group daycare for up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes
"' Childcare by Pamela Minshew - 672 E. Baldwin Street:
8. Public Hearing: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing
Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional
use permit approval for all structures within the L-O zone for Razzberry
Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463,
1492, 1565 E. Star Drive:
{~ `' 9. Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: AZ
~~ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to
~'
• an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood
Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65
acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge
jW ;;>
Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
~_ ~'s: Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
k
~`~ 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: PP 06-031 Request
m
~- for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11
commercial /other lots and 16 common /open space lots on 290.87 acres
' ~` in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge
~'
~~ Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
~~_,
4x Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-056 Request for Annexation and zoning of 5.2
~• . ~;>,
' acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -
~~ '
i
~= 1035 E. McMillan Road:
~:
~}r ;
~~"
12. Public Hearing: PP 06-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
-:
S residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.2 acres in the proposed R-4 zone
~~~ . ' for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -1035 E. McMillan Road:
~'
~> 13. Public Hearing: PP 06-055 Request for Prelimina Plata royal
ry pp of 8 lots
r~'
°`~ ~ on 39.28 acres in existing I-L zone and C-G zones for Seyam
, Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - 3660 E Lanark Street:
~~
~.
~"
` _
14. Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91
~-
o-' acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River
D
evelopment, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road:
~," . _ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 2006 Page 2 of 3
w, 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 ...
=;~~'~
~,
_, :,
~.~`~s
Y'l
k
~~~~ fi ~'
ti;;
~:,,
`t",.
~:::_
.>'"tS
~;,,,.
:{~33y
lip 'gym
p~i~.; 14'y;t`.~
'l_'y"
~::.:y';
`~ Yr~•~.
~< ~,FuY i
~r~ ~ ~~
r, ~~.
`t
,
'_
:V3y
~)~
itf
;. t. _;'
s ~,'
r~
i i {~ .~~
t
.
1
`~ ~
Z r~
_~:
'f,
`
~~
._~;
,. _~=<a
a~q;:
a ~
15. Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15
zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055
& 6185 N. Jericho Road:
16. Election of Officers for 2007:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - December 7, 2006 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, .
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
i~..
y".Cy'..
y~i..
~ - Broadcast Report - ~
DateTme
LocaIID 1
Local ID 2
Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Logl Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
This document :Failed
(reduced sample and details belovtr)
Document size : 8.5"x11
L ,- .;
<5,
~;
y<:
§~•
~,,. __
~; '_ ,.
OT
1,
y,
~<. .
`~"~`~ MERiD1AN PLANNING AND ZONING
t9Y1Gt~1L~YI ~ REOUWR MfE'i'ING
'r'^~ AGENDA
v ~ City Council Chembefs
33 East Idaho Avenue, Merldun, Idaho
Thursday, December 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
Altlfough the Cltyof Meridian no tont~er-Bqubee swavrf festlmony,
ell presentations before the Meyorend City Cound/ere expeoted
to be tfzr~fful ar-d honest to best of the ebllfty of the preser><er."
1. Roll-call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huakabay
David Hoe David Zaremba
Hldtael Rohm - chafmtan
2. Adoption of die Agenda;
Recognition of Natlonel PeaH Harbor Remembrance Day
3. Conse~ Agenda:
A, Approve Minutes a# October 19, 2006 Planning 8 Zoning
Commission Heating;
B. Approve Minutes of November Z. 2006 Punning & Zoning
Cofrtmusfon Mef;Hrtg:
C. Findings of Fact and Conaluelons of law for Approval: CUP
08.033 Request for a Conditfonal Use PemtR fora 6,300 square
foot Daycare Comer in a C-G zone far Una Nlae Daycare Una Mas,
LLG- 3x75 E. Ustick Road:
4. PubOc Hearing: AZ 06.OSS Request for Anttexatian ertd Zoning of 1.12
acres from RUT fo an R-4 zone for L3ene and Freda BabbHt by the Cky
of Merldun Public Woflcs Depaftment - 2570 S. Locust Grove Road:
5. Public Hearing: AZ 06053 Request for Annexation and Zantng of 2.0
sixes from Riff to a L-O cone for Ada County Htgirway D~gdct locust
Grove Road Pond by Ada Courtly H{ghwey District - 1280 N. l-ocust
Grove Road:
Meridian PlanNrtg ark Zon)n9 C~nnzirr+slOn Mee~g Agenda- Deown6er 7.2008 ~ 10/8
'~ ~ fwd ~' f+ubSa sMa2 be0oarre arapeRy of tlt0 Ciiy of ~~.
®deddng ~ for dlsah2ft~a r0(ated ~ d00umenffi endtor ir0adng,
Pie ao the GNy CladPs ofAas of B8B•4A33 el Ies~ 48 botna Pda to the putftc mee0ng.
Total Pages Scanned : 3
12-042006 05:50:17 p.m.
2088884218
Total Paaes Centirma~i • .ri
No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results
001 335 3810160 05:18:54 p.m. 12-042008 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS FA
002 335 8989551 05:18:54 p.m. 12-042006 00:00:45 3/3 1 EC HS CP21600
003 335 8848723 05:18:54 p.m. 12-042006 00:01:12 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400
004 335 8886854 05:18:54 p.m. 12-042006 00:00:36 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200
005 335 8985501 05:18:54 p.m. 12-042006 00:01:12 313 1 EC HS CP14400
006 335 8467366 05:18:54 p.m.12-042006 00:00:37 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800
007 335 8950390 05:18:54 p.m.12-042006 00:00:39 313 1 EC HS CP31200
i
c. Y,~f a4"r'~ ~ /k~ ~
t ~ t ~ ;.
-t~+ a b c
~ : ~~
t yi
'~i
..µ
~ •_o
~ _.}i~
a'
t ~
~ '1
ti `5i
x
r d~+
~ '~
ti. _.
Y
~ _ •!
L * rr c>* =+
`
~j
~
l .
; _
f yy
.~ y
y
~ r
~ `~ ~•'}
1
k 3
F~
i
~ ~r ,..
l a ~~ y Ks
~~ 1 i ~
'
~ 1
e ; ~ r~ <
j
ifE`
_
a
3 h; ~4~''~;: _
y )X yy
T~Ef~~ [~i ~`~
~ ~~
1 f 11,~WW ~
3 '
t ~ a {
~ YW ~~- T ~,
,
n ~-.~ ~ '
k~
42~~~~ ~ s,,
~ ~
F~ ~' ,
';c
ref ~ t~ y
,
~r~i; " ;:: ~? :pT" .. ~..
,.
~ ,T ~
~ t
y t'
:
~M ~ k fi'
'
~ }' =4j ~;- s 2
.;4
~
t ~ ~ :1 ~. Y r
. r~ L '
y
I
7, Y ~- ~
l N~12 Ct 1'.
~ v i
oa
_
,
r ,~ ~
g~~a ~s Hi k s 7b
t'. .(+I . S ~~
.l L<f X~ 1 ~ ~~~ 3 ~
} ~ ~H
k
r
,~
~ ~
~ ~ r
~
.
~ .
~ ..
.,
.:. .
.
..
.. .... r .
.. ~. r
.~~r
S F;
`: {'.
'~~~~,
k.~1 J
S ~:
-.,Y-_
~:. ._1 ~.
;w';.
«[;.
f* •
,ie
,~3~`'
y'
~~~
,~. ~~~ President George W. Bush has proclaimed today December 7
~: ,
2006 as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Da in honor of the
Y
r~.v~ 2400 Americans who lost their lives in the surprise attack on Pearl
Harbor sixty-five years ago. It would be appropriate to take a
{ ~ ~~
~y}~. moment of silence to honor the sacrifice of the brave individuals at
,~~
``~~ Pearl Harbor and the Americans in the service who protect our
~~
country today. Let s take a moment please.
_ (15-20 Seconds)
,_~;a
~}{ ~
Thank you -lets proceed with the adoption of our agenda
h eM~
ti .
rpp ~F
^~J T •'~
(~~
':....
~'
t.
.
_._.;
k ,F Vi'a',
~.Ytr
~~~
~, ~~~-
~~.~
.,1
~r'~,
~~~-
:,t'
T`~~
.r
'
;
fi~ ~~. ~`.
,a
+`.,;;
;~~,
ti'.~>~
~~-
±~'~
~.~. ,~
;~r.-
;_: {'
-:r ,;,~
~w
. ,..<~
~::~.
<:
~. ,
~.
;,::, .'-
r, _'.~ i~
r~
p, ' .,~'
~i~
~~.:.: a .
~ .
,at.-.
del
~~`i
S
n ,~;
t
~~~~~..,
National Pearl Harbor Remem~nce Day, 2006
" '~' TwE ti~l-~ pia
~s~ia»+rr
c~cr w. I~tg
Page 1 of 1
CLICK HERE T® PRTPJT
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 1, 2006
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America
Sixty-five years ago, more than 2,400 Americans lost their lives in a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. On National
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, we think of those who died on December 7, 1941, and honor all those who
sacrificed for our liberty during World War II.
On that peaceful Sunday morning, our country suffered a vicious, unprovoked attack that changed the course of
history. Though our Pacific Fleet was nearly destroyed, our citizens were inspired by the great acts of heroism
from those who survived and from those who did not. In the days that followed, our grief turned to resolution, and
America embarked on a mission to defeat two of the most ruthless regimes the world has ever known. We pledge
to always remember the character and sacrifice of the brave individuals at Pearl Harbor. Their selfless service
helped deliver a great victory for the cause of freedom and, ultimately, transformed adversaries into the closest of
friends.
''. After the devastating attacks on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared, "We are going to win the
~; war and we are going to win the peace that follows." In the 21st century, freedom is again under attack, and
young Americans have stepped forward to serve in a global war on terror that will secure our liberty and
determine the destiny of millions around the world. Like generations before, we will answer history's call with
' confidence, confront threats to our way of life, and build a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren.
The Congress, by Public Law 103-308, as amended, has designated December 7 of each year as "National Pearl
Harbor Remembrance Day."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim
December 7, 2006, as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. I encourage all Americans to observe this
` solemn occasion with apprapriate ceremonies and activities. I urge all Federal agencies, interested organizations,
groups, and individuals to fly the flag of the United States at half staff this December 7 in honor of those who died
as a result of their service at Pearl Harbor.
r~ ;
~ ~~
'~
~-~`
v
aj`
J{~
y~i~;. ;-
.;
1'
{
. K
w
~~
.. qc
,, }
t
,K
• ~~~
.y~
4~
.~
G
i.
s r,
';I
A
r.
f~
E
i~~,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of December, in the year of our Lord two
thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.
GEORGE W. BUSH
###
Return to this article at:
httD://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061201-6.html
i
CLICK: HERE TO PRINT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/print/20061201-6.htm1 12/4/2006
!~V
K ~.
~ S ti 1
~ .~.~;'.
}~
T"~kf'I~'
h ~ •,
L' ~'
`~-i'
~~~`°'` t
jet f~i f
~l
i s
a
at
t~:4r r~ i -
~ ~ t ~$
~c2~Ci~F.
~ ~
y ~
l~d~~ ~' n; ~ ~,i;~..
~ Pk t'.. ~
,r~ 1
G
~
3t »'}E 'fit t', ~
SC` ~ r.
F~'9n~;. ~ 9 f "~5, art
„1
11Ct f L
uL
S
~~ir~aly~ ~t }
` a
,
~~:&@'
r;;
~ ~
Yip
~~ h
'
Y l` iht
}~ ~y,
~ G' ,i .
t~b
~4
~
Y~ k x~ 1
'.:~.
ELK`^,7~. l ' ~
~.~
(i }' 7 ! ;.yt}.
'
1' '
V
~4~u~ k ~ ~~ ~.~e
~
~ sva
:~[ is
~
xa i
~ ~~~
~} c
1 ~~
~~ ~.
~~
s li
,t
~J
~`~'
t'~
~'~~'}
~'-Y F.
t{~~~ ~
.-~~
~,..A,•~t.-
;.. ~.
t z;
,,~,,r,,
nq; '. -yy:
~'' a "t
.;;~~~1
'' :`
r: ~..,
};
,:.~
~;~~,
si~rk
a4
- ~}:
;<t ~3.
~;:.
x~ '~,
^,Y~
~ ,~i
,.
.;?"
,;
~L~ G
IJ s
tr ~yJ
~,
caw
j'I~it.
,,w';i,;,-;
'k
~n~>
": h ~~.:i'J:.
~':. t.r. ,~'
:i]
=,t.
~,;
Date/Time 12-08-2006
LocaIID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
~ "` Broadcast Report ~
10:05:33 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
This document :Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size : 8.5"x11"
Total Paaes Scanned ~ 3
/,
p7Y °P MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
~rdfXl~ REGULAR MEIETING
ron~a AGENDA
City Ctsunral Chambers
33 Ernst Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday. Det:ember T, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although she City of Meridian no longer regtrines swam tastbrrorry,
ell presentatlans 6efare the Mayor and City Cound! are expelled
to be truthful arra' hornasf to best of the abtUty of the presenter."
1. Roli-ca0 Attendance:
,~_ tcelth Borup ~_ Wendy Nev.~on.Ht~abay
,~ David Moe David Zaromba
~_ Michtad Rohm - c~tairrnan
2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~rT~ff-C..
Recagn[tlon of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
3. Conserrt Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of Octolter 19, 2008 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: ,J~.,,.rpir2...
B. Approve Minutes of ""N~o PP+re"m__Irer 2, 2008 PlannhTg & Zor-ing
Commission Meeting: f~~~l~,,-pub l,~{ ~•t,~,~-~t,.,~y,
C, findings of Fact and Conclu~ons of Law for Approval: CUP
08-033 Rt~uest for a Condittonet Use Petmft fora 8,300 square
foot Rayoare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Une Mss,
LLC - 3475 E Usticlc Road: Ann rp(~
4. Fublk Heating: AZ 08.055 Roque°st,~t~or Annexation and ZonU+g of 1.12
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone far Gana and grade Babbitt by the City
of Mertdlan Public lW~~~ug~L~et Grove Road:
S. Pubttc Heating: AZ 08.053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20
acres from RUT to a L-0 zone for Ada County Highway Qlsttic! Locust
Grove Road Pond by Ada County Hkjhvray District - 1280 N. Locust
C3rove Road: RC.GcH+a,rrticv~oQ aA -~ CFA..
Met~fan Plmsntng and Zaadng CmmNa~n Maedr~ /~enda- t T. Z~ Aapa 7 Of 3
Ad me>e+>~s p~antad at Dubrs masCl~e shall b~ama pm~perty orthe C11y o} Iderid{m~.
Am/C~ba dashing eoeairpnadaf~n rordiWMl®a6 mlabod t0 dOe mMlm heror~,
Please the City CIerICe Office at 8Nd433 a168e8148 h0Uf9 pRm t0 the pVbBE m9atltlg.
Tn}nl Donee r nnftrnncil • 4L:
No. Job Remate Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results
001 357 3810160 09:47:01 a.m. 12-08-2006 00:00:00 0/3 1 - HS FA
002 357 8989551 09:47:01 a.m. 12-08-2006 00:00:50 313 1 EC HS CP21600
003 357 8848723 09:47:01 a.m. 12-08 2006 00:01:18 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400
004 357 8886854 09:47:01 a.m. 12-08-2006 00:00:39 3!3 1 EC HS CP31200
005 357 8985501 09:47:01 a.m. 12-OS-2006 00:01:18 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400
006 357 8467366 09:47:01 a.m. 12-08-2006 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800
007 357 8950390 09:47:01 a.m. 12-OS-2006 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800
F9zx ;,
F'3
ri
~`a;
err
~~ , ~,
~~-1
~~yy
,.. :~.
~?N
~ ~y.
~~. .~:
~~F..
a~S~J
-, #,
~ ~ ~ ~:
~ ~ ~`
,,._j>,
.Y_' yt
~.
~~,
~~'
~,
:~
~ ;'
~ `,
5;
z: .._
~ F
tF
~~
~~
~:
~:
~~;~
~~
~,
E::
°,
~t'.'f
d
1y
3
:y
~;
3~
~_. a~
JA
S
S
;v
j
E
~~
~, ner
1
`' ~
® •
Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina December 7 2006
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 7, 2006, was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, David
Zaremba, and David Moe.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Sharon Smith, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Wafters,
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
X Michael Rohm -Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Boy, we have a full crowd tonight. At this
time I'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission and start with roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: Okay. The first item after the roll call is the adoption of the agenda and we do
have one change to that agenda tonight and that is Item 14 and 15 on the agenda, the
Public Hearing for Jericho Subdivision, the applicant has requested that that application
be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of February 8th, 2007, and we will be
doing that at the time that that item on the agenda comes forward. Oh. Excuse me.
And Item No. 8, which is Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, was not properly posted and
so that application will also be continued to the December 21st agenda and there is not
anything other than we didn't receive certificate of posting and so we can't validate that
it had the appropriate length of time posted, so it will be continued to December 21st.
Other than that, the balance of the agenda will stay as listed. Could I get a motion to ,
accept the agenda as amended?
Moe: So moved.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? The agenda has been adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Recognition of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day
1 ~~k~~
~' ~~rt L ~`.~ 77'f1~jF'~"
4 r' z
~~ 3 ~~ ~7.
4 ~{tY y {~ ~4.
C, Y`~Sjr ~ a~ ~ N!.? .
,f J~r
x
~,
N# ¢ti.~t~'t~h t s~
t~, ~' ~~
~~ s s~ ~ u~ ~ ~~':
~;~
~i~' y' 3`~' r~{
M,iE'.~
~fl
x yc
^{'r~ti.~ _ 3i ~~
}~{r~1 ~r1T IS /E -
,f~ i l a~ ~
.~ 'N~' ~:
z'Y } i .
}~',w S~ na H rA-
~g'~~k f'r~ ~f [~Y..-.
j ,. ~c
~,,,t~rfi~'; tr ~3q hrc:
s z 't,i
~ a `.~+a 4 i+t ?
Y d
~ ;
~C ~ ~ ~
.~ c ~ a5;
~.?.k3~?CSC f:~ i~ S.,r
~tF ii ~~ 4; 5 ~Y;`~~d'
~ a.i Ai
. S , 7
} ~ a 4 t ,
t i) ~
n, ~„ ~ t ~ .
r, S.R ~!{C~.
x S, .~ ~,+ ~ ~ .
w
¢ '~
a;
~`
~ ,~
,S ..
r.
~1
r'~f: NI
'U.
'.
~;,
_;
,t
~,
~,:~
~~~
~,; '1
~~ `7
t -_
~: ~
~,- a
r~
';
~,.
~::
Aft ; ~.
.-
.N ~p
S t
TJI ~~S
, ~
4
•'
~j
~J+
S ;i
F~k" ~
~
.
{ ,
~
u ;}
;.~~ :.`
.i
... i*~~
~
'd' ~~~ Sri.
.s .k ;
•
iy ~ ~
V
~;
. -~ ,
v
~
:
~:
} Y
:Jb ~ w .
~{y
.
~
~
M 'r
:;'i
r. ~.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 2 of 90
Rohm: Okay. Normally we start our meeting by stating some rules of order, but tonight
we are going to dd something a little bit different and it has everything to do with this
being December 7~'. I'd like to read excerpts from President Bush's proclamation today
and if we could have a moment of silence after I have completed the reading, I would
appreciate it. President George W. Bush has proclaimed today, December 7th, 2006,
as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day in honor of the 2,400 Americans who lost
their lives in a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor 65 years ago. It would be appropriate to --
take amoment of silence to honor the sacrifices of the brave individuals at Pearl Harbor
and the Americans in the service who protect our country today. Let's take a moment of
silence, please. Thank you very much.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of October 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of November 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP
06-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 6,300 square
foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare Una Mas,
LLC - 3475 E. Ustick Road:
Rohm: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that is -- has three
items, the minutes of October 19th, 2006; November 2nd, 2006, and Findings of Fact,
Conclusion of Law for CUP 06-033, related to Una Mas Day Care. Are there any
additions or corrections to any of those items?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have one minor change to ask. On the minutes for November 2nd, 2006,
on page 25, the second time I speak, the longer paragraph there, the next line from the
bottom starts: 2006 for the purpose of reconfiguration of two -- and the word years, but
that word should be areas. A-r-a-a-s. That's the only change I have. ~
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.. Any other additions or corrections? Could I get a motion to
accept the Consent Agenda as amended?
Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Y~ ~ yt ~
} ~ ~ ~ ~;~.
t
fi ~- },. 9µ r~;
i~k4 r5.-~{C~ :i S 6~~~~x~
~,3-
y 2 u
,$
~t p'
~~
,.
F4 5 4J
~~ ~ I
5~ ~ -~...
z ~ ~ 1¢/;~.
i
`F.'
13~> ~p4 f#~~`
y~'~{ ~
~ r Y- i
4 ~'4^. ~ "F~ ~ ~
~ 'a,
~ r
'~ti f ~i h .t~ ~y
S'xSr ~ ~ f 4
.{
fp M ! ?fir
1 ~~ ~ r
/.~~,
~i x,~'
~~; 5 i`3'
r'z;'?' ~~ ~ y S~
a
y `_-~ i4 ~ii .
~ ,r v,,
r,~"~ ,
p ~ s
Z -c .. t3 Fig
%~ f i
YY3 , ~.~.
~i 1
~~y~ ~r:f i~" tom.
~.;
9 ,: :;,~
,.,
K-
;;-<~
r
~{'
,~ ' }
k~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 3 of 90
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda as amended. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Now, we have got that homework out of the way, before we open up our first
hearing tonight, there are many of you here in the audience tonight that don't attend
these on a regular basis and so I'd like to just kind of go through a little procedure
before we get started. Basically, what we do, we will open up a Public Hearing on a
project and we will ask our staff to give their presentation. The staffs presentation is,
basically, neutral. It takes a look at the project as it adheres to ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan. They will point out deficiencies or things that they feel the project
needs to do differently in order to come in compliance with the city's direction. Once the
staff has given their presentation, the applicant, then, has their opportunity to speak.
What they are doing is they are trying to sell the project to the Commission. Once those
two presentations have been completed, that's when everybody else has a chance to
give their thoughts on an individual project. It's very important that we try and give each
speaker complete time at the podium without interruptions or comments from the field
and as each of you speak that same courtesy will be given and so the time limits are --
what are they, 15 minutes for the presentation from the applicant and, then, each
respondent has three minutes, unless they are a spokesman for large group, like a
homeowners association, something like that, and, then, that individual will be given ten
minutes. And, then, once those -- that discussion is completed, the applicant has ten
minutes to respond to anything brought up in the open discussion. And once that's
done, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to have enough information to render a
decision tonight to move it forward to City Council. So, with that being said we are
ready to begin.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 06-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Gene and Freda Babbitt by the City
of Meridian Public Works Department - 2570 S. Locust Grove Road:
Rohm: And at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-055, request for
annexation by Gene and Freda Babbitt and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The application before you
-- the first application on your regular agenda item is for annexation and zoning of
approximately 1.12 acres currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The requested zone is
to R-4 or medium low density residential district. The applicant in this instance is the
Meridian Public Works Department. The reason for that is these folks' well is about
dried up, so they need to be hooked up to city services. They are not proposing any
new development at this time. There is an existing single family home on this site that
does need to be hooked up to sewer and water, therefore, annexed into the city. Staff
is recommending that no development agreement be required in this instance. I
wouldn't be too terribly surprised if this parcel was back before this Commission
sometime in the future to do a two lot subdivision or something, but that's about as
! ~r tRi ~:
r
L R~!„~ 1 a' Ctrl
M IS'^~ ,,yy~,,~~~Ct'JF~ '~
~,Y~S R 7 i 1~ ~ tY
~ a
a ~~ r-~~~
~ *}S ~f
r ~M?~
~.
~~~ 5
~ ~ , Via. .
~< ~ ~ ' }.
~~~ ~ 1,
f ~ ~~:
1
', 47~~
~ ~ ~ ~3'
v, •4~
,~ ~t3~ ~jas fa~.:.
~ S u
{w: ti AID ~:
15 Div ~. '.,~ ~t ~Y
y,,
^'u 6 mp-
cr
t S~
,~£
51 t ~~1 ~~. MIy < s,
~~~ ~ ~~¢4~15 S! X73
Efi~Y i #+fF1~lk S! I9~
r
!f.
r '1R
~«~~~
i
.~
i
'.'1
;_
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 4 of 90
much as you could do with this parcel. Again, it's 1.14 acres. By the time ACHD gets
their hands on the right of way and you take a landscape buffer out of it, there is maybe
a half acre there to develop. So, maybe in the future two lots. Staff is recommending
approval. You can see from this map -- maybe the aerial is even better -- it's a
residential area. There is -- the parcel to the south is also still in the county, zoned
RUT. Everything else is zone R-4 and has been annexed into the city. With that I will
stand for any questions you may have.
Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to
come forward, please? I guess we really -- well, they are not necessarily here to
represent themselves, the city is doing that.
Hood: I asked Mike if he wanted to add anything and --
Cole: Public Works weren't exactly the applicant. We filled out the paperwork and
posted the site for the applicants. They were an elderly couple that were having
problems following through the procedure, so Public Works staff has -- being friendly to
the people that were having problems, filled out the paperwork for them and posted the
site for them. There is another outstanding issue here that I would let Caleb talk about.
Hood: There is a little bit of a miscommunication here. The City of Meridian is the
applicant on this application. We do not need a waiver of the fees, because we are
applying for this annexation and we don't need to ask the city to waive the fees,
because we filled out the application, submitted all the paperwork and so I apologize for
that. I never talked to Mike about that. But that's why the city is the applicant, so they
don't have to pay any fees in this instance. So, with that I'll stand for any other
questions or follow up you may have.
~~ Rohm: Okay. Works for me. Seeings how we don't have any applicant to speak, you
~;.
s:-, ~:
still, as an audience, have an opportunity to come forward and speak on this
`,' ~nnlir,~+inn en if +hcrc ie anunna at this timA that wrndrl GkP to Come for+Nard and speak
;.;. ~ to this application, now is the time. Seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Yes.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on file number AZ 06-055.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-055. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 5 of 90
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
' Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- or at least the
F-~ opportunity to give it, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
AZ 06-055 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006,
with no modifications.
`` ~ Moe: Second.
E~,
:: ' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of AZ
~,
06-055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
: Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 06-053 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.0
` acres from RUT to a L-O zone for Ada County Highway District Locust
~~ Grove Road Pond by Ada County Highway District - 1280 N. Locust
'~ Grove Road:
t~;
Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-053 and this is
Ada County Highway District Locust Grove Road Pond and begin with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If we had a Consent
Agenda I believe this would be another one that would be a good candidate for it, that's
why they are at the beginning of the agenda tonight. This application is to annex 2.0
~ acres into the City of Meridian with the L-O zoning. That zoning is consistent with our
current Comprehensive Plan. They have no intentions of developing any office uses or
~'" , commercial uses on the site, it is solely for the use of a storm drain pond for ACHD, this
triangular piece that's highlighted on the screen. To the west of the site is Cazia
~ Subdivision. It's all residential there in Cazia, but there are two commercial lots and
' I ad'acent to across Locust Grove from this site. So, there are two C-N
they are direct y ~
zoned lots there. Everything else is still RUT in the county. There are some homes
~f. -~~~
~ around this area and, in fact, on this site now that will be removed if this is approved, so
~s, ,
,
ACHD can put in their storm drain pond. Staff is recommending that they submit a
:
certificate of zoning compliance with this application, so we can, in fact, go out there
~ in tailed when it is
and do a final ins ection and si n off on the landsca in bein s
P 9 p 9 9
' u II acce tin water into the ond. The are rovidin a
complete and pnor to them act a y p g p Y p 9
'{
-
30-foot wide landscape buffer along Locust Grove. Pretty attractive. A landscape
~
~Y buffer. Our code requires a 25-foot landscape buffer. The design of that -- I tried to get
~s =; the Parks Department to comment on it. We have acurrent -- currently we have a
°,f.; master agreement for these with ACHD. We will add this one to the master agreement.
It, basically, says the city parks department will maintain the landscaping. ACHD is not
in the business of maintaining landscaping. So, our parks department just wants to
'j make sure that it's low maintenance stuff and they don't need to be out there every
.},I,
n
;_
~ti'- Meridian Planning & Zoning
~- December 7, 2006
~,,
s Paae 6 of 90
~~ ~ other day cutting grass and trimming trees and things like that. So, Elroy just didn't
have enough time to get a copy from The Land Group to review it, but we can work
`~~`` through that through the certificate of zoning compliance. I believe that's all that I have
on this application. If you have any questions I will be able to answer them.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Okay. Do we have an
applicant this time? Would the applicant like to come forward, please?
e;
1
~,
. "~
=~
r~
~~
Russell: Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Doug Russell, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle,
Idaho, and I'm with The Land Group, Incorporated, and we are representing ACHD for
this project. I don't really have a lot to add to the staff report, but I would like to mention
just a couple of things. The first one is that we did have a neighborhood meeting as
required by the city and we did have one person show up to the meeting and they were
from the Cazia Subdivision and they seemed to be real pleased. He was the
neighborhood association representative. They were real pleased with what was going
in there and they were pleased with the design and gave us their thumbs up on that, so
no issues with the neighbors there. I did have a conversation with Elroy Huff today with
the Meridian Parks Department. We definitely had a hard time kind of coordinating a
meeting or a conversation. I did give him some plans and he reviewed it and he had a
few questions and after I answered them he seemed very comfortable with the plan.
But, obviously, we can deal with anything that might come up between now and then
with the certificate of zoning, but he did give me the thumbs up today. We tried to
develop a site plan that was going to maintain as many existing trees on the site as
possible and we -- as was mentioned, we provided a nice landscape buffer between the
facility and the road and, you know, as far as drainage facilities go it's going to be a
pretty nice one. So, I think it's going to fit in well, it's going to serve the needs of ACHD
and the drainage that they need off the future road improvements there and just hope
that you will approve it tonight so we can move forward. I'll stand for questions if you
have any.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Okay. There has not been anybody that has signed up, but now is the time to come
forward if you have any questions of this application. And seeing none --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-053.
Borup: Second.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-053. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
~~. X1:3 ~,. ~.:?x
„r,t
`~
3
L
~~ ~,;~
~~ ~ ~
l~C~k ,
rs# y ;t
~ ~ ~~ ~ '4
S;Y. 4~' ~`~iix.
r `F~'
{ ` ~
i ~~ y "I:
~, '. ~ Y ,t ', ~,
.~~~ ~ ~.
~ ~y a.ii.
~ ~~~ fs;~.,,
~~~~w f~ f r, ~~ ~~
Ti ~ r M i.
~ 4'~ aiR~l
~~~~ ,~
~,~s,~ a. ~ ~~,
u r ~*i~ ~
k w ~
~ ~ ~; "
,a ~ ,,, ~
~s ~ ~~~;1
s , tl~
xr~ ~ r
~~ ,g~ y, ,
3; f;~ rl t ,1ri I n.~i~3~=.-
ads` ~E~ ~ ~: r a 4~i>~:.
Y ~n c7 ~-.
a I ?~
~ ~ r
~ ,; ! I~~~ag~1~y~ ~:
~i~ ~.~`~.~~-3~i'~'Y~f~'..
'~,F. h ~ ...F
J N.'.:
.. A: ..-
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 7 of 90
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: After considering all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public
opportunity to testify, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number
AZ 06-053 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006,
with no changes.
Moe: Second.
:.
E . ;;~
~-
.',x
.~
r
x'
c?~`.
~~
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-053. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion
carved. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 06-038 Request for detailed Conditional Use
Permit approval for office uses in an L-O zone per requirement of the
Development Agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision Buildings "A &
B" by Babichenko, LLC - 503 S.W. 5~" Avenue:
Rohm: Going pretty good. It's making me a little nervous. Okay. At this time I'd like to
open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-038, related to the Troutner Park Subdivision,
Building A and B, and begin with our staff report.
Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct two 7,200 square foot office buildings
in an L-O zone. The property is located at 503 Southwest 5th Avenue on the west side
of Southwest 5th Avenue, south of Franklin Road in Troutner Park Subdivision. If you
look on the overhead here, Franklin Road is right here, Southwest 5th Avenue runs right
down here. The subject property is there. To the north and south is vacant commercial
property -- office property zoned L-O. To the east is commercial property, zoned C-G.
And to the west is residential property, zoned R-8. A Conditional Use Permit would not
typically be required for this project, as office uses are principally permitted in the L-O
zoning district. However, the development agreement for Troutner Park Subdivision
requires all development to obtain CUP approval prior to submittal of the certificate of
zoning compliance application. The site plan, landscape plan, and elevations submitted
with the CUP application meet the requirements of the UDC for the L-O zoning district.
Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in
the staff report based on the Findings of Facts listed in Exhibit C and subject to the
conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
~':;$•I$~ ~;;:~r~~:~}f~:~1=~~~~~l~k:;I, ~„~: ,,,;... "~i},h ' < Y `.I'- a ~;:.~s,.` : i i ~ l ~l }i~ : !*"^:,'.iF~ll'`~11~2~'fIET~:}Ifi"' "''i~'~:• :. ~ ..h„ ~~;, u`„'~`',:
~ + a•a t
g i~ ,~` [ i k~l
s,. ' `, 3
''.e ~ y ~~.?~
7~~ '~;j~~ iT~~j'r?.
~~~~ itl ~ ~~ ~{{~~
~F i
~-.• ~,:.
~ ~ t.x'~ilV,.
~ ,` ~ ~~
i
s ~,
Syf~ j
S F d~s'I ;4agjjll~~~ ~`,
~Cn k -.:'i-~rp
' I ~1 y~,r4`4_rx
` L I h:l(~:f~-
l }
` ~'
'~1f,F.`~ `~ ~ ySy TM~y ~.G 'i
.~ ~ Jl ~~~
=3 !' ';
~ tl ~~ ~ ~y-~i
'' J ;5
~ ~ ~`6 ~ ~p~4".;
~ ,,
~ ~,
~ _m ~ ~~a~~li$~~
~~ ~,~x
,; ° if
-: ',~~~
~~}~ ;
F +~,:~ ~ }
:~
~ ~
` ~ ~~~<-
~ 3. ~~tge~~F
~ ~M
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
~' Page 8 of 90
Gibson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is James Gibson,
address P.O. Box 219 in beautiful Eagle. I am the project architect representing the
project this evening. First, a word of thanks to the staff for their support and help with
`' the application. They were very very helpful and we appreciate that. I don't think that
~:
this is a very controversial application. We believe that it's completely compliant with
the intent of the zone there. We did have a neighborhood meeting. One party showed
~- >~ up, a neighbor who lives in the area there, and they were very satisfied that they were --
thought this was fine. One other party contacted me simply inquiring where the property
was and they had no objection. They supported the application. We don't have any
difficulty with the proposed conditions and simply request your approval as presented.
If there are any questions we will try to address those. I mentioned that Mr.
Babichenko, one of the owners of the property, is present and will participate if there are
questions that you might have of him. Thank you.
r° ~'~ Rohm: You bet. Thank you very much. Okay. Other than the applicant and your co-
presenter, there is nobody else that has signed up to this application. So, I think we will
~~ do as we have done in the past, open it up and if there is somebody that would like to
speak they are certainly welcome. Thank you for your presentation. Okay. Is there
anybody else that would like to speak to this application at this time? Thank you.
~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
"''~ Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-038.
Borup: Second.
`~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-038. All
~~ those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
a
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
~~ ' Zaremba: After considering all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public the
opportunity to testify, I move to approve file number CUP 06-038 as presented in the
4- ; staff report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006. I further move to direct staff to
prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing on December 21st, 2006.
Borup: Second.
~. }~
r =;y
~~'
,~ F?
~' ~~nnua~
~'
79
~t
~~; ~
~ 5
~ ~
~ ~i
S 1~
r !±
~+
f~
a.
~'~~
~ e
k ,".
~'
p ~~ r
E ~~kt9'
~ o-
x'
:
r
Y ~
L
r ~: ~ #~~~~~.!a. i
~ s a
F ~z ~
~~11~L, t
a ~ ~~
ca, '~~ t,
~ ~' !: til! ~ ~;7~i~i°~
~l ~.., _. r.t
+ ~i' .
L ~.~G~ ~~~'~i~LS
.
..
(
~ f
~
~e
~.
'
~py';~.
1 ~ ~ ~ i-
F
~
~ 'i 4
t!
~
~
~:
n~~!t .
~: ' ,~~tlif - <
i
~'
~~
~
~ ~~
-
~!
•'"
~ r
i
~
4
~
i
P~i~
p~j ~
t p :~~ 6~~ 3i1 ~,
ll`
~
'
S -
FF
Si;
~ k ~ l
r.4
c~
i
~!R
$~F{~i~~"
w
~'
' t ~
, i
s
~ i;p~~t
[
~
1
~
~t
£
~
~~ ~ F i!
~~~ f
~
~~
,
D~ a,? ~~
~
~ ~;1+
~
Y
i
~t
;t~~.
~ -~fn ~~ ~
~:
,.r i i~Rp~S~'r~~. ,~ -
i
'r (- ~ le!~y..
~
s
s ~;~ I ~ lel~
`.
~ ~ ~-it
r,.:,
rr
~"
Mendian Planning ~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
;: Page 9 of 90
fix..
Rohm: It's been moved and second to approve CUP 06-038. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much.
3:~ :- ,
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~.,
Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 06-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
~ group daycare for up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes
°~- Childcare by Pamela Minshew - 672 E. Baldwin Street:
,;_~
Rohm: Okay. Item 7 on the Agenda is CUP 06-037, a request for a Conditional Use
~' '' Permit for a group day care for up to 12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes Child
Care. And I d like to start with the staff report.
~, Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a
~'~ request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a group child care facility for up to 12
`' -'~ children in an R-8 zone. The property is located at 672 East Baldwin Street within
i Bedford Place Subdivision, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Meridian Road.
;~` , The property is surrounded by single family residential property that is zoned R-8. The
applicant is proposing to operate the child care facility in an existing house. The
applicant is not proposing to have anyone live in the house, it will only be used for child
z~; ~: care purposes. The Unified Development Code requires child care facilities for to up 12
<_ children to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval in the R-8 zone. Access to the
property is provided by East Baldwin Street, a local public street. The applicant is
~;;:.;
providing three off-street parking spaces for clients, with two parking spaces in the
garage for employees. Here is a copy of their site plan here. And this is the elevations.
fir:; The applicant recently poured an additional parking spot over here on the side. They
~~ have three parking spots. The existing landscaping and fencing on the property meets
the requirements of the UDC for child care facilities. The rear yard is currently fenced
~=' ` with a six foot tall solid wood fence that provides screening to adjacent properties. You
can see on the site plan here. This is the rear yard of the property. Several letters and
~` a petition have been received by the city from residents of the Bedford Place
Subdivision regarding this application. To help alleviate impacts to the surrounding
residential properties, staff is requiring that the hours of operation be limited from 7:00
~;;
T
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. That the existing landscaping be maintained in a healthy and
4
. attractive manner and that the residential appearance of the house be maintained. Staff
~ ~~
<~ is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff
~
_
s
report, subject conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission
~3.
has questions.
r;. Rohm: Not at this time, but might get back to that. At this time would the applicant like
~;_;
~~-
to come forward, please.
Minshew: Good evening. My name is Casey Minshew and this is my wife Pam
Minshew. I work full time at Micron. My wife used to work for Idaho Power full time.
Just to back up a little bit, we did meet with the homeowners association, presented our
~~` proposal to them. I will say that they were reluctant to accept it. We did have a public
i f
"`' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 10 of 90
` meeting and there were eight residents that showed up. Several of them had left prior
to the end, but they were somewhat reluctant to accept it. Prior to the public meeting
my wife -- and this was before we found out that we had to go within 300 feet of the
;; ;
resident home -- she had gone up and down the street that the home is on, behind us,
and had signatures of the residents that approved it and there was only two that
disapproved it. They weren't at any of the meetings, they weren't a part of the
association board. But if I could take just a few minutes of your time to -- for the city
commissioners and also the Bedford residents, our names, again, Casey and Pam
Minshew. To give a little background, both my wife and I are Idaho natives. Pam was
born here and raised in the Treasure Valley. I was bom and raised in Pocatello. Our
=, children were bom here and graduated from Meridian and Centennial High Schools.
We have six children with all but three marred and with children. Approximately three
'~ ~ years ago the first of our three grandchildren were bom. Prior to our granddaughter's
birth, my wife had decided to not allow our children's siblings to end up in public day
care institutions. Even though we lived in a two income economy, Pam decided to quit
her full-time job at Idaho Power and offer a more personal residential child care
_ environment for our grandchildren, as well as for a couple expecting personal friends.
The reason Pam has decided to move Pammy Cakes Child Care out of our home and
v,:~'~, into a house strictly for child care is simply because our personal children and friends
`~ are expecting more siblings. Please keep in mind that for many two income families it's
very important to the parents that their children are cared for in a more personal
residential child care pe environment. Because of this need and since Bedford Place
is zoned for conditional use child care and only minutes from our current home, we
chose Bedford Place. We don't want to take much more of your time, but these are the
commitments that we make to Bedford. This property will be used for a small child
,~ ~ group home -- or group child care home in which my wife Pam and one other person will
~
~r-
ix ears of a e
f r small children and infants. The a es attendin will ran a from s
care o 9 Y 9
9 9
to 12 weeks old. The maximum number of children attending Pammy Cakes Child Care
. will be 12. There will not be a business sign out in front. The hours of child care will be
- Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 5:30. The child care will be closed on weekends and all
major holidays. As much as possible, parents will park in the driveway to drop off and
''~' to pick up their children. There will not be any transportation vans parked out in front.
°;I Pam will transport preschool children to and from school in her personal vehicle. There
.:',s~ will be an open door policy and anyone wanting to visit is welcome within reasonable
hours. My wife and I will maintain the property and keep it well manicured. It will never
' have the appearance of a day care facility. It will always look residential. The children
will be supervised while playing outside. The play area will be limited to the backyard
i and all the toys will be kept in the backyard as well. I know within Bedford Subdivision
;
' there has been discussion and written reports that a commercial business day care is
trying to move into Bedford Subdivision and they must be stopped or more commercial
u` `~ businesses will move in, which is basically a quote. Respectfully we totally understand
r ='~ ~ Bedford's concerns, for we are concerned ourselves. Not only do we want to keep a
well manicured, safe, and secure subdivision, but we want to assure our property values
are maintained as well, values that are not diluted by unsightly residences, noncaring
renters, and poorly managed yards, junker and multiple automobiles parked in our
streets. Fifth wheels and trailers parked in front of homes and driveways. And
~~
;,
i:. f~
r,
~~
s r
. ~ ~ ~
~
fit'" - i~
~~ ~
~i ' '~i ~ ~'iar,it
~'
'
kEs
~}~ _
Y
tC
~
T: .
i~
'~. _
2 ~ 7id~'i~ 1
`
.
£
R
1
1 V, is ~~: it
{ ~ {~~
r
~ ~ ~~
1
I
~ Y ffF I f~
~ r
f { >
~1 d
_
~ "i i!
~ / ~ ~
a
~ ~ b is
I~
i
~ , a ° ,
~ f ': d ~ ~vh,?~
d, ` { `
~ ~ FFF
2ra- }
}
~ yf~j
'
~ ~
~s; ~ ~~
f i Y i ~ ~~t ~
is
:~
~~
Ya~ ~~-~I+~~~'
~'' ~' ~ ~i~i~ f.
~ : ~ ~
~ t
~
~~::i,{
i,.~id ~ ,iE -~~#,.
y * , k
f ; ~ ~.4
f' ,
rX ~1 ~
~ ~ y
~~
~
JL
S!t ~ h ~p ~:{~
~tq , ~ y ' as q
x
.i all l 5
~ ~
?'(: ~ '
'S
f
i
,
~c ~1f",'
~I 'F '] R s'
L
~t '•::s 3 ~ t~Ji~:,
.,l~~.
"F lM ~ ~ ~ ~a h
.
;4~ r
~ y~~g;it, ~
~ ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 11 of 90
_ commercial businesses moving in to set up shop. Not only do most subdivision
covenants restrict the before mentioned, but the City of Meridian restricts most of the
mentioned, too. The city understands the importance of maintaining value within a
subdivision, if nothing more than for property tax revenue. According to Meridian city
zoning, impacting commercial businesses are not allowed, nor will they receive a permit
to perform business within a residential subdivision. However, our great city recognizes
the need for residential type child care homes, which contribute to the well being and
quality public child care for parents. Based on the current R-8 zoning ordinance for
Bedford Place, a child care facility is an allowed use in this zone with conditional
approval. These conditions which Pammy Cakes Child Care willfully comply to. We are
hoping for city approval, but for some reason if conditional approval is not granted, our
option is to tum our lovely house into a rental, in which we will have minimal control as
to how the yard and appearance will be kept. Please try and understand the importance
and need for residential child care. Many parents do not want their children in large
~'LI
commercial day care institutions. If we close our subdivisions to residential child care,
' we are shutting the doors to working parents and the few options they have for quality
child care. Thanks so much for taking the time and this is all that I have for right now.
-9 Rohm: Before you sit down, just a couple questions. Isn't there a number of square
~~ ~~ feet per child requirement for day care, even outside of the getting the Conditional Use
Permit?
4
Minshew: Yes. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but my wife had the health
' department -- Central District Health Department come out and do an audit of the home
and the premises and they said that it was fully compliable and adequately -- it passed
the inspection.
,:, ~.
Rohm: And I assumed that, but I wanted to ask that question, just so that would be on
record that you folks have done your due diligence on making sure that the size of the
. home is adequate to meet the needs for the 12 children. That's the only question I had.
Does anybody -- Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Minshew, I'm kind of curious as far as the kids. Now how many are planned -
- you know, you can go up to 12. How many spots are open in that 12 at this time or is
it all taken or --
Minshew: I believe there is six spots open, but there is people waiting with their names.
Moe: And are those people within your neighborhood or are they out of your
neighborhood? Just curious about that.
Minshew: My wife would have to answer that. I'm not sure.
Nary: You have to come up here.
Rohm: You have to be recognized at the podium.
f~
;i
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~+~§ Ei~~
~~~~s : ~ ~~ ~ ~.Y"~'
k
3, a 4_ ~r ~j. ~~~~~
~:~;'_.~ sly
~ i ;I~fl~ ~Sj~ !Y
~ e r:, ~ r.
ylK++
~ J i 'la~ ~i 'r
F
~ t
4!,' e
v
~ a~,1
f ~ a;'F
~~ `~ R ~ Lfy i~ ~~~~~~~
R. ~ a k t;
~ ~r ~ ~~
x,.~,
•r'
t* ..p j'q~ f~.
~.£ r . ., ,,~. .
x
.F
~ a~ ~ µ~~~~istla
1 Y 1 ~:t y.
~ ~~af
~• .: ~°r~
~_x r~ N.~
}}5 I
~'
4 t'
i
a~s~'~ ~~at~;~
4 ' '~
~. .
'~~,~~ ,
~. , ~' 4~,~s ~ ,~~,~ F~
iM17 ~ ~ ~€..
e a S:c ~'i",'~iiY_
~ ~ ~
-~, :,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 12 of 90
'rW
P. Minshew: I'm sorry. I'm Pam Minshew, Pammy Cakes Day Care, and most of them
are within three to five miles radius and a lot of them are school teachers waiting --
having babies in the spring, waiting to get in there.
Rohm: Thank you.
Moe: Thank you very much.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant?
Zaremba: Not at this time.
Rohm: Not at this time. Because I'm sure this -- you're new to this, one of the things
that I would recommend to you is as we take additional testimony, you need to pay
attention to what their concems are, because once they have expressed any concems,
`;i you have the opportunity to respond to any comments made as testimony and that's just
your opportunity to have the last word, if you will. Okay. Thank you very much.
Minshew: Thank you.
Rohm: All right. We have quite a number of people that have signed up to speak to this
~' ``~ application, but before I start calling them off, many times there will be a spokesman for
,i a subdivision or a homeowners group, and before we take any other additional
§.
~; testimony, I'd like to see if there is a spokesman and if there is would you like to come
forward at this time and state your name and, then, before you start speaking I'd like to
~~~ ' ~ I~, see a show of hands for whom he's speaking. Okay. All right. Good. This is good.
~k. "' Thank you very much and with that being said, please, state your name and address for
.~I the record.
`;
Tewksbury: My name is Ken Tewksbury and I live at 515 East Sedgewick, Meridian, in
e Bedford Place Subdivision. I have been a resident of Ada County for over 53 years, half
of which has been in the City of Meridian. I went all 12 years through the Meridian
School District. In the late '70s I was appointed by then Mayor Don Storey to serve on
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, so I understand where you guys are
and where you're coming from. And at that time we had the early version -- 1978
version of the Comprehensive Plan, which we were right in the middle of and had lots of
~~ fun with it. I moved to Eagle in 1983 and served on their Planning and Zoning
Commission also for another three years. When we moved to Eagle we purchased a
} larger home in which to raise our family and four and a half years ago, after our kids
s:. -:
~° ~~ were gone, we moved back to Meridian to a smaller home in Bedford Place. I tell you
_ this so that you know that, first, I understand and appreciate the difficult position you are
often put in as P&Z. And, secondly, to establish the fact that I do have a vested interest
in Meridian community. I'm presently a member of the Bedford Place Homeowners
Association board. Our subdivision, like most subdivisions in Meridian, has covenants
which help us to maintain the quality of life, safety, and appearance of the subdivision.
4
~~
:.'"
Y
j
.'
,~
.. ~E
'.' ~b
;i
r
'E
:3
y
y
~-. ~ ~ a 11i i}
~~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~t §dtPli~`.
~.7 -~f-.
4' "_
~, ,,
~ ~ chi ~ y ; i~,
'~ bb ~ ,,
~.. ~~ 5 i ay~,~~~.tF~~~~4
j~~ ~ ~
r - ,A, :y
~~~ ~ ~- 1 ~
r.
a~~~ ~ ~ a~E (; ~i3
~a ~,~ ~ ~ I} ,:
t~s ~ ~ F~ tir.{.'
R
t a. d ~. o q ' 1:'.
t ' L,.
t
5 F
f~ ~ ~,~
s « n s~
M 4 #~• tl'.~Vf~
~~ x ~ ~~,
.. s
;y ~ h 'r~
i ~i}:
~~ a ~ ~~9ip,~~:
~~a 'r;Y ~ xar-„~
~F'L J S~,,..rr r~
~ ~ /3 L~i
5
a h ; 4i~;~
rc
`~ ~'
r::
~ ,
<:
ji_ _
:: N-
•:
~~
`t
`t
~.
':.
~~
r~
a.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 13 of 90
1_"' I~,
Section 5.13 of that document clearly prohibits the commercial use of the properties in
the subdivision. We are aware the city cannot accept the responsibility of enforcing all
of the specific requirements of the subdivision covenants. However, the city should
recognize the benefit of the covenants to maintain the safety, appearance, and property
values of residential areas. Without the covenants issues concerning maintenance,
minor disturbance, architectural changes, and modifications would quickly affect the
neighborhood and the overall quality of the community. For the most part covenants
have worked well for us. We send out upwards of ten notices per month for violations of
our covenants. The majority response is the immediate correction of the violation. It
works because the people in Meridian want to be good neighbors and don't want to
adversely affect the rights, safety, and visual appearances or property value of the
community. With the high number of rental properties in our area, we are recognizing
less success with this, but in most cases the owners of the homes will bring pressure on
the violators and we have only a handful of serious violators in our community.
Covenants should be looked at by the city as a benefit to maintain the desired character
of community. When an architect designs a building in your city, the appropriate code
ofFcials review the plans and construction to assure the buildings meet minimum code.
If the architect designs something into the building which is above and beyond the code,
the official does not reduce the requirement, but, instead, defers the decision to the
architect. In our case the architect or the developer of our subdivision included
language in the setting up of our covenants which is beyond the code. We are asking a
similar response from the city to defer to documents in our subdivision to determine the
direction of our subdivision. The new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian
encourages mixed use development. These would integrate residential and business
activities to encourage a sense of community and encourage walking and shorter trips
to offices, retail, et cetera. This is a great idea. Sut burying a single commercial
property in a subdivision designed around the old medium density residential
designation does not accomplish mixed use development. Instead, number one, it will
increase traffic, which will coincide exactly with the present parade of public school kids
to the major bus stop that we have at Arrowwood and Ustick. The parents dropping off
kids at the day care will all occupy the same street at the same time. For most of the
school year this occurs in the dark. Safety of our school kids is impacted. Since the
day care is located in the middle of the subdivision, most of the parents' cars will be
required to turn around to drop off kids. This will impact the immediate neighbors with
noise, lights flashing in windows, et cetera, during both morning and the evening.
Number three. Outside play areas will be a source of added noise. Number four. Most
if not all of the patrons using the day care will be from the outside of the subdivision, as I
think you heard. It is assumed that most of the people will drive into the subdivision
and, then, back out to their place of business. Our question is wouldn't it make more
sense to locate the day care closer to the commercial uses? The people of our
subdivision have overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire to not have the day care in
the subdivision. The testimony tonight and the petitions -- the testimony tonight and
petitions previously presented to you demonstrate this. I personally visited or attempted
to visit 30 homes. Of these I received signatures from 20 of the households in
opposition to the day care. No one was found to be home at nine of the homes and
only one declined to sign the petition, saying they were aware of the day care request
~~r~';~
t ;~
,,
~ - ~.E
';; a: i'~~;~
};~~'s ~~~ri~ ~~> ~1
y ` ~;1'
~.'~` ~ '
~ F4~_~
~' .
~3r ., y r
i~ ', ~ ~a ~
~ ;'i~ ~~,.t.
~y ~ ~,a
'9 ry~ ~+ r2!i~...
_ ir.
f f
~...
i
~ ~: z?~~
5 ~ rq~riF -
~ ; :
Y ~~ {~
f ' ~.~ ~,
~z .s ~i,~
~~ -~ ~, ~,`, d ~~ ri!
~' ~ ~ ~;.
.:;~u ~+~ ~~ BSI;'
~ ~
~ ,:,; ~~~~J+~:
y F
~ R;i
~ ~ ra;i
' ~ r~i}
H
+ a ~L i
i~i ~:' ~ ~t~~~tr~
Ike ~ :~ re~~.i,t:
i ~~.~ ,~°
K`
Meridian Planning & Zoning
` December 7, 2006 ,
~} Page 14 of 90
. The didn't reall tell me if the '~ ~ --
and would attend this meeting to express their opinions y y y ~~
were for or against it. We have collected over one -- all of the members have been ,:~ +J 'S
collectively -- collected over 100 signatures from the 153 residences in the subdivision. k
If many of the families using the facility would be from our subdivision it may make more ~
sense to approve the request, but this is not the case, and I don't think that our
subdivision is really going to support or require the needs of that. We are concerned
that if you approve one commercial property, that you will not be able to disapprove ,~ °~
' future proposals that might be brought to you. We could end up with a multiple
~~ commercial business in our subdivision and this could be a slippery slope. Our ~F
homeowners association board met with the Minshews last spring prior to their ~~
purchase of the property to discuss their request. They stated that they live nearby in ~ ~ '
an area zoned R-4, which will not allow a day care under a conditional use and desired
to purchase the property in our subdivision, which is zoned R-8 and does allow day
cares as a conditional use. At that time the entire board expressed their concerrtls and
told them we would not favor the day care, since it is a violation of our covenants.
i
Since, then, they have purchased the property, they installed the concrete slab that was
t~ ~ pointed out with -- without approval of our architectural review committee, and have sent I ~0. ~'
a letter to some of the residents of the subdivision -- I think it mostly was what was read ~°~~
by Mr. Minshew with a threat in it that if the property is not approved for day care, that
they will be forced to turn it into a rental with little control over the resulting condition.
We hope as a board that whether the request for the day care is approved or denied,
that the Minshews will recognize their responsibility to control and maintain the F
~~ appearance of their property. As a side note, the city should review the allowance for ~ ~`
the day care of the conditional use in R-8, but not in R-4. The Minshews live on a `~~
straight -- a straight, wide street immediately off Ustick, which is a major thoroughfare. ~u
' Traffic would be much easier to accommodate. They live in a large house with a large
yard -- once again, much better to handle 12 kids. They would not have to travel to
work and could be there to protect and maintain their property both day and night. Why
is the use not allowed in R-4? I would imagine that the thought is that it should be
allowed in a less desirable area, because the impact on the property value, quality, et ~`f
cetera, et cetera, or is the thought that it may be closer to more families that would use
~ the facility? Once, again, if this was true, it might make more sense. I can't think of any ; ~F
other reason R-8 should be singled out. In general, shouldn't the R-4 residents be able €~ x
a to really absorb the impact and financial property value hit better than the R-8 ~ ~ `=
j Y,
residents? The stated mission of the Meridian Planning Department is to be an
innovative planning team. This is quoted from -- from your website. Meridian Planning
Department is to be an innovative planning team that advances the quality, lifestyle, and
economy envisioned by our Comprehensive Plan. That means that the Comprehensive
e the thin that is drivin the rocess. I think if ou review the y~.
Plan should b
y
9 9 p
' ~` Comprehensive Plan in light of this, that you should review the Comprehensive Plan in ' `~~ f,
light this day care request. I think you will agree that it does not support the basic :;
theme and direction of that plan, things such as thoroughly planned mixed use, `~.
promotes walking and biking, promotes safety, build a sense of community through ,j..
public involvement, decreases residential traffic, decreases traffic generated on key `~
corridors -- all of those kind of jump out at you and we are not really addressing any of
r
r those. As a matter of fact, we are impacting them quite greatly. Look at all of the
,,
~.
x; ~R
~ ~ ;~~~
I ,~ ~'; N, ~' "~k ~ r ~
I ~
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ a,,
~ ' I i ~ ~ ~~ ~~i'~~
~i ., .~ ~ E
-` ! ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ; 11 T 3 ~ ~' i'~ I~?
ti' f ~.
~# { ~ ~ I ~
s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cif ~~tt ~'
~~. ~.i I 7~ n iNrl r ~'1-' < .
~ I ~i ~~~ i
'~ l~ ~ ~ c r~ ~ ~~ I.r i
r~_~, ii ~ .a ~F e 'F
i ~ ,2'~-~ ~': ~ z
, ~5~ ~ ~ ~ }
I ~' "~ I ~ ~' ~ 4 - r
r III '~ j ~ ~ i~ ~I ih . ~~~ -
..t 7 ~ ~ it J ~ y '.
~~ ~ '~~ 1 ~
~N~~ !i a iia f b ~~ i~ S F -
~ -~ ~ ~ it ~ ~i 1 "! ~ k 3°r ~~~i ~~, _
~'. ~ _
{ ~~ r ~~
~ Cpl Y ~ e... `~ I.~ (s, f
f~. I ~ i # w,rtr I ~
,~ ~ nr:; h~ r~'rt
-~- ~ ~ I ~~ 'fir ~ ~ ~' ~ 7 ~~~}~
~ 7 I a ~S dY Y, ¢ i Y'
~t
1 i a ~' 3
7 1-
~~
^~ F
~~ ~
~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , ~ :~ , _ r
t€: ~~~~ I ~ y I ti ,~E , ~' ~
~.
~~~
.;i
~.
~F ~
~:,
~;
~ x, u
,,
~,.
~~ ~ I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 15 of 90
r~
articles and pieces on the website written by the Mayor to encourage input, pride,
involvement, and cooperation between the public and city. Look at the last two city
news letters posted on the website. Not only do they include numerous articles
conceming traffic, but the summer '06 newsletter has an article conceming neighbor
complaints. It encourages the public to contact the homeowners association for issues
not handled by code enforcement. The winter '06 newsletter under of the article Glad
You Asked, discusses in-home business and says people should check your
subdivision covenants to see if home businesses are permitted in your subdivision. So,
obviously, the city does recognize covenants that they may differ from the actual
requirements of the city. I encourage you to not get the cart before the horse. Check
first that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the other
documents and discussions promoted by the city. If at that point you feel that it is, then,
apply the written procedures for the conditional use. Don't let the conditional use
procedures drive the decision. I encourage the P&Z Commission to consider the
testimony of the people conceming this conditional use hearing and exercise your right
to decline approval. Help us maintain our covenants, our residential integrity, safety,
minimize disturbances in our property values. Thank you.
Rohm: That was well timed. Wow. That was a good presentation as well. Any
questions of this individual? Okay.
Zaremba: Excellent. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Before we take additional testimony, I think that it's important that
we -- that I state that we specifically, from a Conditional Use Permit application, cannot
look at the restrictive covenants within your own subdivision. We have to look to
ordinance and our Comprehensive Plan and those are the -- our guide to the
discussion, as opposed to -- and it's not that we don't understand that you have
restrictive covenants, it's just not part of our decision-making process typically. Now,
with that being said, if there is additional testimony that someone would like to come
forward and add to what Mr. Tewksbury has stated --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
~.
k'
I
;~, ; Rohm: -- you can certainly come forward.
Zaremba: When you asked for a spokesman I thought I saw a little extra activity. There
may be more than one spokesman.
~~
Rohm: And that's why I asked is we can go through the list and maybe that's the best
way to do it and you can just from the audience say I have been spoken for if it's so.
;`,
So, I will just start by reading -- Stacy Johnson.
Borup: I guess she's not spoken for.
Johnson: Hi. I live at 650 East Baldwin, directly west of --directly west of the property.
">l
~~~
t ~
I A
a
~'
,'
-i
.~
s ~ °'.
x •`~i
&r ,:
'~ ie
N
F~
~~
~. s
~~
t~
~ ti r~~'~
it P
~,I e K t~ ~ I
l t 7 ,t~ ~ t ~1~
'~ ~,
~~ ~ t I ~~~~ ~z
=5
~:'~ ~ 1 ~ €
~~~~§ "r
f`~ ~ ~i.,
~ ~ r ~''ii'•"-
1 ;~`
i p
y 5 ~ ~1~~~
+~ ,t ° alt ,
~~~ ~~y
r '~`}ki• .9 .i +t r GGGGG +1 fig
~~~,~°
¢- ~ ,~
~,
'~, ~ K'~~
,~, k ~JJ:t
1 ~~3 a~E age
r . ~ i„ii ~
yyq ~ N '~9r Jg,;,;
_ 6
~,
a~ , J~- ` ~t1S~it~
~,~~ r.
Y i
~ ~ ~~~'~
'~P{Ti~ 3 ~ i1 ~jj ,.
4 L ! 1 ~~ .]e]"
f~ 1 ~
s
~~+
A f::~ ~~h~;{~
IE ~ G ~ ;ai
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 16 of 90
Rohm: Okay. You need to state your name.
Johnson: Stacy Johnson.
Rohm: And address.
Johnson: I did that already. 650 East Baldwin Street.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. Thank you.
~.
Johnson: Okay. Directly west of the property. I don't have anything against the
Minshews personally. I would love to have them as neighbors. But I do not want a day
care next door to my house. It's already affected the look because of the slab. There is
nothing to block any noise from the backyard. It's a rickety old fence. I have a dog in
` the backyard all day and he will be driven crazy by the kids. I also wanted to add that
there is another bus stop just at the end of Baldwin Street where there are tons of kids
from our street that are walking -- that are going to be affected by this and also if the
people are going to have to park in the driveway to drop off their kids, they are going to
be backing up and that poses another concern for the kids. I guess that's it.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Johnson: Oh, one more thing. I'm sorry. It's my understanding that they can have 12
kids, but, then, someone else said that that doesn't include any of their direct relatives.
So, I don't know if they are going to have their grandkids on top of the 12 kids or --
Rohm: That's a good question. Before we take additional testimony, Sonya, can you
respond to her question about 12 -- the limit of 12? Is this in addition to their own kids
or how does that work?
Wafters: The code does speak to family members -- or children I should say. I need to
check into that a little closer and see exactly how it reads, if I can get back to you on
that.
Rohm: Okay. I think --
~' Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: -- that the Minshews are going to say that regardless the maximum it be 12, but
z>
~:;: I don't want to speak for them, but I'm pretty sure that that's the direction they are going
to go with it. With that --
y . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if staff is looking that up, could I ask staff to see if there is a
s, distinction between just relatives or relatives that actually live in the house.
r~
~~:
r s ~. a5 ~~ -r ~:
Y~ ,$'2~ ~ dH~~~'
C
' ~ .j ~~~
,,
~ ~~,? ~F
~~S;a.
~, , ;: ~H~~ ;l .v
ri „
r a ~ ~ ~ ~ i.'?~$~1~
r~zF~ ~.
~ ~~~ ~ f n
~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~~1 ,~
i~ F ~ p
~~~ ~ya~l9i
t
1:~4
~° a..,
,: z•} a`~ ~a ~~~:
~'8~ ~ Y~an~lf~:
1
~~ I~ 10. ,,:7 ~' ~~~h~".
~h f '- ~~~;'I,
:,. ~'~
~~ f ~~
k 1 .
F ~ .
~ z ~ ~ ~ ~1~
4 )4 ~
~ // ~ „
~ ~\
, ~.
< ~9Y /15a VS 7. .'
{ ~ ~: Yl l p~~.
r F.
~,i ~ f ~~iii~~t~
". a
r
~3< '~~,
f~ ~ 1
~ ~~~,
F ~Yf ~k ~~
~~ 17i ~,}~~,
yr,
Cs' ~.
~~_
,:
I
,~
~.
~~.~
., ,
~~
r.~
t
y~
i yI
+~
.~
x
.k
W
"~
;;
~~
•
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 17 of 90
Wafters: Yes.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. All right. Gary Tanner.
~~~` 1
Tanner: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Gary Tanner. I'm with the
law firm of William R. Schneider and Associates and I represent the Bedford Place
Homeowners Association. And I have delivered a letter and it should be in your file and
I'm assuming you have reviewed that and Ijust -- I will be brief, I just wanted to
emphasize a few points from that based on the comments that I have heard this
evening. It goes without saying that we disagree with the staffs recommendation and
the basis for that at this point, notwithstanding the fact that the home will retain and we
anticipate that it would retain a residential appearance that is only one of the factors that
needs to be considered. The actual use and affects that result from that use are the
issues that we believe the staff has not adequately addressed. As you all know, there
are certain findings that must be satisfied for you to approve this application. I want to
briefly go through a few of those that we believe cannot be satisfied in this instance
under Section 11.5b, 6e of the Meridian City Code. The first one is that the use will
adversely change the intended character of the subdivision. How do we define what the
intended character of the subdivision is -- and with all due respect to Mr. Chairman's
comments regarding CC&Rs, that intended character is specifically defined by those
documents and specifically -- and I will run through a few of the more important items.
The CC&Rs specifically provide that the use within the subdivision is strictly limited to
residential purposes. The Minshews' use does not contemplate any residential use
whatsoever. The CC&Rs specifically prohibit commercial use or business activity. All
of these factors will necessarily change the character -- the intended character of this
neighborhood from the point at which time it was developed. It will increase the traffic
flow. In the staffs report it indicates that the use that they have proposed will increase
vehicle trips by 24 per day. That's a significant impact to those neighbors in the
immediate vicinity adjacent to this property. In addition to the traffic noise, the pick up,
drop off, and the noise from the daily scheduled recesses or whatnot that would occur in
the backyard. And I heard the term slippery slope this evening. If one, why not five? If
not five, why not ten? If one specific commercial day care is allowed, when does the
next one -- or when -- how many does it take to create an adverse change in the
intended use of the property? Second, the use will adversely affect and/or be
detrimental to the persons and property living there. First of all, if you can imagine
being in the market to buy a home and you found a home immediately adjacent to the
Minshews' home, if the mere fact that it is a commercial use and is not used for
residential purposes, would be a factor in your determination of whether or not you
would buy that home, it would -- this would have an affect on the value of the properties
in the vicinity, whether it's as a result of limiting the number of buyers that would be
interested in that property because of the use next door and/or a direct decrease in the
market value. And, third, one of the other findings that we feel will not be satisfied is
that the use cannot be detrimental to the financial welfare of the subdivision. This
particular use has the potential for creating liability from injuries to additional children in
~~
+~x + s 1 r~r~l~k.
,, ~:
t,~ ~ ~ t
., ~ ,~ ;y
., ~ , f ~; ~ f;.t;;;:
~~. d !,I ..I.. ~i k L~~EL
I y5~` II
Y 1~ ~
P ~ ~ ~ ~ iiGs~ai ~a~
f,iS4L K~ III:
Y ~I ~ ~ ~: l1 ~~ Oi: [µ2i
~' )~7~~~
' y, ~
fF " ~~}
~~ .
s';~ f~~R'. ~,a
~'.., ~, 1ri ,?~I ':
~ ~ i ~~.~ k
If
- F!' x ' I 11
8~u 1 i,~'
{.. ., /'
y,
e lµ r :~
E '~ ~
[ +z , f ~ jl ` ~ii;p
t ~ 1~ ;
d
s ~ ~. #
~•, .}_
~~~*~ I
.5 f
t
~° ~~~t~
n ~ ~, {4
@. J,~'.
Y: &~~~!>
.ems ,~,.W.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 18 of 90
the vicinity, it could potentially increase the insurance requirements that the association
would have to cover -- or carry to cover such scenarios. They may not be able to get
insurance to cover commercial use. And last, but not least, if the approval is -- if the
Conditional Use Permit is approved, it will most certainly result in litigation as to the
enforcement of those CC&Rs, which will cost the neighborhood a significant amount of
money to prosecute. Thank you for your time.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. Appreciate
your comments. Bob Kobza. Cobska. From the audience he says he's going to waive
for now. And I -- it's real important that additional testimony thafi we take at this time be
additional information that's not been presented in previous testimony. So, please, keep
_ that in mind.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, could I comment?
Rohm: Absolutely.
Zaremba: I believe the person that he's defemng to may be a spokesman for another
group. It might be appropriate to ask that spokesman to come forward. That's not true?
Okay. I'm sorry. Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, to answer your earlier question -- I have the advantage of having a
computer that the planning staff doesn't, but the day care facility definition in our code
says that the premises where children are cared for under the age of 12 for less than 24
hours a day, while their parents or guardians are not present. So, grandchildren
wouldn't count, unless the grandparents were the guardians of those children. So, if
that helps in your earlier question, that would -- grandchildren would normally count
otherwise as long as they were not the guardians.
~,
Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
`' Zaremba: I need to clarify the case by not counting. Does that mean that they would
be within the 12 or they could be in addition to the 12?
Nary: They would be within the 12, unless the grandparents were the guardians of
` those children.
I
~:, - Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Ron Haney. From the audience he is waiving his right to speak. Judy
Haney. She's been spoken for as well. Richard Putnam.
Putnam: My name is Richard Putnam. I live at 614 East Sedgewick. I'm within the 300
feet radius of notification that's required. I want to be very brief in my comments
regarding the application for the Conditional Use Permit. Regarding the application -- in
~ ~ the application itself it marks both residential, as well as commercial use as the potential
r ~ r
Y
`
) ~ ~
{
'
~
i
:a~
'
~~1
~ ~
~
~ .,.;,
~
~
~ "5- K"
Y
I
I •~
A~
.} ~} ~ l
~t.
~
,:
s
1 ,
~
~ SS
~
*, N ~.• ~
t
i1
.
.
.
.
~
•
r ~ -
,.
. , §i
'I
i'
y i ~ i
i.. t 111 .' fi ~
~
1..
rir.'J ~.
.- ~ .k
A
h ,
}
~
~~a ' •
i~' ~
ts•
t
=
f y?
•
j .f
f ,k
t"i.
F ~ ''h,K ?
~
`
,;
I , ~,
?
-
r i' HiW
~G.. .
~
~
`M^.' M ,
s •
f ~
,
i 1 ' ~
.. i H
. 1 f
~ t
~ t I
4
I
7 3 i .
I y
•
~ ~ :v { 4w
...
..r
{
{
:
~3
~ •
•
'
~t v +n MS { r : I F ,t 4
< %F. , i F'a `W
as;r:`w~'<s~ •~
y
m.
~~•'
~~" }. f
I
~'
~
I.
r I' ,.
:
I
'dam'
~
•1
" R.
^ 'S -
', M
4~r. .
~
I
~. X
! , $('~ d$i }~ W y3., 3 .t{=.SroC ~::.! I k~ ~„ ~~tt : i~' '
*~~~~ r~
Y~ P
Y
4G ,
I
? i
a 1
i ~r.
~
'~;t>
.
'~
"
,
!"
~
•
.
.; 6
{'
a
r,
. I # 1~ _
'4 `
1{ !
5
1
1
1 ,
`
.
:
:
.
F
"~T.. .Nr
t~
"I
^}
ti
.F'
.
'
3
V•~
r
1
'
~
~
~
r
'
.:
p
.4"
:~ •~2; ea~~s,
11
~ .fi<
~, S q ~
.~ ~ _
r
1
Y
'
d
v
.£ j F: "•~ •Ni ,*A"!S5 jx. ," ,
x
~
'~
,Y:e~
I .i
$ .
1 •+rS'
A'
1 f
I . ,
. I f I r- ~ ~ .. y
F
P l Ly
! a x .w
~ I
'
~
• ~ ~
,j ~ y
?
y
~•
~'
c
'~
~ L
'~
"
4 ~
'
`a
,y ^Y ; ,z;. N
,I f
.q .3';~ti
~ ~
• I ~ ?- ' •• i . I~<F
i.Fi I'<:
!! •~"f I ~
.
4
,
e
Y'\Si
.
~n.
; ,`r'..; ,,~
111
1
• ~
~~f,"
~~. :,; :=::_ ~. 1 ~ ~,. Sgt ;~.~
,,
~, .
r ,.
!•
y
}
x
:{,
K:i x~ "i,C , ,w_ R'{':~
I
Jj~%i,. ,q~9'ei { i
.
~'1
tlp r..
zf ~ ~ 9 1 ^r~
.
Y
. ,4'' .<•+.
x
~
fv
rx
.. ~I ,. dY :' .•ir~~
_,
'
k
" ~ I
,' ~
yr. ~.%
r+
s ~ 4"~71'.'ti:s
I
N 9 ~ i
1 Z `A.'~u;% _
~.
x,
jF t
~
{
Y i
""i~V~
~A.:w
f '
i" ~
f
~•
y i1.r' S 4' .
~
f t.
l
1
t
}r<;
raj
•F.
.~ ~ ~~ I
1
1
yy ~
..~ d
'
iV
c:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 19 of 90
LJ
use for this Conditional Use Permit. I apologize. It needs to be clear that this is
commercial use. They have no intent to live at the home and I want to be clear in that.
Of the petitions that were collected, there were a hundred signatures collected
representing 76 of 153 homes in the subdivision. A number of those homes were not
able to be reached, as you have heard. Twenty-six of those homes that signed the
petition are within the 51 homes that had to be notified under the Conditional Use
Permit. As well, in reviewing the application, as well as the petition, of the ten homes
that the Minshews have claimed that they have signatures on, they do not represent
those signatures in the application, merely addresses. Of those ten homes, eight of
those homes have signed the petition against this application. Within this there is also
an opposition letter in file from one of those homes. When the Minshews approached --
initially went to collect information, they said it would be an in-home day care. This is
not an in-home day care. This is the commercial use of a home within a residence as a
day care. Commissioners, I do ask that you consider that very carefully in this. I guess
that's all that I would have at this point in time. Do you have any questions?
A~ Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mary Monson.
fit, Monson: My name is Mary Monson. I live on 724 East Wakely Court. I am against
~~~ this, because it will bring strangers into my neighborhood. I wanted my children well
~~F .:
:. taken care of in a home environment, so I stay home with them everyday and take care
`' of them and it's hard enough to wonder if your kids are being safe without 24 extra visits
3 ` and I can't control if it's always going to be the mom or if it's going to be somebody else,
°- I can't control who is going to be picking up the kids and as it's been stated, it will -- it
will affect the amount of cars and we just can't -- we just can't trust everybody to be
coming in and out of our neighborhood who is not invested in the neighborhood and I
would just ask you to ponder would you want this as your neighbor. Thank you.
~~
Rohm: Thank you. David Monson. From the audience he said he's been spoken for.
Eric Munson. Been spoken for. Shelly Binder. She's been spoken for. Karen
Blackhurst. She's been spoken for. Kevin and Came Kenwing or -- Kinard. And they
have been spoken for. Fay Gilkey.
:ti-
;.:;
i
!!
.~ ~~~
Gilkey: My name is Fay Gilkey and I live at 3383 Boulder Creek Avenue, two houses
down -- well, one house in between Pam Minshew's house right now. This day care
that she has not bothered us. The traffic -- I come home anywhere between 2:00 and
5:00 o'clock to 6:00 o'clock at night and I have not noticed any difference in the traffic
for our subdivision. We also have children in our subdivision. We have a school bus
that goes through there and picks up children and we have not had any issues with it.
I'm a grandmother and I wish when Ihad -- when I was working I wish my children could
have gone to my mother's house. I mean I hated going to a commercial day care. I
would have preferred my children going to grandma and they live two houses down and
the noise has never been a factor. I take many days off throughout the year and I'm
home and read my book out in my backyard and I have not heard the noise from the
children or anything and they have been great neighbors and they don't live in a huge
d~,~~
i .,
a
~~ t ~..~ i ~ayirg.
tR ~f ^~ ~,
_ t a ~'1~ais~"
J '
i't
ryy ~ ~ ,~
'v a p'~ 3 ~1~~~?-
~, ~.1 ~~
~~ ~~~ ~~
S ~~~, ~~~a:l
,r
ii 6 Y ~' a~ ~~ 8~C'^yilT
~~ ~t~: 1
~~I r ~ ~'~ I ~ y~e'. .
~ ei.5 i ~ ~~~:3K;.
~ f :~ „~:~ .~~~
y y~
r ~'
a ~ HF ~-!
S ;L'
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~.
~ + iil 1 ' ~ ~~
~ ~ ~`~ 4~
~~ ~ ~ _~
i fi ~'.e ~A±~~-
1~ :.i ~ ,i...
~ ~.
~ y i
~ z' F;~
~'w~~f~
r~ ., ~r.,~..
' ~
~~,~~ ~,:_.a~ ~~
~rz p'` rl#' ~ ,
~~~ ~ ~ 5f
~i~ ~ " t ~' ~' ~ fi^~
Y i..,
;'
r~~1M ,1- ~J~~~q~l.
~, i
_ 1
,~,:
§.;
~
~
~ ~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
`
r'' December 7, 2006
Page 20 of 90
~: .
w?;;, .
`
it's a three bedroom with a great room and a kitchen. It's not a big house. urs
house
,
a; °
x ,
is a big house. That's all I have.
'
~:
Rohm: Thank you very much. Robert Gilkey. From the audience he says he's been
spoken for. Luke Freeman. Oh, Doug.
~~
Freeman: My name is Doug Freeman. I live at 3411 North Boulder Creek Avenue. I
_ live three houses down from Pam and Casey. I'm also president of the homeowners
E. association and I have been for the last couple of years. I would be probably in a
position to know if any of the homeowners in our subdivision had a problem with Pam
and Casey's day care. I have not heard any negative comments at all. You know,
don't -- I talk to all 12 people in the division on a pretty regular basis and no one has had
a problem with this day care being there. You know, I go in and out --Igo to work.
~` Once in awhile I see a car pulling into the driveway and unloading a child. The quality
- of the car is pretty nice, you know, the people look pretty professional and pretty young.
~~~=~ ~ I would be proud to have them in my neighborhood. So, I'm here, really, to speak for
~~ . Pam and Casey. It's never been an issue in our neighborhood to have a day care there.
" Rohm: Thank you, sir.
~~ ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. May I clarify -- are we talking about two different
neighborhoods here -- where they currently live, as opposed to where they are
~~=
proposing this?
~~
Rohm: I -- from the audience --
Zaremba: That appears to have been confirmed. Thank you.
~
- Rohm: Yes. It's been confirmed. Alesha Wright.
~z
~.
~
l
' ``
~ Wri ht: Thank ou. M name is Alesha Wri ht and I'm s eakin on behalf of the
~
~
' cu ent and 16 f ture clients of Pammy Cakes n-home child care center. As you may
~~.~ --
or may not be aware, approximately 70 percent of parents place their young children In
t~ :"- ~~ some type of daily child care facility. A number of these facilities are in-home day care
,~ -
` facilities like the one being proposed tonight. Some may be even located in your own
t
ki
h
b
h
Mi
n a
ng
een
as
ew
ns
neighborhood and you may not even know they exist. Pam
`~ care of my child for the past three years and will be caring for my infant who will be bom
~_~ in May. Not only is she an excellent grandmother to my child, she is also an excellent
°`
~~:~ care fiver. Pam left an established and well- a in osition at Idaho Power to take
g PY 9P
<, care of her grandchildren, so that they would have -- not have to be taken to a large day
care facility. With the demand of in-home day care, our friends and neighbors have
gone to Pam as well for day care for their children. That is the main reason for her
'. ' desire to provide an in-home day care center for them. We are so grateful to have the
'~ opportunity to bring our children to a comfortable in-home environment where they get a
' lot of one-on-one attention and affection. Studies show that home day care is an
excellent choice for many families, because groups are small. Infants receive cuddling
~; ~~
{ ~~
5y
~•~.~~' : ~ ~
~
: vii
~t F
t
t -
~
i?
~
;~ ~~~
,;
t
~
~~ ,
;
a w
~,~
~~
t -~~~
~ ~~~~W
a
~
,
=j .
!f
E~ }~~; } ~: ~d ~. tr:
~.~~E4 ~ i + k ~t ~~
-,i
~
r
~.~ .
v
~ ~ h
11
~, '
r
(
~ t
/ k
~ ~ f ,i f1 W,A ,
R .
I
~ ~
f,. yl
1 ' f ~~r.•Ni
`
Y
~ ~ a ~ ~
~
K
F ~
,
1~
.
l1~.5 ~'~t~~ -
'.y 1~ Y ~~ ~ 1~~}
~
~i~..- ~~~
Y
y
~
!
~
~
~aiga ~
y
~ r~ ~ ~` Y yy1 .lr~
~ t ~ F ~ ( ; ~R ~ i
J ~Yf
~ y ~ ~i
I
f ~ p~ r ~
~~~
.
_
•~ t ~ i -fl ~t '
..
x
~
-
4
9 ~ t ~'
:~ i ~.: a~:~
~ y r,yt ti ~`,~, S
~ 3lr ~E~
~
~
k
~a ~ c ~ ~ r ~,~.;
~
'
~ f
~
t
r
~~ ~"'~
~~'~
~a
~ ~-~x,~
,
E
~ ~~
~
~
Y
t
i ~ryti~ ~ p -
P
t
{
i
~~~
~ ~
S
~
2 ~~~
e~~
i-
!`'~ ~
~
~ i~ b 9 j?t dr ~. ~r
~~
~~.
~ ~
a..
._
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 21 of 90
and play time and caring -- that a caring and responsive adult can provide. In an in-
home day care center children are provided with a stress free secure environment with
one or more -- one on one attention given to the children. The home-like environment
of an in-home care is comforting and reassuring not only to children, but to parents like
me as well. Large day care facilities -- sorry.
~< °# Rohm: Go ahead.
Wright: Okay. Large day care facilities have a high turnover rate and not much
consistency. With a small in-home day care children have a single consistent qualified
care giver. I have some comments from some of the clients that were not able to be
here today. One is actually Dr. Lisa Sterling, who is present, and Dr. Sterling says as a
child psychologist I understand the value of stability, predictability, and a loving,
nurturing environment of early childhood development. I have known Pam for 17 years
and view her not only as a second mother to myself, but as a grandmother to my twin
daughters. My own mother -- her mother helps in the day care facility as well -- knowing
that my children are in the care of a warm, loving grandma gives me the peace of mind
that their needs are being met. Pam's home interior and exterior are immaculate. She
takes pride in her home and her noble profession.
Rohm: I think you need to conclude.
y.. Wright: Okay. I have several others, but I can leave this with you. These are just some
f`~ of the reasons why we believe that in-home child care will benefit not only our families,
~~ ,
<~ '< but the families of our friends and the neighbors as well in Baldwin Subdivision. My
husband and I are public school teachers, as well as are many of the future clients of
this day care and parents leave their children in our care and trust on a daily basis. We
~_ know how important it is to have a consistent and caring and warm environment for
growing children. We want to be able to provide our children the same trusting and
caring environment and that's why we are in favor of Pammy Cakes child care and
~X support her desire to open a small child care facility. We hope you can support this as
~`~ ~~ well. Thank you.
~
;
~:
Rohm: Thank you very much. Lisa Sterling. She's been spoken for. Troy Young. He's
~r'~ • been spoken for. Shawn White. From the audience he says he's been spoken for as
well. Harlin Clay. He's been spoken for. Helen Clay. She's been spoken for. Paul and
Wanda Whitley. They have been spoken for. Anita Cauza. Spoken for. David
~f~ ' Crandall. He's been spoken for. Michael Johnson. He's been spoken for. Jennifer r
Johnson. I didn't get any response there, so maybe she's gone home. Adolf Koshavar.
~ ` .
~p !.'•
however, most of them have been covered. I wanted
Koshavar: The whole thing here
,
~` to just bring out a couple of points. I live at 772 East Baldwin. Three houses down.
And when we talk about the traffic, according to the ACHD, we can expect 54 vehicle
trips by my house and why I can expect that is because East Baldwin turns into North
Cape Cod and North Cape Cod goes south and turns into Sedgewick. There is curves
'~ there and it's widened, as they normally are, and that's where all the turnaround is going
~;1
P
<'~
:~
~: I l .A~` 4 F' ^,'^ = a:; . ~ z ' ~~„~~,?j~' ~ ,H~=`;F ,'~ Ica .' ,. ~~ ...4~ `~,~i::.~q~~
r b~i '~~~~•n~~~•'-'~a~L'd~~x:t'..":.~ '.~ .M~: ' ~I~ ~"` ~ ."'c`"~~'~~~lFfNf i~' ...,:It#~~~~? ~ •:.~J 1~;,, .''~ ,
~.,~~~~
k~
Fy ?.
Ml H Y yy t~'~+.-
'I Y I ` n„~I~i ..
~ 2 ~ 7 1
F r, jf:~.
~~
t ~ , ~~' r
•.a ,.
i5 y . ~ ~i;~.„
i
f'gii
s+i ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~~~fl~
i ~ ~ ~~~~,
Gb ,ili
1 ~~i.
I f ~ ~1
~s Y ~ ~ ~v~'i;r:
.! p..
~ ~::
~a~i~E
~.e . , ~s
~_
y ~wfti~{I4..
~ i ~`~ `f
~~• ~~~
~,
~ I ~ }'~,
h i'~"'~1 i ~ ~i -,•
.~ ~ ~.~ r ~~ t4°
r #' ~?i,~
~,[
t
»i~
~ia~'"'~i'r
~ ~,~~~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 22 of 90
7`,
r,
$, ~
r
~~ - ~~
i
I~
^~
to happen, right in front of my driveway, and the people that live on North Cape Cod. I
have also talked to several realtors who, for some unknown reason, don't want to
appear, but they did tell me that a business in that area would impact the sale of my
house to a cost of anywhere from ten to 15 percent, that they take buyers around and
they ask what the covenants are and a realtor says if they ask we tell them and if they --
if there is businesses allowed in there, let's go someplace where there isn't. And the
other thing that I'd like to point out is it just -- when I purchased my home there, I hung
my hat on the covenants and the restrictions and the conditions and the neighborhood
association and it's been a fine community and other than being repetitious with the
other gentleman who presented more adequate than I could, I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. That concludes the list of -- oh, very quickly,
please.
Kobza: Good evening. My name is Bob Kobza and I live at 415 East Edgar Court in
the subdivision and I am the president of our homeowners association. And a couple of
things I would like to quickly bring to the point is what we have heard from the
Minshew's side was that the traffic is not a problem and -- up to this point. But they are
also talking about having less people than they are now. They are talking about
increasing. That's going to -- that will increase. From experience - we have dealt with
one other commercial day care that we were able -- that they tied to put in our
subdivision a number of years back and I can tell you from experience that the people
that do use these things, that do come in, they will not be courteous to those of us that
live in our subdivision, blocking driveways and a number of different things of that
nature. Also, it was brought up by -- we heard a few minutes ago the young lady said
that there will be 16 new people within that subdivision -- or within the -- as customers to
them. At that point, if that's the case, we are already over the 12 that they are asking
for. I thank you for your time.
Moe: Mr. Chairman? Sir, don't go anywhere yet. You made a statement that there has
already been a commercial day care in there?
Kobza: Attempt. There was an attempt back in -- about four years ago on Edgar Court
and, basically, I can tell you, because it was right across the street from my house.
They tried to put a 21 person day care in over there. At that point Planning and Zoning
gave the do pass, it went up to City Council, and city -- and when we went before City
Council, the young lady that was putting it together never showed up, she backed out,
but she knew there was -- there was enough opposition to that.
Moe: Thank you.
Kobza: Any other questions?
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to testify to this application
that -- to something that hasn't been brought before us at this time? If you have already
r ~~~
~ ~ 4 j , I.
~~~..c ~: 1~~If~S..
7~ L+jl:
, .:5
f 1 ~~ '~~ ~~l~l~
:~
.y
~'~
;a
dJ.~ g aS'@W9H~l}Z
qty ~ ~ o ti :. l ~+, -
~t ~~ l ~ ~!~ Y ~~1 ,
i'~'{~ . 3' ~ ~ ~ ~~'i7~~L'
._
1 ~ I'',
y,~rj,~;
~ ~ C:~ili
~` 4 ~' i
t + ~6~i i
,~~
~i , ~ ~ ~~ E
a
fix,, t ~ ~ ~,:
f
~:~~ ~ ~~vrk~~
~ , ~: ,
a ~ ~
4 ~ H`~;':
e 3 i i E
~' {S'
ii f~
.. ~
K ~
']7 s, . .,k.'
~:
i ~ ~ .4~f
~,'~:
4 ,'gi'n ~~t~;
~~::~
r ~ ~ , ~" ~ r r»;,;,.,
~ yrw.
CYt ~s'
~ i ~ i
X11 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~'
~ Vii'.
t,~
y~' ~..N~IS__
W. ~yi..a.., r,. .... 4L als.~ili.'.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 23 of 90
~= ~ ~ spoke, you can't speak again. At this time would the Minshews like to come back up,
please.
~: ;
e
~`
~,
F:,
s_..
~~_ ..
F
~.:
;;
'.
~4~`
;fi
~.
~:
-~
r
1W
i
Minshew: Yes. My name is -- again, is Casey Minshew and this is my wife Pam
Minshew, and there is a couple things that we would like to bring up. First of all, we
really don't want to dwell that much on the covenants, because we can appreciate what
you have to say about it as well. We know that there are litigations -- possible litigations
in front of us, which we are willing to face. The most important thing that we -- that to
us, in our quest, if you will, is that subdivisions -- we have been in several subdivisions.
Every subdivision that we have been in has had covenants where it does not allow
commercial businesses. We have it in ours. We drafted -- when Grant Place
Subdivision was being developed we drafted our --our covenants and we also state that
in there, that no commercial business. The intent of our covenants is to maintain, one,
the value of our home, our property, and also to maintain the quality of life and I want to
emphasize the quality of life here. I can totally appreciate Bedford Place in their
commitment of keeping commercial businesses out and I would do the same. But when
you look at the quality of life and what is being offered here and the options that working
parents have as parents and as working mothers, it's sad to say that we do live in a two
income society and it would be nice if the husband could go to work only and the wife
stay at home and raise their children like most of us were raised when we were
younger, but our economy doesn't allow that now. It just doesn't, unless we just go
without and when we go without sometimes it deprives our children, it takes, you know,
conditions away from our children and such. So, that's the main stance that we have is
trying to provide quality day care to some of our grandchildren and personal friends.
There has been discussion about vehicles -- 18 I think was mentioned or 16. What that
is is our parents -- two parents per child. So, we have eight -- eight, you know, vehicles
coming in and going out. Some of them have twins. In the summer months -- a good
share of the day care are school teachers, so in the summer months they will have their
children, so it will be very minimal in the summer months. So, when the children are
home from school for summer break, there won't be much activity -- there won't be
much more activity than a standard residential home family living there. There has
been discussion about nobody living there and it's a commercial business. That to me
is subject to interpretation. We are about a minute and a half away from our home, the
house in Bedford Place. I guess we could stay there. My wife will be there until 5:00,
5:30 at night. We will be there during the week maintaining, manicuring the yard. We
have already built some relationship with some of the residents around us and as the
lady mentioned -- I can't remember her name -- that lives next to the house there, we
built a relationship there. She said that nothing against us, which is great. But if you
look at it in reality, when you have a six foot fence and you have half of the children that
are infants that won't be going outside and playing and you have the other half that once
in awhile will be going out and playing, it's no more -- no different than a regular family
living there and when you have children in the back playing, I would way rather listen to
children playing than somebody out there blaring away, hard parties, crazy renters in
some respects -- not all, but in some respects that happens. I know that, because that's
what we had, we had a rental, and we had a very very hard time keeping the property,
maintaining the property, getting the renters to comply to the covenants, to keep it nice
~
~~r~yy L ~~ .f. h {~C?i~i~..
K`i~~~ `~ ` R
~n~}I' '. i
~
.
~: ,~
.
3fs'
~ '~i a i~~k ~ .
~ fp
~ ~~;~~ ~
,
,.~ ~ ~r~,x 1 ~
'
s K
~
J~~{ ,
e rv i
(i
5 !:
~ ~
~a~
i
} b ~1 pppyyy{{{ l 5
~V~~~ S Ji LY~t1
,r~ ~ 3
~~~ ~ a1~ E~ ~'~
~,~='t4~~~~i~~ ~~~~i~-~ k
.
~
~
; ~
r
~ ~ ~
+2 ~ r ~ ~j ~ -
r
F ~ A'~~~~fi`
~._ l~
`
i ~A ~
1 f '~
S
- 3~
'
.
~
c If l ~1 ~
n
1 ~j3 1 ~ ~ fry9
~
~
~ ,
K
~
t~ ~~
1
'~
~ ~:
X
.
.
-f -~I ~~i1
~,i..
_.
~~~~~ 4 ~ : a~u~,u~
3,
y
et r b 9.
~~ K~~s fg§~~":
~ ~~ f
~,.
,! ~ _
r v
~'ry+~~ T i ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ i i~~. Y
~~), i
{{
l~ , * 7 t
~
~ra+~t
,.
~
fi c ~ w _
_ `
~
i {'~'
~JG ~~ ~ ~,e 1,
~
~
~
~
~
... ~2 h7 1 l~
• Y'.
y
~, •
'` Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 24 of 90
and attractive. As mentioned, we do have a nice home and we will keep this home
attractive and we will maintain the property value and we will keep the integrity. Also,
G the drop off -- the drop offs will -- most of them will take place before the school buses
even come through. Most of them drop off between 7:00 and 7:30. Also, the noise, as I
~~
'~'' mentioned, under -- most of the children are under the age of one year old, so they
won't be out. Also, there is -- you know, there is strong talk about not having a
commercial business. We know of commercial businesses inside Bedford Place. There
is one right across -- right directly across the street from where our house is and we see
across there big commercial vans parked in front of the house. We see -- we know of
two in-home day cares that exist already down the street that aren't licensed and we
also know of a conditional use group home care facility for the handicapped and elderly
,.:':, that's also there, that are protected. And so what we are asking is that, please, consider
the full picture. We are totally against commercial businesses moving in, too, but look
'': at the option, look at what we are actually presenting. It would be opened up to the
families in Bedford Place. You would just need to put your name on the list. Just
because the name is on the list doesn't guarantee that the other people have a spot.
P. Minshew: I have had two ladies call from the subdivision asking for child care as well
and I just have -- you know, I'll put you on the list and give you a call.
L
Rohm: Thank you.
Minshew: And so, please, keep that in mind, as I have said. Don't shut the doors in our
subdivision to residential child care, because it does do a service to our community, to
the people around us, and also to our infants.
~' ~~ P. Minshew: As far as the surrounding subdivision, I have people coming from Copper
Canyon, Paramount, Sedgewick, Edinburgh -- they are everywhere. I mean it's not just
right in our area. They come from everywhere. I mean I'm not saying that it wouldn't be
open to anybody. If they want to come in, great.
Rohm: I have a question that came up in a number of the testimony about the total
~° ~ number of individuals you would be caring for. With many of them being family
=: members, is it -- my assumption is the total is going to 12, regardless of relationship.
S i ~~
~, P.Minshew: Correct.
Ez,
Rohm: Is that correct?
`' P.Minshew: I have one granddaughter right now and a grandchild coming in May and
`~ the other ten will be coming in.
~ -
F ''~ Rohm: Okay. And -
P.Minshew: So, it will be just a total of 12.
'j
:;
iv
1]i
yy.~
2+1
., I` ,
4 ~'~ '.3 i'%!
~,'~1~1 ..i~~•~~dt`..'H'~.~:~~ ~~ ~~ ~ 111,E i .. (.~~, v . . .. .'i .s
4
i
S i.~~~, ~ _
, L-,,
~' ~~ M ~15M1
~
~.~
,`
~~
~
~
~ ~ r
~
~~
f ~
+f i`F (
'
,~
'
~~
`
f~
s ~' ~
.
1
€
' `s
t Ft
PPP
~+
22~~~ l11
~G ~~
{{ "F ~'G , s'-
1 ~ x',91 ,~a~r~-.
~tF~ ~ ~-~' ~'V;j;$L
~' -
i~i
{ ti
~'
i
L
~~+~ _
~ y~;~ fi~
,
~
1
. ~ ~,3'
.
`
~
'1 -~ ;i
~ ~ ~ d Ik ~~~I, .. 4
~
y ,; !
i ~~ is
F„
~
, I
~
t
5',~ A
..
y
,~
~1 r Y ~ ~F
~f ~~ ~ ~
,
f
LH S ~ 4{ ! 1
~ 'L .Sf
{
,
. ~ $' S1' '. - -.
q )7
!~~! t n ~ ,~?+p3 L ~i 13:' ~.
~a`~~1~,
~
•
~~ j
~~
~ n 1,.:
~~,
ri
~ ~
1
i
r ,.
v ~
~i
~ ~ ~Y
~ a :;.
~i ~L~kI€:: ~ 4 ~ ~__
r
l
' ~
~
~~' ~ ~:i
}~ ~
~
l. .f t
~ S t
S'~i " ,
~~~~s
~Ci!x!'.. -
~
~ ~ ~
,
h lf~y~~ ~' n
w
~ P
y G
1~i yr L 6~j~•eSI1,=
~(~ 3 r ,
+ a~~Ck4t •.~
s,
~.4~~ 'K
5
Y i~ ~
r~ t
r ~t L ~l~c;l~, - L
~1' J~Y'~F. L ~ '.
[ 3 x: I
i 1 IS.
~ ~ f 4~.
{yy~
~r~ ~1CL
fl(~f ~~p~ 4r[
,i
1
~7~ ` ~1'
~ ~. ~a .
~ ~'F ~~ P:a 1 ~..1;.
L €n ~ ~~~ ~~~~+; ~~- , ~
r ''•'
,
F+~ ~' Fp1~~'~~
~
~ r... - ~ Y~ _..
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
F . Page 25 of 90
~:;
~' Rohm: And my next comment is not necessarily in support or against, but just so you
know that a Conditional Use Permit can be granted with certain provisions attached to it
that would limit you and so I ask that question just that you can commit to that and
everyone would know that there wouldn't be your kids, plus 12 others.
r
w
~Y~
$,
;..
t~
'~1tq.]~
~ ;:hhN
~ :.5
~ ~
~+ ,;~~
/ ~~
y
~~
~~
h
~ .,~
~ ?
=y
T~',
P.Minshew: No.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else?
Minshew: Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Discussion. Commissioner Moe, do you have --
Moe: Close first.
Rohm: Oh, do you want to close the Public Hearing before we --
Borup: Does anybody have any concem of needing any other testimony?
Rohm: Yeah, I think we are good.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-037.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-037. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have some final thoughts on this
application?
Moe: Final thoughts? Well, I'm probably still fairly confused, but I guess I do. I, for one,
am -- I think day care is a definite need in this city, there is no doubt about it, but I am a
little bit concemed regardless of the fact that you live around the comer, you are
speaking of a home that will not be occupied, other than for using it as a business
during the day in another subdivision, because we do not -- as far as the city, CC&Rs of
the subdivision are really none of our concem per se, my biggest concem tonight is is
with the amount of opposition to this within the subdivision and the fact that the CC&Rs
do oppose commercial, that that in itself has somewhat got me very concemed about
approving a day care in the subdivision at this time. Having said that, after listening to
the last few comments you have made again in regards to -- that there are businesses
being run in the subdivision or, you know, work vehicles and whatnot that are more than
Yti f~~ 2~5~F;'r,~
1'
{ ~~
t .~ ~~ R t -~,tijl.:
~"y~ a ~._, ~ sg7
a"~ t fi :t~
,~i c, ~] i~ ~~,
~i T p4 ~ ~ ..;~ ,
'" ~ .~ ' ~ t~~~I ~
~ ;~:.
d ` ~ 1J }iF.
i ~' , ~ .~,
. ~ ~,;~
fi Nh~.
e ~ i`t ' f~~
~ ~ .
~'~ ~ ~i ~1 ~3«
~~ ~H n;~' ~akp~tr°
'~ ~^ ` I ~~ 5js.t .
~;,
> >
? Y. ~
3r~
~~ ~ f rL~~~.~,.
~' k ~'st+«i"
~ „ ! ~?~¢ ~Ifj_
1~ y ' ~d 33
i '.Tli!G ~~f 1~t~p`..
~_ ~ KI~1C~~d
it
~.~~is}v ~a(
~ ~I
~,,
t,
`: r~ t ,~ : ,3 ~ ~~~4;,
r b;,,-
t ~a`~,y~
~ ~;i~ i_
,~ ~ :~ ~{~a~sH
" ~ EQ~ ~"
t ~ ~1 ~
F~~,, i9~
- - _
e~' ~ ' .r ~ ~a;
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 26 of 90
w
~~
'~
F
~ r~
r
<',
,;~
one across the street from your house and whatnot, that concerns me as well. As far as
an in-home day care and whatnot, you know, that's just something that happens all over
-- all over the city and it's not something you can really control too much, so having said
all that, I -- although I would love to see the day care happen, my biggest concem is
without it being your residence and whatnot, I am concerned that it would be a
commercial business there and I, for one, would be opposed to that.
Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: I would, basically, have to echo Commissioner Moe's opinion. The
nature of living in a home and not living in a home and not a commercial business,
would be very much of a distinction for me in my neighborhood and I haven't hesitated
in the past to endorse day care -- in-home day care centers when it was truly, by my
definition, an in-home day care center and wouldn't qualify as a commercial. I could see
possibly in neighborhoods where uses are transitioning, such as in Old Town, this would
be appropriate. Bedford Place is not an area of our city that's in transition and I think it
would be premature to start their transition at this point. I also would have to vote
against the conditional permit.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I think I agree with that. This looks like a valuable and needed service and I
think Minshews are going to take good care of the place, it's going to be -- I really feel
low impact on the neighborhood. There are -- I know of at least two day cares that have
been approved -- I don't know if they are still in operation. It sounds like maybe they
are. That and the group home and probably others that haven't been approved. And I
do agree with the staff analysis that it does comply with the comp plan. One thing that
the staff report says is that for us to also rely on public testimony and that's one of the
reasons why a Conditional Use Permit is required in such situations. If that wasn't the
case, you know, it could just be approved on a staff level, if everything complies. But
we are asked to look at public testimony and, obviously, that's been overwhelming. The
difference --the difference here and on the other day cares that we have seen is they all
-- the others have families living there 24 hours a day and even though I do not feel
personally that I would have a concem with something like this in a neighborhood where
I lived, I would have to influence my vote based on the public testimony here today.
Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Thank you. It's always a difficult decision when people on both sides of the
question appear to be nice people and sincere people and have a lot of other people
supporting them. Let me come at it sideways for a moment and give a little background.
There was a question asked about the possibility of day cares and no CUP, whether it's
day care or otherwise, is automatic. That's the reason there is a Public Hearing, that's
the reason extra conditions can be put on or it can be denied. But I was on the
committee that helped to write what, eventually, became our current ordinances. There
were 20 to 30 citizens and stakeholders, we like to call them, and additional experts
~~ ,
rrr
~.
s1Fsi: ~s.
lNjIF !~ 7! ~~,,
$,~' a
~Z~4k YY ~C 3~1 ~1 -.
h,n~-'~ f3 ~ d 1' ' ~q~j~l:-
i,
,•` , ~ u;;
+1 ~ fh ~ ~~ Liq.
~ 1 ~JJ `~.
~ ~ ~~~ ~ fi ~~ ~~i~'
s Y '.~, ' k ~t~^~,
~:~ ~ ht~~
t ~ } x1 di ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~=
~ ;
:t j
~ ,~'. i9 r h a y~ ; rte!+,'.
,. ,.
~ ~ ~ `1 .
~I ~ z~ s ~ ~ ~~~~:
ra ~.~-' ,~Fl~,
h ~ s' s i1 ~~_>'~7
JI t t
~~ ~~~ ~~
y' ~ 1 a~ F ~ ~)~1~.
i~ ~ h,~-
2 ~ '~ i~
;~ , ~ ,
.l t 1
~ it ~ ,t,
~.~ ; ~,~;~s,
~,
r ts~
~, ,-
~ a ~~~dH:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 27 of 90
;: ;
~:
:;
'+
- ='~~
;1
„,.~
;a
~yy
t ~i
t8
r '.
z y
'a
"J
were called in. The original thought was that there would be no commercial businesses
allowed in any residential district, including day care centers. Discussion ensued that
there is a need for day care centers and the need increases in more dense districts
where -- and by that we mean an R-8 has a certain density and an R-4 has a certain
density. R-40. In the greater density districts there tend to be more families with more
children and there seems to be a greater need to at least have the opportunity to have
day care centers in them. So, that's why it is available in the R-8 and I think it's all
available in the R-40 as a conditional use, but not in the -- in an R-4 or R-2. That being
said, I, too, feel very supportive that day care centers do need to be available around --
I'm sure they are lovely people and they would run a very nice day care center, but,
again, the tipping point for me is the fact that it's not an in-home day care. The fact that
nobody lives there does change the character of the neighborhood. The reason we
have the CUP process is determined whether this would have a negative impact on the
neighborhood that it's going to be in. I personally don't feel that a day care center would
have the negative impact. I do feel that a house in a neighborhood that's not going to
have anybody in it overnight or on weekends or on holidays is going to attract the wrong
kind of attention into your neighborhood. A house which has a pattern of being vacant
would not be welcome next door to me, to be honest. I certainly wish everybody well,
but I have to side on not accepting this CUP in this particular circumstance.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. My comments probably would run contrary to the balance of
the Commission. I personally think that day care facilities are part of what create the
essence of our community as a whole and if properly run it would be transparent. But I
am one of five and I think at this point in time we will see if there is someone that would
like to make a motion and we will just proceed with that in mind. But thank you all for
coming in.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I will make an attempt. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to deny file number CUP 06-037, as presented during the Public
Hearing of December 7, 2006, for the following reasons: In line with much of the public
testimony, we feel that it is inappropriate for this particular location as not fitting in with
the character of the surrounding neighborhood. I further move to direct legal
department staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the
next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on December 21st, 2006.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to deny the CUP 06-037. All those in favor say
aye. Any opposed? Aye. So, there is four for the denial and one --
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY.
F
oa ~ y ~'~~,...
"3 ~'_~3r
w~ ~F~.;
,d 5 ; ~ ~ I
b F ,~
a ~ ~' ~
' ~ i'."~Er ~~`~, TT
e
"~ "f s 'Tt
i ~ ,
~I X 9r~, d3 atii '~ ~~',.
f4 Ip ~~r 1:.
,,~~ ~
~~'!'a
% r
~i 1~ # Riw~l~Y
t ~ r
f
M ~ ~~.fi
~.
! +
aM1 t ~~'h. 1~ ~
I
I~I$ ~ $~{,~ a at~liu:
F~ b;r
N,~ j~
1~ w'. S Y ~11 ~a.
..~i~j t
~ K-~ 1 n~~t.
l~ ,. ~ 1 a li
S ti: ~ . K g~ ~~
t~ ~ 3 ' ° <`U ~ E~. r.
~~ ~~..
~t „}~ u ~ r i ~ ~ ~ ~~~
i Vi ~ {~CC.~ ;~
•' 4 j ~ i Lw ~ ialt~.
~ t }~ .i~~
2 * ~ '~~~
9 ~ 4 ~ ~
k. 4h. _,:3~~.. ~_~1 -M it ~f~.
.~',~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ 3 r 1(y
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 28 of 90
Nary: Mr. Chairman, just as a clarification for the maker of the motion, as well as the
majority -- state law requires that we do indicate what conditions could be met to -- what
~; ~ could they do to satisfy the concerns of the Commission to be approved and if I
"- understand the discussion, the only condition at this juncture to be approved that I
,:
~`` ' heard was that it be a home occupied day care. Is that correct or were there others?
1;;
And if there were, could you clarify those for the Findings as well.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman that would be the most important thing to be that it be an
occupied home that may have children added to it during certain times of the day. If we
were going to go that direction, I would probably want to discuss the number closer to
eight.
Rohm: Okay. So, it would be both being occupied and possible limiting it to a number
of less than 12 and --
Zaremba: That's one person's opinion.
Rohm: Okay. And I think that that's appropriate. Any additional comments on that?
Borup: My only comment on the number, it would depend on how many are already in
the home and how many square feet are devoted to the day care.
Rohm: Okay.
>- " Borup: And that's a question we wouldn't know at this time anyway.
'~ Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I'm in agreement.
'~ Rohm: All right. It's been -- the CUP has been denied with comment and I'd like to
-~ thank each and ever one of you for coming in tonight and that's the end of that particular
~;, ~'1 Public Hearing and at this time we are going to take a short break, about 15 minutes,
and we will reconvene at five minutes until 9:00.
s.
Reces
~ )
=~ Item 8: Public Hearing: MCU 06-004 Request for Modification of the existing
} Conditional Use Permit to remove the requirement for detailed conditional
~~~ use permit approva~ for au structures wltnm the ~-~ zone ror rcauperry
;~ Crossing Subdivision by Carl and Bonnie Reiterman - 1434, 1463,
±~, `~ 1492, 1565 E. Star Drive:
Rohm: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to reconvene and at this time I'd like
to open the Public Hearing on MCU 06-004 for the sole purpose of continuing this item
~:;
f '~
F
~ ..
~{
t
s
tF ;E
3
Z
ri
~~~
Y
~7
H
t'
F,.,
t h
s ,
,.,,
t.'k~
~~ ~ ~ ~~~
,~ ,
~ ~ i`A 31 ~~..
~ F'2 ~ x~rtF' ~
T.' r
. µ
~ ~
~ iY
~ ,
t. rG ~ ~ ~9~b,-... ~
~ ~,~' f A
t~ ~ k ~ ;i ~ ~~I ~
I
...~ y f t:'F.
~ ~
F { n rF' P ~Bf~~~ r t
1 ~iy.
{ ~p ~, ~ ~
~~ F~ I ~ J xis
y~ I ~ a Y t~ ~'41P, ~ _
~ ~~~~ ~
~ „ ~ ~ ~~,.
1~ ~ ~ '~~ ~ '~'
~ ~ " I ~~-
~~~ ~~ t~ r~a~j„~:
~l~i~r ~ z` ~'
;,,.~
~~
~.
f , ~ ~~~ ~ ,
y y, ;
r~ , ~ ~ ~!~I~r~
k N E~ ~#~ ~I
r _~ ~~y~~
2
i i~ ~ a O 11~ ~ii (" ~.;~
f. } Y ~' .t[ l'
i a I }
~r V~
~ 1S:y3*~ ;~, ,
~~ F ~ k ~'
_I~.
4. ~ , . 4t
~ f R ~ a +! ~X~~~ #~
1 ~~ y
i. .~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ #~ , t. ~ ~
3 i y `„
F • •
'< Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 29 of 90
to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of
December 21st, 2006. Could I get a motion to that effect?
Zaremba: So moved.
'.~ Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue item MCU 06-004 to the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 21st,
2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved.
~; MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
~~.:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: AZ
06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to
an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-
Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood
Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65
acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge
F Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
~;. Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006: PP 06-031 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11
commercial /other lots and 16 common /open space lots on 290.87 acres
in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge
Subdivision by James L. Jewett -south side of Overland Road between
Linder Road and Ten Mile Road:
f
~,;
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031,
both of these items related to South Ridge Subdivision and begin with our staff report.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
;: Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
~~ ~, Moe: Due to the fact that I actually work with a couple of folks that are in opposition in
this hearing tonight, I am requesting to be -- to recuse myself from this hearing at this
~~ : I time, as I am a little bit concerned of my own conflict of interest.
Rohm: That is certainly your prerogative and I accept that recusal.
Moe: Thank you.
~, ~
~ Rohm: Okay. With that, can we get the staff report, please?
:_ Ii
~1
.. t
=
.. ~
it ~ ~
~.
{
~ y•1j1
~. , ~ .
Is.
~ ._
'
~'
~
'
< 1
~
I
b~• .{`~ ~ ~ j ~It
~ J +^:~
'r-
1 1uµ. ~.:
.. 1~. 4 yFh 'i' f I
: ,.
N k. °•
i~ ~
n {
3
I
1
1 ~
~{:.
i; n
q'
. .
1 .. ..
~
y'~
Y r
'~~.~~~ k:,~ ~r .. ^^^^1111 n4' .f ~' .L.,
1 d'
2 t. 1 fl l~Ti
f
' ~y>
.
„
,
~.
.
Yl
+j •.
v
77
I
r
~
,
$
n
~~
.
' ~
~~. . .
1
..
;
` .;•
~'t I
of ~"~-~
~
.~. 1"
i .
...
I
. .
~-
, ~.
•r„
y) .}.! .
. YI
A
'~ .yj sa'f I i _ i ti ~f ~: f +f ~b '~?~JX; ,
~~
33~
} q
,
1 ~~ r ~~ :.~: I I , ~ I I .'
A
; . ~•~~
i 1 j e~
t..
.
.
'~
;
~ i
:l ,1 ~~ ~
~ ~ t
„
r0.
;.
~
,,;
„
..
~,
~ ~
1 ~5 t :~Y.-~ ~• A/ ~ ! ~~1 ~}; i r • ~ ..~ 111: '~'t''.d!"
`
~:~~m:
•
~~," {
I
~4
.
.
• 1~.
>•~~ I,r i
7
~ .I.
~ 'Q'
Y
•1 "'
1
i
..
~ (
< 7 (
{{
sr
i ~ e ~ - i
~ t t~ W;.
N
~ •
./: 1~
~+p e,e~~
1
~'` 'Z ,Tf 1'thlR'! 1 ~ f;~... ~ ~ ; it L $ ~ r GY:~ ~ ~J "'S
~
t
{
,:'t
i
'e
'
.r}~•
I
9 •~~
.~
' a~.
.r
•1
,~
3 .
x.
1 1
' •,
.,;•f .
ll~, `~ i ~~~:
:..+... 1~?~:.y „T ~ I •. ~ ~i .j .. n rt~~ _.... r ~ , ~ t~' f ~.'' ~! ~ ,r.t i ,4f f~"
.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
`.; Page 30 of 90
,~ ~. Hood: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This item is not a new one
to you; it has been on two previous agendas. Most recently the October 19th
Commission meeting, at which time the Commission did direct the applicant to hold
` another meeting, a neighborhood meeting, receive comments from ACHD, and give city
staff new calculations and configurations for this project. At the two previous hearings
there has not been a staff report given really describing the project and what the
applicant is proposing. I am prepared to do that this evening. It may take awhile, it is
F,.
290 plus acres, but I am going to run through the project just as quick as I can and
~~- ; highlight some of the issues, concems that we have, issues and concems from other
agencies, departments, and the like and just kind of run through the time on everything
that's happened in the past six months or so when this application was submitted back
in July. The project, as you can see on the map, is everything in blue. It is a little bit
misleading. There is an out-parcel right here. It looks like it's outlined in blue, but that,
in fact, is not part of the subject project. But everything else between Linder and Ten
Mile, Overland south is. There is another out-parcel right here as well and one right
there. So, there are there out-parcels. I should probably point out this one, although it's
~"`' not in the middle of the project, but that is, too, an out-parcel. That's also not a part of
$' the project, As I mentioned, 290 acres. They are requesting R-2, R-4, R-8, TN-C and
TN-R zoning. Staff is additionally recommending an L-O zoning designation for just a
little piece of property. I will get to that in a little bit. There is a preliminary plat also
associated with this project. There are 186 residential lots, 11 commercial or other
building lots, and 16 common lots. Of the 186 residential, nine are mega lots that are
~~
~ going to be re-platted. I'm going to stop there for just a second. You can see some of
~ these areas here. On this plan here this is mega lot four, I believe. I can't read it from
~'' but I think that's mega lot four. Here is another mega lot. This is a mega lot.
this far
,
There is one there. There are nine of those throughout the project. Here are a couple
here. The applicant intends to annex this into to the city with this project, actually record
a final plat on them, with the understanding that they cannot develop any of those until
,, i they come back for another preliminary and final plat approval by the city, at which time
they can, then, develop the project. But everything is included within the development
r > `~" today, as the mega block. Now, there is another exhibit that the applicant prepared
~~-5~~ today, I think it's in his PowerPoint presentation, that shows a phase line that does
something like this. It encompasses the park, goes around and takes in everything and
calls this phase one. So, this will all be completed with what he's calling phase one.
" ~~ 'nto this a little bit further. Aside from bein
These future phases -- and I will get i g
recorded in a final plat and having anon-build note placed on the plat, staff is making a
';~ further recommendation, basically anything west of that first phase not be constructed
,
a
until the alignment of Overland Road is determined by the City Council and ACHD
' through the public hearing process of our Ten Mile area specific plan. Again, I will get
~` ""' into some details on how some language how I exactly propose, but you forward on a
recommendation that has that stipulation in it. Let me go back to the project a little bit
more. So, your office and retail lots are up along Overland Road. There is also a future
~, public library site, an elementary school site. These are alley loaded units here along
this collector roadway that feeds into the development. Some more alley loads and,
then, you kind of get into less dense areas there. There is some R-4 in this area --
'" maybe I will toggle over to this one. This actually shows the zoning. So, this is the
:.
~~ I 5 M
::... .
::
.~
a t' ~'" 1:
.. .
~ ~~
r~ .,?, ~ N I o ry~ f p Lr d S r~ r ~4rr :•'i.•~ ~
L~
~r
y ~
i7
,. i~ ,~,I t_.
a ~ 3
1 F..'
~ , Y !~'AAJ/N~r+.
C ~' p ~~ 1~ ~ ~ {`rF
iW i
f f qi7 ~
- l ~. vd,6~.. S~
~ ~~
u ~r lj ~,a-~t~E..
a Y ~,.f 1~ ~~Q~1'~Iri
~'; is FR+~~.:
;.'k
f;~E.
~'`~ 9' ~ obi ~s
~ f;,
,~
~'
ass ~ r !r~~
~~~
~~
r ,~ ,~ ~ r aft
H• FA[ ~' Q~ ~~.
f
3 Y''G.
'~ r
1 LT ~,~~y-
g .- ~. ~y~.~]aiY,-
4 1. ~~ kt~~y l11
~ ~ A , . ~~~
~;
d (~
r ~ r
r~~, ~ ~a'Sd~
l,~.
i
c ~ ~` ~ ~ ~Fji
r t4 r.
~. * ~-~a~t~,
d ~ ~r:
~ '.
i
~ ~_;
's:-
® •
Meridian Planning & Zoning
s; December 7, 2006
Page 31 of 90
master concept plan, but it kind of helps to fill in those mega blocks and the idea of how
they will develop in the future. You can see that's kind of where the alley load stops and
you got some R-8 here, some R-4 and, then, there is R-2 down along some of the
a` ` existing R-5 lots that are over here in Val Vista and Ariel and I believe this is R-4, but
" ' some larger lots and those exact lot sizes have not been proposed, staff has not
Y~ evaluated these lot sizes. These ones that are in the first phase we have looked at.
They do meet the dimensional standards of the requested zone. In fact, all of the lots
within the development first phase have been reviewed by myself and do comply with
the minimums for the zone, as far as square footage and frontage and the like. There is
''' ' a park site, a city park site proposed here. This is a little clubhouse area. I'll let the
~' applicant probably -- he's got some better depictions, some more details than I have. In
fact, I haven't even seen how this park is going to be developed. Doug Strong -- I did
~` have a conversation today with Doug Strong, the Parks Director, their commission has
already reviewed and approved a design for this city park. There is a pond somewhere
_ in there and it's a terraced park, supposedly three levels. Again, I haven't seen the
details of how that works, but the parks commission has taken some action and a
recommendation for how this park should look. Again, maybe the applicant can fill you
- in on some of the details there, but there is a city park as well. And conceptually there
a is also shown a fire station over here near Ten Mile Road on the south side of -- on this
i
y: ~'~~ concept plan Overland Road realigned and I kind of just -- we talked about it last time,
but Overland Road is proposed to be realigned in this location. Let's see. So, what we
have submitted is several iterations, in fact, of a master -- master concept plan and a
preliminary plat. The main changes that have occurred are -- the first original submittal
just showed Overland going straight. There was some local collector streets that kind of
~~ ~~ went through and serviced the rest of this area, but that has changed due to the
outcome of the Ten Mile area specific planning charrette and the Comprehensive Plan
"~ map that city staff, our Comprehensive Planning staff, is getting prepared to submit next
~,
{~ '~' week to meet our December 15th cutoff for a Comp Plan amendment. It is true that the
City Council has not officially acted on this, this being the Ten Mile area specific plan.
~~ ~: ~ They have been aware, though, however, through pre-councils and a lot of them, if not
. all of them, attended some aspect of the charrette and know what's going on here. It
won't be a surprise when it gets to the Council, at least, you know, in concepts that, hey,
it's talked about that Overland Road may be realigned. That's the outcome of the
charrette. So, that's one of the biggest changes. The applicant did make that change at
~
' ' city staffs request. He would not have had staffs support if he would have tried to push
d th
'
,4'
;
e
t consistent with where staff envisione
his original project through, it just -- it wasn
,K Comprehensive Plan going, it was out of date by the time it got to here and he was
~`= ' good enough to actually change his plan and show this road to avoid the ugly situation it
would create at the Ten Mile -Overland current intersection if it's an arterial-arterial
intersection within the interchange. I do also want to point out that as I mentioned there
` has been several -- three or four, anyways, different plans that have been submitted to
~`` ' me. However, the east half of this project has had very very minor changes. In fact, it's
~.
~, ; ,
been -- in my estimation for a project this large, it's been the same. The only thing that's
~' a slight variation to an alley. The alley
changed is there were some changes to an alley
Y,. ,
is essentially the same. I believe this is Block 5, but maybe -- maybe my memory is
failing me. But very very slight modifications. This roadway right here has changed a
~`.~'=~
*J~
~'ti :b~
tf
':~_
ti
,fy
St
;~~ ~ ~; ~,1{,~~
Lh~ ~ ~NZtl~..
~ J ~ i ~ y:3~5nI
1 ~Kj 1~ ~~~ +~ S~
J~ d{
~' w~
~. "`
~i, ~'~~'',`8 f f ~~~~:;
~-y .~~_r ~~ ~,?.
Y F C'.
!~ 't~
~f ~ISNi~~L.
3 RR
f~f yA~ q ~ ~~ -}.
f; ~ n ~ F ~f 'I 3Fr.
~ ku< t~~`~z~
v
~~~~r ': ! i ~,S',.
5 ~ 7 ~ ~:~ ~ ` ~_
,~f ,
a
y } t i y
'~ ,.; ~ s y~ t;'.Yc
a y ~ ~f ~ j"d~;Y~.
t
' S f;,
c
z~ ,d~ ~af
~ a ~~s~
f
r" ~ ~ is
i t~ 2;
7 7~ ,:i.
+ ; ~ ar~3i~,.
t ~ y~.~_~
s ~ ~~~ ~~ ~
~.
~ 51A
7 i j 4jY i~ x~~-
na 3 Ie ~ ~ 5:~7{ ~rFi'Rr_
~;f~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~
fa f
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 32 of 90
~.
~°
There was a condition in the original staff report to give access to this parcel,
little bit
~. .
so they didn't have direct lot access in the future to Linder. They have moved that road
now, so it does snug up to it and they can take access to this road, rather that direct
access to Linder. Some other minor tweaks, but, again, this side of the plat hasn't
,, - changed too much and all of the changes have been at staffs request. There have
~' . been some other changes that we have worked with the developer on that we have tried
~=
" to get it consistent with the Ten Mile area plan and how we anticipate the land use
lan and
t
t
f th
~~ p
recen
e mos
designations in this area to fall. Staff is generally supportive o
g when I say most recent plan, I actually received a revised revised plan at 4:30 today
=i:;: from Mr. Jewett. I have not had time to do a thorough analysis of what's changed, what
hasn't changed, but just on the face of it, just spending ten minutes looking at it, it looks
to be not only consistent with the previous version, but it cleaned up some things and
~~ he's now showing a new phase line. That's probably the biggest thing that stands out.
He's actually -- there is a dark line and, then, his presentation -- it was so late I didn't get
~ to scan it in, but in his presentation he has a dark line showing what that phase one is
"
~ and that's important as we talk about the development agreement provisions that I'm
' going to ask you to modify here in just a little bit. We talked about Overland Road.
~'`- '~ That's a huge huge deal with this project. We are asking the Commission and City
Council, if it's appropriate, to realign this major arterial. Just a little bit of background
with that. It does intersect Ten Mile Road approximately 2,100 feet south of its current
~~" location. So, there is about 2,000 feet of a relocation there, so it's not a slight
~' - modification, it is a significant change to the existing location of the road. ACHD
previously acted on South Ridge when Overland Road continued in its existing
alignment. I do have those conditions as well handy, because those are not in the staff
~~' ~
~~ ; report. What I scanned into the staff report and gave the Commission was their
;.
condition should the council -- or commission yesterday approve the project with the
'' ~ Overland Road realignment. At the ACRD commission yesterday they did vote to
remand the revised South Ridge design back to their staff with no definite date to
' ~~ reschedule the item. The commission determined that acting on the revised plat with
~_~ ~ the proposed Overland Road realignment was premature ahead of the city's adoption of
~~'~~~~ the Ten Mile area plan and the interchange design. So, that was one of the major
reasons that you all continued this here on -- from October 19th was to get some action
~ ' ~ The ACHD's action in this case was no action and they didn't say that they
from ACHD
.
are going to have one, you know, just here in the near future, they remanded it back to
staff and they said we don't know when we will act on this again. City, the ball's in your
k.` -- `' court, you tell us if you like this or not, go through your Public Hearing process, take into
`~ consideration all the public's testimony on what they think about Overland Road,
explore, you know, options, potentially, of where Overland should come out. Once you
i.1
q" I
have your plan adopted we will consider this as well. But they, essentially, want veto
"`` power. I believe right before the motion was made one of the commissioners said
~: something to the effect that, you know, we have authority over the roadways and we are
~ ~
"~'
g p tY -- Y
not goin to, you know, allow a develo er or even the ci and I'm ma be -- I'm
~6 `'~ paraphrasing here a little bit, but they wanted to hold off on any decision until they new
f '~ ' for sure what the city wanted to do and didn't want to have conflicting approvals. If they
~.~ - approved it and the city didn't like it or vice-versa, they really want the city to act first
and be the catalyst for that public input to see where Overland Road should align. So,
~_
~
:M:,~ ~ T ~~rs. !I~ } 1 ~ I':11~ ~~ y 11 ~.d'4, {~ ~ i~l Y~,c-; ~f :r. i
~y
~ 9 `t
'K •"e: e:
'
~
o
E° .
3
.J
I
S tR'. l~Yx
~~
~ ~ I °k. j~•
j I •) ~
"
,J;
s,~`
-c
J p
*
' `
]
§
• I
•
I
~
.
..
:R.
. y:)'.
~
.
4
5
.
i
!
t
.
,
'a
~
w
,
~
r ..~ :I!
~
..
.:3•
,.
...
~4.
~
~
.,
'` ,~:i
~
' ~
~
r{.•:: j: ~'a y2 ~ 4~
1~ ~ ~•S"Jr~t.%.N.
'f ~
~
n,
1 ~ .
Fi
;
~
'% k
; I .
.. 1
1 ~
I '
'
aid'
ma
?
eL~ 5: ~~ -! ~. .
~
< t a~`+~<.
^ ~" i ,
y
'
•
i i
~i ~
~ ~ )
I
' ~ :
i
i.:/..fL
. ~
i
i~ .i};`~
~
~
~ '
,1 ._
~ ~~N. 7I
.
F
I
'
+ ~J ~i ~„
3
~S i~ `t'
l
At #y ~k
~~
.i" .'f1'i,,{Y..''x*;,
C"4,i` F
~ ~ MR
p ~~~: }
~i 4
S ~ n.. ^ ~'~~
}{~w_
AR
~1,: I: ;. ~-.1
~: ~•
l .
el
~~
~,=~r ' ,,~., ..
, 3'r, ~• ~
.i
r s~
.31.2+ ` °>;:
•
•
IN ~,~
..
1 ' ~ I ,. ~~1 I T.
1 .y..
a•~
.
i F ii
r I ~ F i
li
.1., ...
q Y
a
q
~~`
I.
t
.~i:
A
~ s .~
~ 1 Y 1 X 1 I ~ i
_d ..Rr
~ ~
~.
' i.
!C ,?.. .F' s
w '
... 'r~.' i
{ t
}~"
{~
p
'~
~ .. . ~ 3 f ..i:'.
..
..
~€~•' x
r,.
,s.;' ;;.`~
„
~f h ~"4'.
e it
1 ~ ,-i
y
~{
~
~'~
" ,~'•• ~
~ T ~,~ ~. }~ Y )
.4
I • i ~ 1 'r°:Y ~+fs.; "Y
.
~ ~ ~ ~
. Y.
~.
. . t xir ~ x.a ,L~
• G ~
s i•,. su
.I' c,', I
i rlh ~
.9 .
@ I 7
1 ~r r
~?
~
.~
r,
,
_
.h: i ~:.~
.:
, u ..
v,
' 1 K ~ f
. i ~a~"~ f2 .,
~ ~: ~ I s ~ t'.x:r''Y. }`S e~`.~~, -e ' ..
U
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 33 of 90
that's kind of a summary of their meeting yesterday and I know there are a bunch of
folks in the audience here, I know there are a bunch of folks that were there yesterday, I
don't know if they are all here in the audience or not, but that's what I came away with
was they are really looking for the city to have some type of public testimony regarding
how Overland Road should function. There are other concerns as well about the Ten
Mile interchange, obviously, that's -- that's in this area, it will have an effect on how this
area functions when it's constructed here in the next few years, hopefully, but they do --
they do want to know how the city feels about this. So, my recommendation to you --
and this is like a punch line I guess here right in the middle of my staff report, I would
prefer that you make a recommendation this evening and whatever recommendation
that is, that's up to you, but we need to get this ball rolling. We have asked ACHD, you
know, we want the comments from ACHD before you forwarded on a recommendation;
they said we are not going to do anything before the city does something. I believe the
ball is in the city's court now to tell ACHD what we want and which I think can be a
positive thing, we can tell them exactly where we want it and they know where we stand
and I'm not telling you what -- what your recommendation should be, but I think the
applicant at least deserves some recommendation tonight to get before the City
Council, so that City Council can tell ACHD how the city thinks that this area should
function. So, I'm going to jump back into the project itself, but that's ahuge -- a huge
aspect of this development.
a
<< .
~~_
~"
a
.f~.:
. 4
:'.
r
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, could I add a comment just to that specific subject. I am on
ACHD's capital investment citizens advisory committee and I have the opportunity to
talk to commissioners -- ACHD commissioners at various times. They in the past have
been strongly dinged from making early decisions that are interpreted by cities as being
land use decisions, as opposed to roadway decisions, and my feeling is the signal that
they are sending to us is they don't want to flop back and forth of where the roadways
ought to go, they want Meridian to make the land use decision and, yes, they are the
final authority on roads, but they have participated in the charrette as well and I don't
think their remanding it back to their own staff should be seen as a negative on their
part. They participated in the charrette, they have seen this, they are trying to be very
sensitive to let the cities -- in this case Meridian make the land use decision first and,
then, they will decide the road. So, I don't want ACHD to come off negative on this
necessarily. Thank you.
Hood: And I wouldn't either. I would add to that, we -- as you mentioned at the
charrette and in between -- I mean it's been almost two months now since the charrette
has been complete. We have been in constant contact with ACHD staff on this very
issue. They reviewed this, they provided a staff report to their commission, their
commissioners were just not comfortable with the process in approving a major change
like this without having, as you mentioned, you know, comments back from the city on
where they want to be. So, I appreciate that. I am going to switch gears here a little bit
and talk about the Comprehensive Plan, because that also ties in with the development
and the land use aspect of the development. So, I will get away from the roads a little
bit, but the property is currently designated a mixed use community and medium density
residential on the current Comprehensive Plan future land use map. There is a
~ - 3~ ~ ~r
~ t ~ ~~~R~
~ ~~°r!~~ i~ d r~.
'~1
-e 2
"~ 1. i .1 nl(•'~
FAG.
~ ~ ,.~
~a
~F " ~ ~ r ~r?~~
~ ti,..~
7 ~ ¢ ~
P rr ~,
i II Y ly, I`4 ~1~ ~ ~~ +.
ii ~ a c F~ 3~ .
~ y r
.~iM
~ ~~o ~ f )r IF ~ ir2~-.
f z ~ ~, ~ ~~~s~~.
` ~ ~.:r
~. S[~i r ,~ ~~ Y 4 ~L.ai~.
i ~ x~l:iifp.
r ~wr~
i,+,lR ~i' J~_~
~ ~ ~ }~
y~}~IE ?r~J~a '~~ °f~
t~ r r ~ F':~'.
~ ~ Ji3:+~
~' j'?41r'+~
~'i;
s ~ ;~~
~,
r '
t }
r ~ ) f~ r
011 b ~ ~ Y~~~i~..
~ t
+~ 3 F
i
ix +`rt~~~.},
r .c t o ... a 0. ,1 ~i'.k.~
,-
Meridian Planning & Zoning
' December 7, 2006
Page 34 of 90
'< neighborhood center, half circle neighborhood center location, something like this, on
the current Comprehensive Plan map and, then, the rest of it is shown as medium
` density residential. However, staff is preparing to submit a Comprehensive Plan
°,. amendment for the Ten Mile area, as I mentioned earlier. This application for a map
y`~ amendment has an impact on the land use designations for this property. The map
amendment will propose for this property a mix of mixed use commercial near Linder
Road and Overland Road intersection, medium high density along the south side of
Overland Road, and medium and low density further south. Civic areas are shown as
the elementary school site near Linder and fire station near Ten Mile Road. Open
space parks are shown along the Ridenbaugh and the natural gas pipeline and mixed
use employment areas are shown on the north side of Overland Road. On the map
`~ currently the mixed use areas shown in the middle of the section between Linder and
~?= Ten Mile and medium density shown on either side, as I mentioned. The proposed
,: development and zoning reflect more of the mixed uses at the Linder Road -Overland
f~
Road intersection and along the Overland Road frontage. Staff is generally supportive
of the proposed zoning designation as they are generally consistent with both the
current map and the map amendment that will be proposed, except for a couple of
areas. I'm going to jump to the concept plan now, because this does have the zoning
designations on it. And I do have as well the map that we are prepared to submit this
next -- by this next Friday to amend the map, but, basically, staff is supportive of the
proposed zoning district as shown on his exhibit, except for on another plan previously
there was a -- this was made a four legged intersection. The Ten Mile area plan that we
are preparing to submit shows this area as being -- where did it go? Mixed use
employment. I asked Anna what zoning designation corresponds to mixed use
' employment, because we don't have a designation like that currently on our Comp Plan
map. She said L-O would be the closest thing we have to mixed use employment.
'
- re looking for major office
What it really is going to be is an employment sanctuary, you
employers in that area. So, L-O is the closest zoning designation we currently have that
corresponds to the future land use map we are anticipating for that area. So, that is a
~~ ~~`i change staff would like to see would be for this area to go to L-O and staying in that
~ same area, the applicant's proposed some TN-C here, that's a traditional neighborhood
~' center. There are more commercial uses allowed in this proposed zoning district than
,~ ^ ~ the Ten Mile area specific plan has envisioned. It envisions this area being medium
4` high density residential. That would correspond more closely to the TN-R which is
i .`i proposed on the east side of Overland realigned. Or R-15. They are both pretty
consistent. R-15 allows up to 15 dwelling units an acre, medium density residential is
~
'! up to 15 dwelling units an acre. So, both of those designations, either an R-15 or a TN-
`
~~ -~ R in this area with L-O there. Except for those changes, everything else -- the zoning
designations are generally consistent with the map that city staff is prepared to submit
°~ .~. to the city. You won't actually -- just because we acted on our last CPA map
` ~ amendment in -- I want to say October sometime -- we have to wait six months, so we
' ~~ are looking at April, I think, is the earliest it can get for you to make a recommendation
-~ on, but we have to have it submitted by the 15th of December, but that's what you will
`°
~'~l be seeing here later on this next spring is will be -- at least a small portion. The Ten
=ray Mile specific area plan is a huge area, but this -- that's -- relative to this project, that's
~, ~~ what the map will look like. I do have several development agreement provisions that I
~t
z
•< ~y
K
•i ~
~
1 J .~I "y$ '~~E:P'
~
t o e ,
t~
1
.lStcR X6.1 I •I+ 1} *r.•~.
Ykx~~;.
~ , + ~
x
t"
.i
; ' ~ t ~
R'~'~afp ~'~..
: ` I
~ }
I t .i
. '.~•_'y~ Vim{.
~.
.
4
+"'
•`
,
.
.•4
y N ~.^ ,u~'•fim• ..
.~ .F_
1
~Y :9. ~'~.
I
t S I
`
• .t
~
.
t.
y• _
_
i
.{~
;
. R
~':r..
l
)
. '
e~
!
.
.
.1-
~,
( ~'~'
J.~iS:r Y£ _ a
i
~
.
.
J.
1 I ~ ~ f1' .,~i."aix:``y'°r'f ~,:~„
yy
L ~i^"•~r .
'
'
~
i
"
'
I
'{>
"~Y ~•
.
k
r
:~
' "re
~
'4 ri ;
~
; t. ~~ r..,
:• ~~?
~
~ av^~c ?r '
~ S ,
,
^:. .
t 4
e
. !vfi.'~~~ i ~f,
t r 9ra ++ { ~ I I ~~%~ A
,.
a
I .
}
ii
f~
*i
' ..
.
. .-r'
'
` ; [
`
;
~
~
'
:.~ ~:' y v , :µ.f~ 'h., ".
~
' ~ + ~
~ b
'~ ~
,
k'~ ; y~,. •;`F^, .ti i~„.:,
+s
R d afr:
+.
~, }? $ ra
s ;~'r aF?~:1~ ;
~,~ $.
`+4~• i ~
,, y
, ,
y`
s
~:: .:,
~.
'~
~;,.;
•s
~
~' ~
~ •.
t •~
z ..
~
.
^
r.,
.~..,,
~ ~ ;~
~
I
I P
F Y
l`
` ••
.'w~ ti; wv j ~ : i fi I I ~ ~ I
~
j
,
m ~
. . I. i
i~
Y
.
~ ~
' 'y
~,
.
s~"
. I
1 '
Y
i=!r,
'
..
4
T
., .
.
.•
..
i
T
• "y. i~
F =K/
~ ~ .. 9 s. F
.a-4 r
n
..
;*
H
-
~~
~
.
'
e..
,.•
~r
.:..
•
4
...
.,,
,'
.. ^
,
,
_
,~, : s
jj
1. ~: 4'. .~ : ~~
. I ~ l >'ryx. .4 t rx h;,, :.
y
.
'
~ 1
'. I
, n,;
I
' .!
N
4I .~~ .'~~ ~
I
.
,
~, .,
..
Y i
;;,;~;.
lY ...
::~
~ I ~/,
~ ...^I
J
C~
J
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 35 of 90
~_
{~< r..
i
r~
:,
°~ 1°~~i
loll
r .r.
would ask be modified, just -- my staff report, you know, went to print -- should have
been Friday at 5:00. I took it home and worked on it this weekend, I got it to the clerk
on Monday. ACHD's commission Wednesday, I needed to have -- to make -- I request
that you make some changes to our -- to the development agreement provisions that I
wrote on this last weekend regarding this project. I can give those to you now, I guess,
is probably a pretty good time. I don't have a hard copy of my staff report, but I did
make some notes on here, so I don't know what page this is on, but it should be near
the middle of the staff report anyways. Development agreement provision number one -
- ornumber three.
Zaremba: Modifying Exhibit B, is that --
Hood: Does Exhibit B have the development agreement provisions in it?
Zaremba: I think it mentioned it. Exhibit B begins on page 40, if that helps.
Hood: Yeah. I did put it -- it's both in the analysis and in Exhibit B. So, Exhibit B, page
one. Page four, probably, on your computers, but -- so number three there, there is the
highlighted R-15 in the second sentence and it reads that all TN-R zoned lots and uses
will comply with the recently adopted TN-R standards adopted in the UDC. That the R-
15 zone area -- now, that was a change I was recommending, but based on the Ten
Mile area plan. TN-R is -- yeah. TN-R is more appropriate there and then -- so, I'd ask
that you delete the R-15 and replace that with TN-C. Let me show you what that is
referring to. There is -this area here, TN-C, on the original master concept plan multi-
family was shown in this -- in this area. Staff is saying that the TN-C area needs to
have those original concepts that were shown on that original concept plan as part of
the development agreement, so -- and the way it continues on is at least 20 multi-family
dwelling units, with the dwelling units being located primarily between Overland Road
and any surface parking area, so you had the units out near Overland Road, not a sea
of asphalt, not just a parking lot out here, but the buildings are actually pulled towards
the street and at least 20 attached single family dwelling units and/or townhouse units
and that usable common open space area be provided on site. So, again, that's
consistent. It doesn't show up on this reviewed plan, but the original master concept
plan did show multi-family, higher density, and open space for folks in there. So, as part
of the development agreement I would ask that that be also included in future -- in the
future development of this property. The next requested change is on number four on
the same page. The R-15 zoning designation, the applicant is actually -- if you look on
this map, there is no R-15 proposed. As I mentioned just a minute ago, R-15 and TN-R
are similar zoning districts. They aren't the same, there are some differences. You can
do some vertically integrated stuff in a TN-R, you can't in the R-15, but they are really
similar. They are the medium high density districts of the city, so -- but R-15 is not on
the table now, so I'd ask that just the R-15 be just completely removed from that
provision. And, then, in the fourth sentence on there, after the colon -- let's see. And it
says except that the areas proposed as -- I guess that's all that can be removed. I'm
song. This is a little bit -- this condition gets a little hairy. The L-O is the only change
that really needs to happen in that. So, it's the last part of that sentence, except for a
~ s ,.-
{ "`w ~''~'l"~
a~,~a~;:
•~y
ii
L~
y
";'3
:'
a
Sy.
_~
i
.fir.- 3 ~ ~ ..,~.~.
~A !_ ~ ~;9~^r
+ ~{ `
K ~.i; 1 ~YYY jrv~J
~ ~ >..2
Soy ~ ~'.
4
y ~i~
l r n n~ S~ ~3 ~ '
~ u3 ~ 3 ~5~i~.'„
~i i ~ s t;a ~ aa~+=it'
#i, ~~ sir
~ 1 ~' i~~~1~t
~' ~ .
b ~ y~ 71~F.
.~~ ,
A ', ~ ~ i"rlj`
t y.1
~~ r ~ ~ ~ ;~f ~~ c
1 ~' ~' r» h. %~
~~ ~j6~`a~~ ~ ~~~
;~
~~ ~~ x~u~€~+
~~, ..~ ~~ a ,.,
s3 _;:
ti r ; ;~~.
~ ~~': b .1"Sfk"
~ w~~_
~ ~ „ ~H~~ ,
i
t r T d ~rY'~ "~r
~ Ae N ~ yte 3a ~a~~iP~~.
I'. r.}k~~ A:~~i~
''.
T
~1 ` F
;_}~
~$, R ° ~ ~,
~ r ~;~;y4~~„
7 ~ ~ 6 ~ y„~~
°o-c
• ® y~F ~~~
k
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 36 of 90
~,~ ,
small pocket located on the northeast side of local intersection, that L-O pocket needs
~.
to be rezoned. That's the zoning designation that staffs proposing. And, again, that's F
~E ~ the area I talked about earlier, this kind of triangular shaped area here should be zoned
L-O, consistent with the plan. I'm going to jump down to 13 now, which is on the next ;:
page. It says currently that the applicant agrees to construct continuous public streets ~ n
" • ° from Ten Mile Road, Overland Road, and Linder Road that connect with each other as ' ~•,
ti,
part of the first final plat as proposed. This one I'm asking you to totally strike based on
~~' ACHD's comments. ACHD will not let the applicant construct Overland Road as '
proposed from Linder to Ten Mile. The way I would ask you to modify that condition --
or strike and totally replace that condition would be no development shall occur west of
phase one, as shown on the master concept plan, and then -- and it goes on to say :,:
~~ •~
~; mega lot -- or regarding the mega lots, until such time as the Ten Mile area specific plan ~
~.
is adopted by the city. Now, I don't expect you to write all this down as I'm saying this. I .~
can give this to you if you want me to restate it or whatever, but the way that the
~1
~
; provision will read is you cannot -- aside from that phase one, the applicant cannot
„ . construct any homes, any roads, over on this half of the development, except for the ~ ,
r:..
park, I'm sorry. I should have went around the park. Until the City Council adopts the
~, ~ Ten Mile specific area plan and where ever Overland Road falls -- if Overland Road falls
.
if that's what they say is best, that's where Overland needs to go with this
straight ~ , -
~: ,
project. If they say it dips down here --obviously, the applicant can't construct it through
someone else's property, but they would have to construct it down here and, then, this
t` person picks it up to align. That was something that was talked about at ACHD
1` yesterday. It was aligning with the street across at the half mile as an option anyway.
~~ So, however that falls, this provision will say you need to construct Overland consistent
'
m sorry,
with that Ten Mile area plan as determined in the future. And, then, the final -- I
~.
z
~ multi-use
onstruct a
first hase c
Provision No. 19 it sa s with the
I have two more. y p
_
~; pathway from Linder to the park site. It should be from Linder to the park site, instead of s
;.~ -° ~ the development agreement provision is worded that with the first phase
-- currently
~" '''~ ,
that applicant can either construct a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the
'~
~ Ridenbaugh Canal all the way to Overland Road. Again, based on staffs :fit
,~ .
~~
->
recommendation tonight, they may have stopped that short and come back and
R
~~ terminate it into the park. Now, it will be useable for the forks that have -- it will give
them a good segment to start with. And it will terminate at a park, which seemed pretty
~ ~
~- a~ reasonable. When these mega blocks come in, that multi-use pathway will eventually i
':~ be tied back in and this is also the easement for the natural gas pipeline and it will ~~
~
probably actually cross Ten Mile Road with Overland to make a safe pedestrian `
~`
~~ crossing, so they can cross at a light. So, it will generally follow the Ridenbaugh and,
d
b
f ~`
~ ecause
,
ie
then, come down to cross Ten Mile in the future, but that needs to be modi ~ y~
, •
`
that multi-use pathway should only be constructed to the park with the first phase. And,
~r
finally, there -- in number 23 -- and it currently reads that the applicant agrees to '
~;
~` construct a development and public street system on this site that is generally compliant ~
-- generally in compliance with the submitted master concept plan prepared by The ~:.„
~' Land Group labeled sheet M10, dated 4/15/06, with provisions mentioned above. And,
~ then, in parenthesis it says detailed approval of the internal street systems will be
~
~
.
staff has
again
roved with the re-subdivision of each mega lot. So
iewed and a
i
~
~ ,
,
pp
rev
reviewed the street system in here for the first phase. The street system here has not
~~
~,•
j
.
a.
f .
~
r'
~.
~: ~~
,,_ ~~z
+~S''' ,'..:rt, 3ZhN
' ~ ° h ~ a(~,t _ 't
~
~
'~- ~ ~ ~~ E
a l
.r 1
I - F
~d F ~ ^
~
i~ ? ;~.a
#
`"
c ~
~ ~ w.rt~ a
t
~
~ >y~3~ . s
~ L r i
' - ,~ ~.
~ L 'r ~ ~ ~ NP h`a
1 `IK i 45:5 I~ Zy lV{~'.
~ ~ ` I ~ n
~
,. ,~ t
~ .r
~ I F
,ak ,~ ~ ~s 5 ~ ij ~~~~ 7$~ h
"" N ~ ~II~ ~ A ~'~ ~ ~ ~ A
F
~
. :J R{I 'y1{ d
r' Y
p I ~ ckS
'F~ ] y+) J
,y ~. 7
S i
1'1
,.
F..
i
f*
~Y ';~
t
'
~
~
i
~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~pa
~"
~ ~
.y .
~. I Fa s, 4A
,
-Yic
I ~. ~ ~
~
' ' ~~ ~x%"
s
~ '~ I ~ i ~r~il ~ ~ ~~C Isl ii`i:;
.,n ~~a~"~
"
~~
~. s ~
y
i ~4~~i~
> i k
l
I
j
~ y s t z.
~ ~:. w
,~ ~S~ri=
~;
~
~
~
I
I
-G _
~Li
~ 1
ox ~ t ~~'i^
J ~
~:.
~ , , I
i ~
' ~I
i ~ Y f t~~f~i' ~ .i
,j i ~ r
~ a~m' .~i~ 6'# '~~ a -
~
~
~,
r. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1Y ~~
~
~ Y ~
'
,~
a
~ `
I
e a
` •Y bf ~t1. .A" -
4
,+
t% y
~~ d ~ J ~F~a~ .
2 `~ ' F
* •
~ ;
~
2 'r 5
3~:
~~
+ 1. ~..'r ~?~~.. }'~ '
~,.. . ,'. v
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 37 of 90
~n:~' been reviewed. So, we haven't said, you know, this block looks awfully long to me. I
don't know if it meets our standards for block length or not, but that's something we will
look at in the future when this mega lot develops. Now, that being said -- and this is
where I -- if I had any friends in the audience this is where I lose them, because I am
requesting that the Commission also add a provision that a stub street be provided to
. - one of the -- not today, but there be a development agreement provision that says when
i
V
l
l
n
a
ots
this mega lot redevelops, a stub street be provided to one of the five acre
' Vista Subdivision. Now, I will show you kind of -- and this -- this picture here kind of
,;
shows the general area and I m sorry it doesn t go out any further, but this being 300
acres it's hard to go much further out and still be able to see what's going on. This is
~' ~ Val Vista today and it currently cul-de-sacs. It's about 2,500 feet long. With the subject
proposal, an elementary school, a public library, a city park, all these new folks that are
going to be living in here and, hopefully, you know, everyone's neighborly and they can
~j` '` make new friends and want to, you know, communicate with each other, if, in fact, that
,`~ ~ happens, someone living in any one of these lots have to jump back out on the arterial,
~'. ; Ten Mile, jump on another arterial Overland to get on the local streets within the
~<, , ,
development. If a stub street is provided -- and it doesn t -- it doesn t get extended until
whatever parcel it gets stubbed to redevelops. But it allows folks -- I mean the road
goes both ways. It allows folks in -- kids in here to walk to school on local streets and
not have to take the bus out on Ten Mile or walk down Ten Mile on streets. It allows the
fire department a second way into this area. Right now they have one access and if this
_,
-- if this access gets blocked, there is no way to get back to those homes. So, it really is
`1 a provision looking forward to the potential of these lots redeveloping in the future. It's
~4.- ~`r,, ,,~
`- ~ `
/ the interconnectivity that we -- that we typically require with projects of this size. The
~
" applicant has acquired, basically, all the other -- all the other parcels here, so that's --
and the Ridenbaugh serves as a pretty good barrier to have any, you know, stub streets
" to any of these parcels or anything, but I thought I would save -- I know -- we have
gotten a lot of public testimony, a lot of e-mails, I appreciate people's input -- you know,
~'~ `" I do consider those things even when making my recommendation on things like this,
r, but I feel it's my job to at least bring that issue out before the Commission and Council
"~ µ- ~~ for your action, but that, I believe, is in the best interest of the city long term to have a
4 ~° `~
:~~ public street there that will be extended in the future at such time that that lot develops.
So, just going to quickly check my notes and see if I have missed anything here. I
~~
:; guess my -- the final, in closing -- you know, we are recommending -- it's kind of a
partial approval. It's approval of the annexation and zoning of this property, but no
construction, basically, for over half of the development. There are some other things
~4 that are in the motion specifically prepared for you that I would also like the applicant to
-- the landscape plan has not been updated since day one and I would like to see a new
'~ landscape plan that shows the park. I have not -- yet to see how the park is terraced.
Doug Strong has told me about it. I'm trying to envision this. But I would like to take
those types of plans back to our agency meetings and get any additional comments that
~'~ they may have based on the revisions that were made this evening and have those
°i' available to the City Council. I do not -- I do not envision any major changes to the
comments you already have from fire, police, sanitary services, but I just want to make
~` sure that they don't have anything that they need to add to this as well. The other -- the
other thing that I would ask is that you require the applicant to prepare -- or hire a
~.
~
14
.
y
\ ,
~
~.
.#
y~ .
3
'
1j}
i
~ ~
4 ? '.~? L ~' d
. ~ 5'~' ~ 4w er ~~
.T ~ 1'~ h~• f r/Li~. ~'L '°~ r ~'~
~
~ uSS
f•
i J' 3
9 t
:y
'd'Y.
~, .• P .Y
:: ~ry
fY' t;
l
'd~~ i' ~ .'l 'NN•~
::y:'~•
s•
i r4....
d
,i i
r ,
~,F
~
~- s6 •...
~,.. .
t:
•~
~
1 ~;3i:
'.
i ~, ,
Xr
.xk
.
'. :
,~
Y-
-
i
x L6 ~,~"~
' a
_
.
.. r
i
. 'f
'
.
I
~
`
.,
.'
~
' h
-
,
.I s
::7
..
~
I
;
.
yT
t
-
...
~ i
't ' fi •s,
";u .,
S
,
a•
A
t
~
y
R\
~"
y
(
..Y f ..
v ~ `d~ ~ ,
.~4
~ A~~ i ^' ~w~'r
x„~
~ ~
.x c: Vi c'
~~
~~'~
•" i . 7 t I , i,
~a.
,
..f i 1 ~. ~Yu
~ ~ ~ i ..,.a'. ,~
.~ • : • an t
r
.. ~
..,..
,
.~.
' S
'.q. an T
~ i ~~, b.,
tr.
'~y
ti
~' ~
,
_
"
e C
~ 4 ii
t ux
.
, Pil
:'
o .
4 ~ ~'~ ~ .3
~
Y
1
~
p
F
.!
~
:
~~ -
y
'~,
..
~'.:
'~
... ..
... ..
r~ ..
~ ~
4+'
n
'•~
1~
,nzJ_
'dt.
*ti
x "k-'
.
}
- / ,y aiJ
~.
w
'Y A
4 .
~
'l~ ,.
X~
1~ g
:~:4 ~ d
~'
A
I%~
' +t,:
zi.'Ri. ~
~ f .
.'
,
.
..
h t <
~ ~ .
~~ .,
.
f
5 ~.Y
.' ~~ .:'. c... I
'S~
V I
1 ,
.V:
~
J,~
~
. ~ '~~'
f +
'
£
~
^~, l'lr , 33(x. .}. ..
.:9 _ 9 *
.
.~.P
.
t _1 (y~
l
r F
r( .:. 1~
~
{
Y
.3~:~.E ` ,.~ '. ~,_. I f ..,.. :.' z
~ ~. , -: ~ I
i. i
I :: i- ,. ' ` '„ ,.. ~ ~. cisaa'~At'~*` ':
•
~~ ,
~,
~~`_:: '
}. -:_
,~;
~,
-,..
~_
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 38 of 90
surveyor to prepare new legal descriptions for the property. The legal descriptions have
changed. They are generally, as far as acreages go, generally the same, but the lines,
because -- because of the Ten Mile area plan, have changed based on that outcome.
So, with that I will stand for any questions. I think I -- hopefully I touched on all the main
points and if not I may jump in and say, oh, I forgot to add this as well. But I'm finished.
If you have any questions I will answer them.
Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask one. And can you go back to what probably was
the display just before this one. No. There. Back. There you go. Well, that may not
be it, but I can use it. In this area up here which applicant is proposing as TN-C, I
believe, or TN-R -- TN-R, you commented that this was no longer a roadway that
connected over to Ten Mile. I will have to state that that change is very attractive to me.
I like not having that intersection there, because it's an extremely difficult terrain and --
but are you suggesting if the applicant is willing to make the change to -- what did you
ask for? L-O in that area?
Hood: Yes.
Zaremba: Would it be all right to sort of cul-de-sac into it from here, as long as it doesn't
connect over to Ten Mile?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba -- and Iwasn't -- this does not have to be a
public street. I am just saying a four legged intersection, if it wants to be a driveway
and, then, serves as a master campus for some office complex, that works, too.
Zaremba: But it's still not connecting over to Ten Mile at that point.
Hood: And that -- and that's aprovision -- I guess I would clarify, though. What is not -
what the applicant is not proposing to do with this application at all is to change the
current intersection with Ten Mile today. That's a two lane roadway and he does not
have an interest in this property -- he's probably interested in the property, but he
doesn't have an interested in this property and does not have the ability to terminate
Overland Road short of it's current intersection with Ten Mile. There are some other
properties that currently take access to Overland. And this is one of the things, too, that
kind of muddies those waters on the realignment and how do you get folks up there
accessed back to the arterial that should be addressed, you know, with our plan, with
where ever Overland Road runs and I know the applicant has a plan to do that. And, in
fact, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but he owns one or two of these parcels on the
north side of Overland -- it may even be that far. I don't see the parcel lines very well. I
see one there, so -- but he does -- if not owned outright, has an option on this today, but
what is not included in the staff report is something that says Overland Road has to do
this today, it will continue to function like this, until where ever Overland get realigned to
happens and at that point I do envision it cul-de-sacing or something else that was
talked about and I don't know where this will go -- there may be an on -- thls leads to the
,-i, k ~q
~'
~
~N [
T~.
:
•
~
~ I
,y.
~~~ r k
~ v r::.
~ i ~
~ y
.. ..
~ ~~{ ~
I
S
~ ~
} i
s "~'"
~
`
~
~ ..,j~.
t(
1 >$'
~
.•I'
T~
F
f
:p
i
, 7 iV i ~
,7 .,
I :
~ {
I ~ ~~ ~ ~.l p ~ ~
i k
. < A: `
.1
5
~' ~~
q,
.~
. .j.
,,.
9 ~ ~ . r ~~~~fl~:
~,r~
~ ~ ,~ ~ ~fi~r,~;p°
r,;,. ; . ~ ~;i'~
4 ~ ~ ;~
~ }t ~ 7
a ~~ a ~ ,,a ~'~ ~~~
a aa~.E~,
;~.
f~~ ~ ~~' ~ 'wry~~~'''+
3 {/(
'1) i ~~ R 7F"~'n?~ f
2 ~ 3C }~.
{ ~ i ft~r
t rx_-' a ~~~~{4;
7~~ : ~ ~~
~ 1r ~i ~ ~~~~t
~ . ~ '#
c~~~~~
} F
I {ir Y,
a ~a~;.>~
~, ~ ~ y ;;`~ f~ 3,1fi~4
.~I G ~ P tl.~ 5 11.5 :-6~. ,.
a : ~ ~ iF
.~ R ~...:: 7 ~ ~~~M~
r ~~; ,{fit
f ~~., r.
tr iit w h ~I:7t~.
~ r ,
~ eY I~
~~ ~ ~~
r'J' k ~ ~;Y 41~ ~ I,i'G..
~,
I
:~ - ~,s,,d~+
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 39 of 90
on-ramp somehow or there is a bunch of fill and maybe I will let the applicant talk about
this, because this is getting into some waters where I haven't had contact with ITD, it's
kind of hearsay stuff that I have heard and maybe this can happen, maybe that can
happen, but Iwasn't -- the intent was not to have this four legged intersection feed back
up into Overland Road and -- right there. So, that's --that wasn't my intent anyway,
so --
Zaremba: Thank you.
Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. That was a lot of work. You did a good job. Would the
applicant like to come forward at this time, please?
Jewett: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is James Jewett, my address is
`::
1560 Carol Street here in Meridian. First off I'd like to do just a little housecleaning here
The Commission at the last meeting asked me to hold another neighborhood meeting. I
~'= did on Tuesday of this week hold a neighborhood slash open house meeting at my
~_ office, a little different concept where people could come at their leisure during a set
K~'= time frame, be able to ask questions, and I specifically put out comment sheets where I
asked them to comment and I made a response to all those comments and I'd like to
~ enter into the record all the comment sheets we received, as well as the neighborhood
`' list that we put out and all the people who attended. I will just give those to you. The
-' way I'd like to proceed tonight is I will -- what I'd like to do is I will just give an overview
and kind of our vision of what we are looking at and, then, I have Phil Hull here from
'~" The Land Group, to talk to you about the park and the pathways and the landscaping. I
have Jason Densmer here from The Land Group that can talk to you about how we laid
out Overland Road and why it's in its current location. He's the engineer. I have Dan
Thompson, who is our traffic engineer, to talk to you about traffic and how -- the pros
and cons of how that would work. And, then, I have Joe Atalla that will talk about our
`' ``` housing types. So, if I can indulge the Commission to allow my people to come up
subsequent to me, I'll get going here.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, due to the size and the complexity of this project I would
P.. suggest that we allow the applicant more than the typical 15 minutes to provide his
presentation and those of the others. Do we need a --
rt° Rohm: Yeah. I --
Zaremba: -- vote on that or just an opinion?
~~, .-
=; ~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: I would agree with that, but I would ask that we not leave that an
open-ended time.
{{ .
Jewett: I believe that we can all be very prompt here. I know a lot of people want to
testify and there can be an opportunity for rebuttal, but if I miss something, we can carry
-: it. I think that everyone wants to get this moving, so I think that we won't have to have a
tremendous amount of time. I will be fairly brief, but I do appreciate the -- okay. I have
~~. _
~~
.'-;~
1
'~
;h
,, ~,
~ afr
,e. .
~~t ~'~ ~,
. 'ji.
~ ~~R€~~
a t . ~ ; `!
' ~ ~~: r s`~~{'
' .., ~ ~ ~ t~~.
~ ~ <: '
~ ,. !~ ~,
~' ~:~ N ~ ,
lrt~
); _ k
~~ r~ 3 ~ ~,~E,.
~' tI4~~~{s a~~~~~~~
v F ~ ~~~~
<z; , r 9 F
~R to °'' "~" E # ~ph€F~
N ' UIk•
~~ar;~.
~ s~
'; ,~~
~ y ~a .;t
..,~~ ,
1 i~ 5 ~ a'a ~ ~ ~~#"=`.
m~ ~ ` 4 ~~, 4~ ,~aFu
~';
< ~ #;~
r
f
'fi` : ~ ii
'} ~h'
f., 1 N, YNSi~•
~Ly~ 4 4 ~ ~ i
]]11 3f a { ~f a~~ !1 ~ ~~~.
Y ~ M ~,:~}
I~ ~~~
~y~~~~ ~ ~ . '3 I '~~~rH
' ~ ~~t;~:
Se,'..r ~. ~,
o ~ t
6 : ,
~ al.4r~_
~ ~~K~~~
® •
$., Meridian Planning & Zoning
~:-
'
; December 7, 2006
Page 40 of 90
:
~~ - a copy -- a color copy of our PowerPoint, so that you can have it and, then, as I go
~` through it if you want me to refer back to any slide, these are copies of them, so that it
~~ , :: will help you. The first thing I want to do is -- because I know that this is a question that
came out on the comments sheet -- was why the mega lots and I'm going to explain first
~^ and foremost why we did the mega lots. The mega lots gave us a tool in which we
- could put all this public infrastructure in without having to particularly preliminary plat
,A` those mega lots. If you look at our original mega lots, all our roadway system that we '~
were proposing to build for the original construction all fall along with mega lots. ACHD
~~ doesn't specifically allow a developer to dedicate right of way unless it's part of a
~" preliminary plat. So, we would have had to do just a massive preliminary plat or just a
x large preliminary plat with large mega lots. That's the driving force of why we did this.
Secondly, it gave us the ability to find tooth those preliminary plats that came at
f ~
" subsequent dates based on what we teamed from our previous plats. If a lot needed to
be two feet wider or one foot narrower or how we can reconfigure that to best address
the type of housing we are going to put in there. So, that's why we did that. My vision
for this plat, as you can see, is a quite diverse amount of housing and you can see that
in our zoning, all the way from an R-2, a large lot, down to R-8 for single family, to TN-C
t~ and TN-R. We wanted to create a village center that is kind of anchored by the new
~ proposed library, that would want not only the residents of this subdivision, but anyone
~,
w
within the close proximity to want to come to this village center to use whatever retail or
'~ commercial uses that would be in there, the cafes, the coffee shops, the small grocery,
~''
~' to make it as viable as possible. We also, by incorporating the elementary school right I `
'
~, behind that village center, we kind of utilized the library and the school in conjunction. ~
~.::; The proposed library would have an outside amphitheater that would be jointly used
with the school district for outdoor events, outdoor reading, outdoor plays. And, then,
~~. for events at either the library or the school, the overFlow parking would flow between
"" their two parking lots. So, in the general elementary where you would have a Christmas
event, because we are in that season, you would have parking all over the streets.
y= Well, in this configuration we have a -- we have a lot of parking right in here and, then,
there would be a foot bridge back over to the school, so we would accommodate that
extra use of parking. And, then, we -- there is -- we gave a little extra large area -- just a
~' ~ little bit larger elementary school than normal by about two and a half acres to
accommodate a little bit more sports complex in this area. So, if a soccer event was
~;`- going to occur, again, that parking could be utilized within the library. Our whole
*t~ envision for this village was not only to serve this area, but to serve the general area as
far as Bear Creek and Meridian Greens, to the east. We don't have a whole lot of
fig.' ~ development south yet, but as development happens south, this is where they will come
. for their general services and promoting a lot of pathways. As we move out from that,
we have put our most dense development within the closest proximity to that village
' -` center and as we radiate out we try to increase our lot sizes and decrease our density to
try to allow for that diversified housing. I don't know how many of you are -- know the
site to know the topography of the site, but by moving -- this is the flat areas on the
comer. As you move away you come up a ridge to the Ridenbaugh Canal that
continues up, so as we get up on that ridge we try to utilize the vistas and the views
}~' creating up slope lots, creating down slope lots and, again, Joe will talk about how the
housing types will fit on those up slope and down slope lots. And again -- and, then, as
t: -,
~ 3 T , ~ ~ a I
I I. i 1. '. -w ~~ ;: !, '
5}"
. to I
+e
.: f ~ t i I .x.
~~+
~' g '~
-
f
r
a
-
i
.C~.'
~. G
f
r..S.
r
55 A.
• i
~i
J r .».
., .y .-
Y'x.
., ~ I
y
- J,'•I° ;:
N i;•
'i
y a::,a ,
.iey,;4
'T~
' I ~ i
S I
•i :{' 1 i1-`=i
i~Y
`
.
p X
.
'
i .
33 ' .
„
I .'w.'~~
~R~
.
..
.,
.
,
s ~
.
`
.
,
~ ,
e
M
.
.
t
}
Y.~
<.~ .
~ ~i ~~~
+~
..
~
.
4
.
• Yep
;. ~
•
i
. .N'
..
~
.
a ri. $
I
t '
14,P:E 1R.
i•~'
I
,.•w
.
.y ~
f l ~
.
-:14
.. l
'-. N
,
~:~ I
I 1~~
'
4
Y
,~
.~.
} 1 , k. • I I w
V
~F
4 fff
- -
:~'~
< !x ..
~.3
F
..4V"t ,a .1'
` _ a
r
s :~ ,nLe;
t x
IY"
~ ~ :<
I i I ,YZ
i.
.
.s
X
~` 1 "X
~'
`
44
N
I .ui.
~ ..~.
~'~'+' . .:
~
~
II 3 I
" l jI ii V ' ~'.
~ tII ,. ~. ~ ~.
'
`P
Y
t
~
'
{ R I r . [[
1G.,
.'~
~.:
~ ..
~
.a ~'Y~, II 1 I
I I
I- ~ ..
y
p
hf~y
I.
,
4 :~1•i
'~ J
y ?
W~•, .. ,~ • ;yy; R :x 4 ' l I ~ Y ~ F a '~ . l ~C ~ ,. ;q~."'k ;.~i~.l ,•j.._
.
I
~r `, 1 u.2'<,,, :rid;,.,' S'' j" • ! :1` 1 ... C~` f°~~~yyt~~5~
t ~
yam •^
.
~..
` ' I ''
}.
'j~'•~.`
t`; .~
.~:..,(^ .~
/
;
'
r
•s.;
S ~, ~
~.x
f
I
i .
-r
.-$o
~
I ~
;
~P
•.
~ j
~ I v"~'
I x';~,'A, ~,«
'
•'
~
.,,
~
.
~
f i
t 1
;
~ '~..
•E,
.
I
'
I
.F
1
~ : ~ra'r'`s H
~
±i
~
~
'~~
.-
~
~ ..
RY
.. .
~ .
~
:
.
,.
~
.
,
:
:P
'
:~~'
. 1
..
~ Y ` r aY.. b A ~'°
2 .+~M
x . .d
fi
r.
, 6a ' 3 ~ ~
. F~ .t`F•
~
.. ' ~n .:
. ~i., "~e I F f ~ ~ ;,
i i,t Y
a
~ .~ c
t
~
_
e
y
,i ,
>
>~'~
>
~
`
I
•
.
.
<
,y'
.
~
x~
If
f
.~
!
=~~
~
I
~
' I ~a
P.r.
C
I ~ .
k
`
,:
'
~~
-'
s
i
~
'
~•.
:~
I
i ~:.~~~.:
r
~
Ty , . .
I
ax
~°i
:.
.
=
. °
^
%
S<
~
S ..
..
_
.
. F
~
f
oiF
u + .. <
- , • .
.~~ . .. ;c; ; ..
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 41 of 90
we move that we put a centralized park with our clubhouse for our community up on top ~;
of the hill there and, again, that was to create vistas. This park will have the best vistas
of any park in Meridian, generally, because it's going to be up on a hill and most of the
'~~ ~ parks in Meridian are flat. Most of Meridian is flat. This is unique about this site. And
we are supportive of everything that staff has said. We appreciate the effort that staff
has worked with us as this has been a trying experience for all of us. We are
supportive, we would like to go forward with a phasing plan -- if you want to go to the
next slide and see where we are. Go one more. One more. One more. Okay. You
can see this dark hashed -- dashed line right here, this is the phase. Everything on this
side is what we would plat as phase one. And we would be agreeable to what staff
~: ;;~ conditions, that everything on this side be left until this Ten Mile area charrette. We are
very supportive of what came out of the Ten Mile charrette and I think my engineer will
show you -- can show you why we are supportive of that. I do have a lot of information
regarding ITD and the alignment, I have gone to all the meetings, I sat on the advisory
committee, if the Commission has any specific questions regarding that, I could help
answer. We are supportive of everything that's in the staff report and with that I would
stand for any questions and, if not, I will let Phil go ahead and come and go ahead and
talk about the parks and the pathways.
_ Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Hull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Phil Hull with The Land
Group, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I will just kind of give you a brief overview
of the park site design and amenities to get you a little bit familiarized with it. The main
entrance to the park is located here and we have got two separate parking lots. The left
side for the clubhouse and the pool area. You actually have to make a conscious effort
s ' to take a left at this intersection and drive into there, so that when you drive straight in
you feel like you're more in the city park parking lot. Got restrooms, a shelter facility
here, with a hard surface plaza space here, tot lot, sport court, barbecue area and picnic
tables, that kind of thing. And we got walking paths around the park with an open space
play field that's got a little bit of terrain to it and a pond system. We have got an up
pond here and a walkway and a foot bridge going across the waterfall here to a lower
pond and, then, that is connected via a bridge across the Ridenbaugh to a lower section
down here. We have got roughly seven acres of park site up top and an acre down
"' below for roughly an 8.2 acre park or so. We have met with parks and rec committee a
couple of times and we have made quite a few modifications over the last three or four
months to get to this point and to gain their positive recommendation on this park site
design. A couple of revisions that they have asked for include an access point be
added right here to this back side here, just for safety concerns on the back side of the
pond, so we don't have any problem with modifying that plat to add that little 20 foot
access aisle there for safety. And they have also asked us to revise the shape and size
of this pond here by a little bit to gain just a little bit more of the green space and to
make it a little bit more of an oval shape, so that there is no back comers tucked in there
to have problems with no flow of water. And I believe that touches on all the park site
;. _ ,
area design. If there is any questions I II stand and we will see -- oh, pathways. Yes.
There is one more slide on the pathways. This slide shows the interconnected pathway
. _ , i .
~ ~.
3"
" ~ ~
'
~ 1
~
I . ~~ ~r,fi
a ~
~
1 '~
'
~
.
-
'
,
. ri s
i
;
y.. ~
-
...
_ +:
''~ Y ;
.-
? ~
'
.
.
i
I
~
J
{
' :
°P
"
..,.
.... !
~... ....
..
sd
1 h~
rx' t ' ~'~
! 'SY l
i~
^ z ~' ~' { ~ . a..°
'Vi
I a I ,
. .
i
5
DIY
~ ~ .'
f d tr
i}.
J
q ~
~ 4 , ~ ~ :7~~ `'k'<I' °F,.P'.
"
~ i
~,.Y
'4 ,~~'
N.
t U
.'~ ~ '
'1k, y t Y L
i f.
~1 . q
~
~
i
p
.:,~
' ~r ~;
~
as ~ t . d :
: o-
:~~~~:
~.
s
..
<:
..
' s:
i
{
•x~
i
`
...i
.
~
~
w ,~
I
°•:~
~
,
~ ~ ] ~
MN' , ~I J ~ I IY :,~:,YS..'s: :Yls"`R.abAC~'
~ e 4 {. Y
~j` s ~
1 . 1
r
~
~
~
.
'J: ~
~
~
1
.
;
.
,
`.~
~
" .
? 1
.u
, :
•
t{,. ~ `
. ..
l•f
L}
`
=
Y'e
k
tit . ;;':
~f'.
~
~ I ~y
a _ .t'~tiK'Y.~~•:* S
~ ~~16
~
.G r
•.i .
:
~}
~ _
~
~
d k
:.! ~ ~`
.' i ,
.. .• sA ~~:`
1
~
y
`,g
i~fi~i
N I
~ 3
~I
~ ~ {
~
i t i tfnr t?~:'~`n fip `7y
b
~
y '
;... Lq~;,
f r F
~
-. 1 ~~`
! .. 3
Y i Z ~ ~~ ~ it 9 ~ ikM r h '4 ~
~
`
1' jy
~:I ` , V
.
c;,
R
•$
~ nom'' "t ~ i ~ 1 L~f
.:~~?''
~ .
.
s: i
I
I' ~
I.
~
~ 'k
! °
~I ;.. f ~ x..
a
s i ~ i ,~
~
..
4
~,.
! ~ _
- = A
~ k.
..' `. .
.
y
:
r x;
~ ~
f .4 ~
.,.I
,.h . do
r ~
~ ~ ~
t , .~ = t >s
• aka e Y .n~ ;' rv `S
.. r ;tit i.
4
n.~
~~
~
.1~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~
.. "~'k'~x4
F
a 4 ` ~~ Lf er :mom. ,' ~ ~. f. M
~~x
} s{' S•
`
,
~
I
n .. ` .%~ .. . k ~ ~ C. 4~ar ~ II I I ~~ d I F,, ~ ,, . ~
,~ ~ ... ~':S.:d ~~
,~:
7
~:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 42 of 90
systems through the site. The red dotted lines show the continuation of the ten foot
wide Meridian pathway system from Bear Creek here all the way through the site along
the Ridenbaugh and, then, it comes up the Overland Road extension and, then, dives
"` onto the gas line pipe line east of there. So, that gets the major pathway system to and
through the site. And, then, the blue dotted lines show all the connections from the
commercial area and the school and the library, all the way up through the site and
connections up to the park site and around the park and just shows all the ways that this
site can be accessed by the pedestrians. With that I will tum it over to --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would ask a question while we are on the subject.
Hull: Sure.
~:
Zaremba: And it is just a question. Somewhere -- and if I remember correctly, maybe
Settlers Park -- there is a handicap accessible play area that, apparently, has been very
successful. Did the parks department mention anything to you perhaps including that?
This is some distance from that park. There might be some need in this area. Has that
`# ~ been talked about?
Hull: That hasn't come up. We were very involved in that Adventure Island at Settlers
Park --
`~ Zaremba: Yeah. That's what it is.
I~ Hull: And the tot lot design in this park will have accessible features on it, but it's not
going to be nearly as elaborate as that one.
~;,:. Zaremba: Cool. Thank you.
Hull: You bet.
Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Dan Thompson
with Thompson Engineers. Business address is 181 Zinnia Street in Garden City. I
prepared the traffic impact study for the development. And just for a little bit of history, I
also authored, the preliminary concept report for the Ten Mile interchange with a
~,<'~ previous company, so I do have good familiarity --
Zaremba: Sir, could you pull the microphone a little closer.
Thompson: Excuse me.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Thompson: When we did this -- this is a very large development within the -- pretty
much anywhere in the valley. It was a major undertaking for the traffic impact study and
we prepared it for ACHD and went through their review and I was very very pleased, we
_~~
~
F '. I
Y d~ s ~
l I
~i ' 9
y
.,~y,,rr
Y'•
S.
~
J •
II
L'
*
~a[y:-
~ i ~
~ '
~
' I
III
i
~
+' 1:
4':':~
- -
>
s~sb
'RAr
z• •r+,•r
YI 'll
.
)
I
I
L
~•.
'r ';~ i ~ 'r ~ ~
I
~ {
*
e
.
.4. .; . ~~ ;~ .,
i
S ' ~ •~€' • . d.
I i
*a.AJ I .. :r•' ~,;~
0
~ Y+L. ~F".
i
L
~
~
Y :f.`~=
j
,1•
S
'
I
",
x
'
>
L
~ ~g,>s
'
~ ~ .
i
.
.. ,
q'F
4A
tK
:
;
fi
~~
'
_
Y
; :=, ! '
k~..
1°'
~,`.~"A
x
n
, ,
- {`
i. R°}
'~ r
' mss
.
I
Sa
~ k f' .~ 4R,., , by , ~~ {'r I .
~
.ii'`
_
i}
y
eF~S'''':. 3
I
•1
kk
L.W. ~:
1.T~. •
~ ~~ r.{
.~..
.
.4
rr §x
.x
aY
j
.
•,•
~
•~ .
'.~~ . ,.
h•
~ ~13
I ~ I
.
' i :i"f~~'
,
": I r }~: r ~~ FE
s
v'~'
[ f
. -"~
I ~; j,Yis
.F;
~ tis
f
(
.;
p.
'
a' t /7 ~ CT. ':i;s°. ti ~ . I~.." ~ ~ l[~: ~t, , r : 5 .
~,
Y
H ~t 4 t j: F x.
~ i'
i .~ , ` t
xx
e
~
". ` 5 ~ I .,
ra d; •x~~ .
,~ '
Y~
• r. ]
{' ..f
ti
is
V,..
' $~
•.~
1111 ~ ~;J~*s3S i ~~ , I` ~+. ,+e'?_'
°
~
r
~ ~
f
•:i:~:
y- :.
~)
~ '
`til
> Y r +} 5F 4 T
a ~~ s iS. t^ i ~ r `Y• a
'° ~
,
q
::C.~~'fi[ w I I t '.
I
k
" ~ ::}. ,d.ib~a:,~~ .:.~'.~~r.~'f
.
"
~..
~
. i r5
. "f'• j I
yS •. u
~I
~
1
t .
I ,'~.
'di .
~
II
11
I
~
~ {{
~ti. I
fY
4.
~.
~~
Y I:' I I ~ 1'
.
1
` ~~ fix:
„
~
'
:
4~ 1 ~ ~ ~
Y.` ,; .u{1 f. I' ' ~ ~ rtJ ~
YE ~['•. ['~ ~ 4
w ^J W Y A L {
Y Y.
~
t
A ~
~
e ~i ~[ f{~ ii Z3 x5 'C~
y~
,
.~ .ley ' i%s SC>,..
'. ~ .
Y
x
tr
~
'
a~e
i
~
•
~
~ ~
L
a: d
j~~J
F
~
l
~ R e.
_ '•k I ~ ..i°W A:
I ~!° ~
f f. n ,~
! ~
. ' ~•'C+?f erv
? _
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 43 of 90
g61 .'.
had very little issues with ACHD with the traffic impact study. One of the big
~ advantages of this development is they are actually putting a development near where
we are building the infrastructure for this as far as transportation is concerned. Next
December they are going to be -- actually, next month -- this month they are going to be
starting construction on Overland Road, widening it to five lanes, including the
s intersection of Linder Road here. And that will take it to five lanes all the way down to
~
~~ Eagle Road. In addition, of course, there is the planned Ten Mile interchange and that
;
, .
is going to be, obviously, a major transportation facility that will affect traffic patterns and
r we included both of these in our study both with and without the Ten Mile interchange. I
guess one thing to come up is is this interchange actually going to get built. I guess my
opinion is that if anything in this valley -- any transportation improvements do get built in
this valley, it will be the Ten Mile interchange. That would be a very high priority. The
~ third thing is you have got a developer that recognizes that you don't put a development
~
~ of this size anywhere and not have impact and he understands that and he's willing to
~,_
,~.
,
participate in mitigation of that. This is not the case in a lot of studies I have done. I
,
~4. '~
r have done a lot of studies throughout the valley, I have done over 50 this year, as a
matter of fact, and they are putting a lot of very major subdivisions out on two lane
country roads and just really have no really plan about how they are really going to deal
- with the transportation. This is a case where we already have a plan in place to deal
with this. One other big advantage of this development is the mixed use aspect from a
~W transportation standpoint. We had one area of disagreement with ACHD with the
~ `, amount of trips that we believe are going to get captured by the mixed use. ACRD
~'
'
` wanted us to lower it and lower it and lower it. I believe we are going to get a much
' better capture rate than what we had agreed to go with with ACHD. We went with
ACHD's numbers, just because we found out we could handle the traffic, so it was
easier just to not argue with them, rather than to try to prove that we were right. And I
~' think if we could -- have been dealing also with Ada County Development Services
~: about a couple of the planned communities. They believe that the numbers that we
-~' were proposing are much more in line with what they are going to get. We do have a
s=: difference of opinion. In this one in particular I think it's good, because we have just a
good variety of mixed uses in here. We have several densities of houses, which helps
~~ in that regard. We have got about 90,000 square feet of office space, about 100,000
square feet of retail. We have got a school and we have got a library. When you bring
in a library that provides a real community center for a community. That allows people
to congregate and a place to go, which allows them to use the retail facilities, it
encourages office developments, it will really be a magnet for that I think we will get well
3';:
'~ beyond even what I was originally projecting for capture. It provides a lot of advantages
t to that. I guess one advantage that is really being brought about is the size of this
development, that it does allow them to develop this area in that manner. If you look
~` back at some of the original ownership maps up here, there was eight or nine very large
parcels. If Mr. Jewett had not brought them all together for one development, quite
possible, especially with the Ten Mile interchange coming, you would have had eight or
ten different smaller developments with very little overall planning for mixed use and
interconnectivity. Saw a very nice display of the trail -- in fact, it's still up there. And that
also was going to help with the transportation, allowing a much better alternative than
~; the automobile to get to some of these other facilities and allow it to reduce the trips that
~;:
~ e
~r` Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
'' Page 44 of 90
~k,
~~~ we are taking here. The final thing I want to -- I'd like to talk about is the Ten Mile
~' interchange. I have seen some of the preliminary designs that have been developed,
~
~' since I worked on it, too, and they look awful familiar. They look a lot like what I was
~: working on when I was doing those studies. One issue we had with a lot of our
f'= alternatives when we were looking at it was what do we do with Overland Road. It
always was a problem. In addition to the topography that we have got out there with the
` ~ canal and some of the other facilities, we have also got Tasa Drive, which is really going
,~,, ,
to be impossible to relocate and causes us some real alignment problems. Basically,
we looked at just about everything we could do with it. This wasn't even on our map at
`;
~
that time. So, the question is I mean how does -- moving this -- moving Overland Road
affects it. Well, it really doesn't take any of the alternative off the board. It still works
r`
,
~~ with an hin that the could ossibl come u with as far as a foot Tint to the Ten Mile
Yt 9 Y P Y P P
K' interchange. If you ended up moving it to the north, that would probably eliminate a
~,r. couple of possibilities for interchange design within the -- of the interchange. You do
• need to keep separation. We have about 1,200 feet between Overland Road and the
freewa If we brin the off ram s to the south it ti htens it u If ou move Overland to
Y• 9 P 9 P• Y
~;~~ the north it creates problems and it becomes very difficult to handle. The other option --
~~; the other advantage that I want to touch on is we are dealing a neo-traditional type
`~ neighborhood design here, that does improve the opportunities to incorporate transit -- I
y `` don't mean to this development, but make it work as a city and it's something that you
'~ really have to look at as far as looking ahead at our transportation problems in the
~i, : `~ county and the whole area. That's really all I have to discuss. I would be happy to
stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
~ II
~; . ;: Thompson: Thank you.
a Densmer: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jason Densmer; I'm a civil engineer
`~ with The Land Group. Our offices are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'd like to
discuss with you for asecond -- we have already gone through some of the traffic
~~ benefits that a realignment of Overland Road will have and I'm sure you're familiar with
`~ the outcomes from the planning charrette that looked at many different options for this
` L, area and identified a realignment of Overland as being desirable from a community
planning standpoint. Since I'm the guy who has to make it turn into reality before I allow
Mr. Jewett to modify the master plan and present a modified Overland Road, I wanted
to make sure that I could design something that could be built. There are numerous
challenges with this site in particular from a topography standpoint. It's on a hill, it
crosses the Ridenbaugh Canal, and I wanted to assure ourselves that I wasn't
``~ presenting something to you in preliminary plat format that later we'd have to come back , '
' and modify, because functionally it couldn't be done. So, we, actually, went to the level
of detail of conceptual construction drawings that have been presented now to ACHD
'` ' staff and they have reviewed them favorably, showing how Overland Road could be
realigned and designed to AASHTO requirements fora 55 mile an hour design speed
~{ and meet all of the requirements of the highway district for this major arterial. I was
quite pleased at the staffs report. The only condition that they have relative to a
~ _ "I
J
,
1 ~,~4k, { "'
-
~. I
I I. ~. s i ,
..
t
:
~ ; i
.
i
'
I ,~~~,
~ ,~
`
`
k`
e I
III I
I 2
~
{' `
~ i iy
~
~s:~ r..}
; ~ ~ r~'~,..-e.. F..
~
`J
~ ~
[ III 1 ~ .,{.t. •~1.h
4 i
~+~ Y YV .~
yl~2
r
,
^ 4
1
{ 1 hsi'~rNji'~
'l0* r
{ ~~+4. 5
'.
~Q {
F ~~}
g
,
•9+-T ~F:~J,nr 3;t ail ~. ~.~ I .
.'.I
~; II ~ ~'~~ ~.
' .. IC ' ~ .z .
'. 1 ~
:.
~'
`.:
ff K ;M~L,.1 ~ .u I ~ ;
:
.,.
..t:
K I
. ;Y
. + .. " 4
I~ { h III I ~ -='CF4:.
~I '
h ^
}I 71
l f
~ t I s,
.,
,
S
,;
~~
',`.
9~~.
t.
a
s
a N
.Fv~,,
".i.
` t~+•
Sk l
:ta ~
o ~ g't~'
i1:^:.~^ ~~~.F, R.,P
,.c
"
l
rI
)
. - e
fi
. ;
~.
.~
I I q
'
i ~ l: x
i
.
^
~ Z~
t
5
1i
{
'
aHYY: 9' S i I g
~ ,...: ~ ,S
..
J d
.
.
j ~ ~'
`
' ;. ~~
~ i~ ~ I ~,
r~~
„
s
l
t~ ~
li
: u
r
~
t
Y ..
F
....
I
a
..
.. ~
I.rt.
.. .. .
.
~.
,. ~
~ is .. :4: •-•
Yi;
?. % ..,,~
~~-~'~. ". I
III
d
{' 1 , ~~q~q~~.•.
~ ~y=,~#'.'n~~:T'"~.'
;
'
, `. ~ I :C.d..! .~
.
.,
,~
n
.`
x~
II
~
f '
}
.,
~ . s'~'c:N
.~3 ;
L~•
~. ~~
...
1~' f _ .,t. F..
r ,
'
. ., q. .y}
,
. M ~
,
x Af
.~
;;, •y~t~~
~
.,
`f ps
. 3: ~7
i f ~ ; T F
1 I.' 'dd ~ _._k 2 } ~~-
`-{ .
~ ~
~
' .y
.
.
. ~
.
±: ,.
,~7..
. .
r..:t
..~ ~ ~~
}
I
I !
' y . g,~
~r' ~! t
F
'"
FFF
'.~y
i ~ •"`J•.. ~.7.~ A
I t
.~ ~
}
7.
,3
.
-
).d~1.. fi~
f
~;
I
i
~';:.
. ,a
1
`I
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 45 of 90
•
realignment is that we adjust the location of its intersection with Ten Mile south by ten
feet. In my line, a realignment of that scope, being off the mark by ten feet is pretty
doggone good. I'd take that any day of the week. What we have done for this exhibit
here is model how Overland Road could be constructed, how -- as we go through it all
I'll touch on a couple of the different design elements that it incorporates and, then,
lastly, kind of run you through how we have overcome the topographic challenges that
we are faced with. By requirements at ACHD, an arterial is, generally, a five lane
section, two lanes either side of the road, plus a center tum lane. There are refuge
areas on the sides of the lanes as well for vehicles that, you know, just die. And we
generally have been consistent with that roadway template throughout this section here.
We are using a full five lane section entirely in this area here and entirely at the bottom.
We are incorporating a landscape median island in the center of Overland for a majority
of its length, but we do eliminate that particularly through these serpentine curves here
where topography is an issue. We have also eliminated the center lane entirely. Not
only did we eliminate the island portion and the landscaping, but we eliminated the
center lane to a four lane section -- pretty much from right in this area here --
essentially, we have eliminated the center lane for the area of the hill where it's
challenging. Thank you. From about here to about here we are using a four lane
section. There aren't any interconnecting side streets at that area, so there is no need
for turning lanes and that kind of an operation and by skinnying up that stretch of the
road, we are to cross the Ridenbaugh with less impact and to have less impact on the
hillside grading through that stretch as well. So, overall, the models that we have
prepared show how Overland can be realigned, meet AASHTO criteria and ACRD
requirements and from a designer standpoint I'm very supportive of that realignment
over leaving Overland in its existing location. Do you have any questions? I know I
kind of breezed through some highly technical stuff at great speed, but --
Rohm: Thank you.
Atalla: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Atalla and I will be
talking about the architecture. My address is 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise. As
you have seen so far, this is a very well thought out community and not a typical
subdivision. Our goal for the architecture is to create a cohesiveness throughout the
community and timelessness and not be just a typical subdivision that's homogenous
a like we see in some areas. To reach that goal what we are doing is we have got the
~~ ~ variety of lot types, as well as a variety of architectural styles and to kind of pull all of it
together we will be drafting a comprehensive set of design guidelines that will explicitly
detail each lot type's needs to design for what elements make up the certain
architectural style, so that everything remains true and cohesive. I'll quickly go through
the architectural styles and, then, I'll go into the lot types. First is the American
Farmhouse. We have tried to stick to traditional American architecture as much as we
could, so get what you might see in a lot of areas already in Meridian. Next slide,
please. Then a Craftsman. For the Craftsman we are trying to get away a little bit from
the typical Craftsman you see here and move more towards the historical style, the
~z more Craftsman Bungalow that you might find in the north end and other historic areas
•: of the region. Next slide. American Frontier. This style is a little more rustic and
~ i
e ~'
i
ti
,?
.-.
t~
rz
`.
k
y:
,f
F~
. ~ ~ y, ~ F
a
' R e ~; 'i~b d'~
C ~~M1'~
~r 5 7i
1 i , $.
iF1i F ya;~~l~~ ~p~:
~~
1
S, i .
ij , K ~ k~k~~~~
i
,~ ~„
M~~}~:
~~:
~ *~t~r~ ~~ ~~}~.
,a ~r~a~f'v ~'°s~~:
. ~ ~ q'~ ~, tl7~E
! '
.n ~
~ F s:. ~4q h'~
t t i
~ ' ~j{('
~~i ? gzt !~ ~ F~v~
~~ ~ i'v ~~ ~i~l ~~i
r ~ ~ ~4e~ s ~~Ta~r~.
r,..
i3 , , ~ ~ v
~`
[~i ~:C' ~~~ ~~x~,S
b ~~,~
.~i x~' d~ erv3s~_
5 < r c
yy ~~{
i li i~t
l ~ ~~
ji ~ ~ ~' ~,
s
y~ ~ ~: i ~
S'.
~ ~ ~.
~E~. ~,
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 46 of 90
incorporates larger wooden themes and members. The Pacific Northwest, which is a
little more in keeping with what you might see in the Seattle area, as well as elements
from the picture on the right, elements from Jackson Hole. Again, more rustic, more
northwest than some of the styles. Next slide. And, then, finally, the Tuscan
Farmhouse, which allows us to bring some variety, but still has some of the stone
elements in massing forms of the other homes. Next slide. Now, I'll go through the lots.
It's difficult looking at a plat and seeing a 35 foot wide lot and trying to envision what is
that house going to look like and I think you can see here this is an American traditional
alley loaded house that the great thing about the alley loaded is you get more house
and no garage to look at. Next is a different lot configuration. One thing that we are
trying to do in this community is minimize the garage as much as possible. So, this
configuration here, even though it's a tighter, narrower lot, allows for the garages to sit
even with each other and it gets one of the front loaded garages off of the street and
more to the back of the house. Here is another lot. This is an American Frontier
elevation. Next slide. And as the lots get larger it allows us to hide the garages more --
side tum garages that don't face the street. Next slide. And, again, you can see that
here, the Pacific Northwest style. So, either side tum garage or the garage is set in the
back of the lot with a large auto court. And, finally, more of the custom type home.
Again, the garage is set back from the house. I believe that's the last slide for the
architecture. Oh, I'm song. Hillside lots. This community does have a variety of lots,
not just flat, but also sloped lots, and to kind of put some perspective and what it might
look like, a down slope lot, kind of a no brainer, basically you have a walk out basement
and you get less profile on the street. The up slope is a little more complicated and as
you can see in that section we are trying to minimize the grading on the lots and work
with the contours of the slope and so we have a tuck under garage and most of the
living would be above that. Next slide. And that's what some of the architecture might
look like on some of the up slopes. You have a variety of side tum garages, front
loading garages, so that they are not all right on the street. And that's the last slide for
the architecture. The most important thing that we want everybody to realize about the
architecture is with the set of design guidelines that we will be drafting for the
community, it really will help control all future development, no matter who is building in
the community, the community will still have a cohesive and timeless feel. That's it for
me. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Could you talk a little bit more about those 35 foot lots. I have a hard time
visualizing if -- it sounds like they are going to be stacked pretty close together there
and I --
Atalla: Yeah. I guess one good example in the area for those 35 foot wide lots is the
;..
Mill District in Harris Ranch. Those are very narrow, alley loaded lots and it's a great
feeling as you drive through there. That neighborhood was set up to feel like the north
end, you know, historic architecture, closer together, and I think they did a great job.
That's one local example that I would point out. I don't know of that answers your
question.
'~'• Rohm: So, is there a five foot lot line --
V
•~
k
~1
t
5 ~ Sr
'f p
.~
~ ~;
~ '.
~1
R
e
2.
',
XY L
~v .r,
krt
~. ";
~~
{r~
} , ?n
•
r k
4 -'
~;
4 - oh
r ti
~~~ t Fi'y~~z~~.?.
! I ~ X41 I tll~/lh'.
r ~~•~~~•
:~7~ ~, ;~F~b ~-
't~ ~`' 33 ~;i~;i;
i
~ ~ {~y ~y~~ ~~~~~'
ss ~3 ~5~,r~}.
-~, ~ ~ ; ~'
~ ~ ,'' k~ri ~I~~i;g
~ a.. ~~ ~r~_j'>
s
~~ i~7 ~ .~.;:
{~~' ~ t ~~~ ~ i ~~~I
~' }
j ~ ~ ~~?Y
1 y s
~ t ~ ~~ F~ MRISd,.'(.~.
• r
~ ~ ~; ~ ,`:
'~.
2' i
~~
.,. SCI ~.i'~ f~i ^~d'~1:
~ y''~~.
..., 7 1 ,,
v~ k~ Y U io:t,:
~ t'
~a '{~'
~ 4 ~H
'~~t~ 1 ~ i1f I~k~jl_
V~~ ~ ~.~ik ~~,
f,u.i ~ .. 5. pia ~i:::ti-
~;
Meridian Planning & Zoning
I~
~~ December 7, 2006
-' Page 47 of 90
x
''
~~ Atalla: Setback.
~ Rohm: -- setback, so if you have got 35 foot, your house is 25 foot wide?
Atalla: Right.
~:.,
Rohm: Okay. Including the alley loaded garage that was --
F.
Atalla: Right. So, yeah, you can see here -- he's got the setback on the front. Here is
;:~
_
the front of the house. Here is the alle back here. And t to eta orch u on the
Y rY 9 P P
- front, so that, you know, you get more connection to the street. I don't know exactly
how -- what --
`~.
Rohm: I guess I was just -- I was having a hard time visualizing what the stacking
~_ would be.
,,,
Atalla: As a street scene?
~~; ~~ ~~
Rohm: As a street scene.
~ ,`
r.`~', Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, have you been out and looked at the Heritage
Commons on the green there and the new development at Quenzer Commons?
~~ Rohm: I have.
Newton-Huckabay: Those are five foot lot lines, aren't they, between those -- yeah, a
five foot -- there is ten foot between each home.
~6 ~~~~ Atalla: And I believe right now the way the utility easement is it's a five foot easement,
t so we have to stick to a five foot setback.
s~ , :,
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
~~ ~~~ Newton-Huckabay: These to me look to be -- I mean it's the same concept.
Rohm: Thank you.
~.
Jewett: Unless there is any specific questions for me, I think the public can start in.
Rohm: I guess we will go there next. Thank you.
~~ Jewett: I will leave this PowerPoint copy here so if any of you want to look at it as they
come up here.
~j3
X41
~ '1i
~~
.~
~5
(~
~,
~ft1 ~ 1~ ~~~j ~ ~ A
i
1'
F ~~[~~
f
ti
4
~
k`
i'
;s t y
<..er ~~~
•a~ ~k
(;~y ~~ /~~1 Fi..
jrr ii! ~ ~,~1 ~: J -
~
~ 5~i _.1 ~ ~ LL 9t4:
~
K
-
7
t
: ii
~ ~ ty ( t 1 i `t' ~.
- r i 1' ~~ 1:~_
F {,~
~
k
~~
`
t t~ t f YI
f 4 ' ~4 1
~ I ~ ~~ ~ I
~
~
~ ~ y Fl~~lx
~ -
a y ~r ',t~
1 ~ iC5 N~~',1~`~f
.
3 Y ,
~ i4
~
~
r y 1~f ~
!}7'~
1 Y
; ff ~
~
.
:
L
j
~~ {I
7
f
~
~~~
f4k~1 `~
y
p9` ~
, y
Y
~ ~T.,
y
S 1 ~ ~ Lille ~: r, •
., ~y4 S -
~
•
~ l
+ ~3''
'
;
,
Al
•
~Cr + s
~~ ~ ~4`s ~~~~F:;~is
' r
l ~~
~ ~
,
y
~e ~~sdik, t•.
}
E~i ~ 7a: {~
-' ~
K
lct'~~ ~ ~
(~ x " c ..'. tai ~
~
l
l t~ ~ Z F4.
~
1~ ~. e P
rE f~ ki.~',
l~r~..'~~`~t4
~
a.."~
~
i
..~ ~ t =~;Ij t4~` -
Meridian Plannin & Zonin
9 9
December 7, 2006
Page 48 of 90
Rohm: Okay. Now, kind of like our previous project that had a lot of audience interest,
the same thing may be available to us here. Is there a spokesman for a subdivision in
this development that can speak for a larger group? And if there is, I'd like him to come
forward. But, then, I'd also like to see a show of hands for those that feel comfortable
relinquishing their time at the microphone to this individual and the reason why I ask
that is because if we are going to get through this tonight, we are going to have to limit
these to three minutes each if each individual wants to speak for themselves. And,
then, the second thing is if, in fact, a specific point that you wanted. to bring out has
been brought up by a previous speaker, it doesn't enhance your position by restating it
over again. And so if you have -- if somebody has brought that to our attention, all you
have to do is say my point has been made. With that being said I -
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I want to mention, too, we have read through the
comments from Mr. Jewett from the neighborhood meeting, as well as received multiple
e-mails and letters that have been written and I think we all have heard loud and clear
regarding the stub street to the property to the south. I just wanted to point out that we
have all of the letters and a-mails that we received and the comments that were turned
in at Mr. Jewett's neighborhood meeting and I was just advised to say we have heard
loud and clear regarding the desire not have a stub street to the five acre parcels on the
south. So, that was my comment.
Rohm: You're on.
Fawcett: Good evening. My name is Kenneth Fawcett and I live at 2755 Val Vista
Court and have since 1992.
Rohm: Okay. Now, is there -- is there anybody here that is willing to say that this man
is speaking in their behalf or -- we have got one. What we are going to -- because there
are so many people that have signed up, I'd like everybody to keep their comment to
three minutes and, hopefully, there is some -- we will keep from having redundant
testimonies here, so -- we want you to be heard, but, please, keep your --
Borup: I don't think one person merits a longer time.
Rohm: Well --
Zaremba: My question, Mr. Chairman, would be are you representing a homeowners
association of people who did not come because you were coming?
Fawcett: I am here as a resident of my subdivision and not as a member of the board of
our homeowners association.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Yeah. And I think because of the nature of this development, we are going to
give you a little bit of leeway, but we have got a significant list of people here and I just
;t
• h}
ll,
i7%
H
_a
x .,:-
~~~~~A
. r i ~ t ryf )} ~.~'
g^~ .~
4
b
~qq~}}~ ~ ~ ~]~ ,~Fp _ _ _ ~
f.,.~i
- y ~ .:, .
r
~, ~~ i~~~h~ '~
- ~'~`
~
,
F ~~
I
~~ ~ ~ ~ `,t~?-
~ 6 ~ ~ T ``
n ~ ~~{
,~, ~~~~ i~ ~~
~ _
.
„
i ~~3'i~ ~ ~ ~'~
'
e .~,'
d {
~
~~11~'
~
7
~
f
~
t
}~
i 13
y S ~~ i
ji
~ 1h 5 I., ~ yrlS ll~' 1'.
, ~^~1
PZ F ~ 7
`:
~ ~ `
.,
~~~~'cb~~~K~~°i;~
S r 'F ~~ T ~~ ~~~,
r ,
,~ ~ ~
~ 4'~ IFkc+;;;
~'
s
~
C
~~~ .!~7.
~~ 1
~,~ :
~~ .' ~ t i
~
~4 ~ ~ ~
sw r1~ ~~~~
H 4 ~, ~ +
I ~~S'4iY i
~~~
r ~~~+'}~
4~u
FSi
I~IK Y<1..1 ~~~
~
~~ ? ~y ~,.u f ~~
~Z..~~c, ~ i
~
~.~ ~ '
i ~ i
} ! h .~
4
~ ~ z
~~~.
~I ~
~
~
s ~Qa
i
k •
~ t
~'
z ;
yy
E9E
yy¢¢
jjj
1 of
..
,::
~: ,
}
„~
5 `~
j
r
:~
t~~
e
'-'a
.:,~
~'~"s
's
M
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 49 of 90
•
ask that each of you take into consideration when you come forward that if you have
actually already had your point brought up, then, we will move onto the next. And with
that let's just get started.
Fawcett: Okay. Thank you. And to your point I'm going to delve right into the stub
street issue and hope to bring some other comments to light, in addition to those that
Mr. Jewett received during his meetings the other evening, which I have had no ability
to read. So, hopefully, there is no redundancy there. As you know -- or I would like to
first of all express my opposition to the staff recommendation on page eight of their
report conneming the stub streets to the adjacent subdivision. In that paragraph it's
indicated that Mr. Jewett had proposed a stub street to the five -- to a five acre parcel in
Val Vista Estates to connect with Val Vista Court. The report indicates that staff is
supportive of this and connections to adjacent subdivisions. I am not supportive, again,
of this plan and for the following reasons. First of all, the five acre residence referred to
in the paragraph is no longer under purchase contract by Mr. Jewett, therefore, there is
really no right of way into that -- into Val Vista Subdivision at this point in time. So,
unless, the City of Meridian is prepared to secure a right of way through Val Vista
Subdivision with more onerous means, there is no right o~f way to make that connection,
again, at this point in time. Mr. Jewett, in conversations on at least two different
occasions has indicated that the stub street is being required by ACHD. In a document
that we have written by Mindy Wallace at ACHD, she states to the contrary that ACHD
has no requirements for this stub street and, in fact, have only seen it on a conceptual
plan and no preliminary plat. And so they have no comment or consideration on this --
on the stub street. Mr. Hood of your planning staff has indicated to several residents of
Val Vista that the stub street should be good for everyone in our neighborhood and that
he believes that it will have very little traffic impact on the residents of Val Vista. Given
that ACRD has never studied the proposal, his claim simply cannot be substantiated
with any ACHD traffic analysis data. So, in effect, I feel that his endorsement of this
proposal is based simply on his best guess and, therefore, premature. Should your
planners continue to push for this stub road, I would like you also to consider some of
the following safety concerns. Connecting South Ridge to Val Vista would, in fact, turn
Val Vista Court from a rural residential street servicing the 13 residences of Val Vista
Court Subdivision into a collector servicing South Ridge Subdivision and up to half of
those residents in South Ridge and this is particularly true if the interchange is built that
would give them a much more convenient method of getting to Ten Mile to get to that
interchange, than trying to make left turns onto Overland Road. Val Vista Court has no
sidewalks, no curbing, there are ditches on either side o~f the road, which are routinely
filled with irrigation runoff during warmer months and are snow filled and icy in the
winter months. This creates the need for pedestrians to routinely traverse on the road
surface itself. Meridian School District school bus stops for the children in Val Vista are
at the intersection of Val Vista and Ten Mile Road. This puts children directly on the
road surface of Val Vista Court twice daily getting to and from those bus stops in the
dark in the mornings. Even at fair time we even have ~-H kids walking their animals
down Val Vista Court. Adding collector traffic to and from South Ridge into Val Vista
Court to me creates an unacceptable risk to those pedestrians and those kids. Also,
connecting South Ridge to Val Vista would, unfortunately, result in creating a
;: ,,
~: ,;
r ~ ~E.`i
:~7 ' Y. ': i y~fli ~..,..
ca ~ i~3~ ~~F~~,~~r:
r ° '~ ~ kaE
t
~ l~
7`
~n aA ~
>r ~ ~ ~,
fl ~ y ~ r ~, F ~:~~
s * ~;'
.t
~`~ =''si~C~~~k'~
ort f ~ 4~ .~~;,.
1 ~r` ~~'
~ w -1
iAe ~3 r~~~
s ~~ ~ x d- ~ 3.~.1 i~, .
~. ~ ~, , r
~, , ~ .i .:
5 ~
~~ ~"'~ '~~i~~~al>>
r ~~ ,'~
`'fit ~ ', ' i ~~ ; ~r;
~~ ,~ ~~s~~ ~~~~~
~ es~ 'p
r
~ ~{, ~ ~.
i'1` '~ ~~5 ~~~;i`
~ ~~ ~ ~ 7~d ~A~ ~~'Sf
1 `
d ;~ ~ ~ .j
W viS dk~i;F liV.
~~~
® o
~~+ ,_ Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
~' Page 50 of 90
~=
convenient bypass for impatient motorists looking to avoid the eventual congestion that
will build up at the Overland Road -Ten Mile Road intersection, where ever that
happens to wind up after the intersection or the interchange opens up. This simply has
the --
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman?
~, ~ Rohm: Just let him finish. I think that he's bringing up the points that many of the
people in the audience --
`~ Borup: It's all the same points that we have already read in all these a-mails and letters.
Exact same points.
!= Rohm: On the public testimony here tonight -- wind up your comments, please, and we
will move on.
Fawcett: Okay. All right. Well, let me just say that in conclusion Val Vista services the
needs of the residents of Val Vista quite well as it exists today, but because of no right
of way and these numerous safety concerns, which you, obviously, have plenty of and
lack of any real traffic analysis and planning project -- process for this stub road, I would
ask that you remove this stub from any further consideration when you're working
``' ~'~ through your process.
'
~
'
~ : Rohm: Okay. Thank you. The comment that I want to make to this stub road, the stub
road does not enter your subdivision at all. All it does is it takes the roadway within their
~ development to the edge of their property line. If nobody within your subdivision ever
t redevelops, quote, unquote, then, that stub street is going to stop right there and it's
never going to go any further. And I think that it's really -- it isn't these people that will
~ ' '~ ultimately redevelop that will effect your roadway, it's somebody within your own
`~ development, because that's -- this road that -- that the City of Meridian requires the
not specifically the convenience of
developer to put in is at the convenience of the city
'`~ ' ,
the develo er themselves and I think that there may have been some confusion along
p
those lines that the developer is trying to get a stub street to the south and I don't think
that that's really the case. I think it's the City of Meridian -- we desire so that there are --
'"' : ' the traffic flow is internal to the developments, rather than coming in and out off of the
major roadway. So, that just adds a little clarity to how stub streets are formulated in
~, .a~`'~ the first place, but thank you for your comments.
`~I
<;, Fawcett: All right. Thank you very much.
Borup: I might also mention, Mr. Chairman, that there is no preliminary plat for this
t ; ' ~' area, so I think the staff comment was to plan for that in the future when a preliminary
_~ ~~ plat is done. A preliminary plat in this whole area still is going to have future hearings.
So, there is no road alignment or no specific location for a stub street at this point.
~6:. _
~'
'~.e
l
'{i
. ff
~~++
^~i
Yy
}' 4
.~
_~
1 ~
`'S
~~~
.~
~~
~ ~
` _ ~
.
~ 1 ` 1
~ ~
f
7
7 ~~ndr~,
r r
+
~
4 a~i~
~ 1.. ~~ •'J '+.t S
C y 1
4
~ ~ f
;r k
S4
T ~}
~
~
~ ~7~`A ~ ~~~~,.
z c;,t k~~ ~g~q~g
'
~ r
y
~ti L
i .~~~}~
t
~ r,: ~6'
~l~~i~.
~~ ~~ ~
"~
1
~~
~[ r }
}
. ~ v i
:
?
i
~ ~
t
t.
~ i
~
(~ sp
~~
~rI l.:k
~~; t,
rt ~ 4 x 7,e'~ ~,
p
7:J y ~I~,i
S~
9 q ~ a 3 ~~~11~ 1 f
~,y ( 4 ~~H ~i~~
H G~j
l
13 ~~1
~~ e
F Y
0 p
r z e N~:J"S~
~ 9~U# y
i
I;~b
5~
~~~ F~ ~'E i~~1
f ~~+~'ii
,
k, r k i;`~d ~ yy~gcl}y ' 6} t
~ r ~ ~ t ~~~1l~
i
} ~
~1 a ~ ~` ~,+~ ~~1~~1~
J yI ;
3~i: ~~
} i ,~~.~,
+ ~ ~< ~ ~~7~.tvR(
5~ ,i.' a ~i.rrl~.
~ ~
~~~h ~1~~~
iii ~~~ ~
~
,
9
s ~. ~ ~ ~7~ ~
~ ~ ~
+
}
~: ~ z
#
4 _ ~
it r + i~Bi.J
}l'
r ~^+r ~!6 ~~ q}
7
~ 4 J ~ ~_~r ~ ~
'1~1 n
I jl
'-
t
~ ~ z +
}
~ ~9 `r
~ ~ ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 51 of 90
~~ '_~ ' Rohm: All it is is ultimately it's always the desire of the city to interconnect parcels of
land and that's -- it doesn't have anvthinc~ specifically to do with this development, as
'` opposed to some other development, if you have a parcel of land that's to be
d
t
h
e a
jacen
developed, the city wants to have interconnectivity between that parcel and t
p.: ~ ~
rd and so it's
and we do have consistently with every development that comes forwa
~-'~ '= something that -- it ultimately provides for ingress and egress to adjacent properties
°''' ~'i and, who knows, it may be 30 years before anybody along that roadway decides that
they want to redevelop, but the point is if you don't plan for it now, then, it will never
~~ "'~ happen. So, with that being said let's try and move on here. Susan Stone. And, again,
~-° ~ please make your comments germane to something different than what has been
:~ spoken earlier.
~ Stone: Okay. I live at 2530 South Del Ray Lane. My concem tonight, since we are
just looking at phase one, is putting a park in or planning a park with a canal that is not
secure, because there is a lot of special needs children in the area and if there is a park
=- ~ and that Ridenbaugh Canal is not secure for several hundred feet near the park, then, I
.
~ don't think there is any business building a park where children are going to be. That's -
; -and so with the ark -- I know you have to review the park, but there needs to be a
P
-; `.='~` handicap access to the ponds or there is no use for special needs or the elderly.
::` ~,~ Rohm: Okay. W.O. Weiss. Okay. From the audience Mr. Weiss says he didn't come
fr- to speak, just basically will -- I don't think that we have a spokesman for a specific land
use group. If, in fact, you have been designated by -- come forward. All right. You
~:.
~> need to tell us who you are speaking for.
:
~:
s'
ewett: This is very short.
>.
~
~
Rohm: And what is your name?
,
~,
Hewett: I'm Loma Hewett. I live at 2944 South Francine off of Victory.
Rohm: Okay. And whom are you --
Hewett: Majestic View Estates Homeowners Association and you have a letter from us
signed by 30 plus homeowners or probably 15 homeowners, 30 plus signatures. And I
just want to stand -- I want to be on your records as representing our neighborhood with
their major concerns that's in the letter is the proper order of things. We need to make
sure that proper approval the right order of things, we are concerned with the Overland
Road project before the Ten Mile interchange project is even decided on and so --
Rohm: Okay. Before you start your testimony here, I'd like a show of hands of
t~~;, = individuals in the audience that she's speaking for. Okay. Thank you.
Hewett: That's, basically, it. Our major concem in the letter was the proper order,
~:x
rather the development being forced through or pushed through according to the
developer's agenda and that's it. Thank you.
.:
.`
_.,
.,
r.
~~
z
'',
3
> ,,~
~~
F k ~`'E ~~~~~~~$~'.
a~E~.aa,,;.
~ <,
~ ,'
~~ ~ ; ~ ' ~~
~ , ~}~ aT
gig r ~ , ~ ~~ ~~~l.
~H a ~ ,~~ ~§~~~~
~, ,
~ t;'~y~q~i drf'
~.'r~ ~a ~~~~~;F>F
:>,
;;
°~~~~" ~ f
f
1 ,. S ~ ~ .
~ ~!; ~i~~ Htf
~L, ~r't
~~ ;af y t~.%~
~ iM~t ~ E ;'A ~~ r~ 3:1
yo- y ay,~7 y (~d ,I
~~ , she r ~'' >9 ~4H~~
~ !~
y
~ v
f~ 1'. `` x r0.-
Y ~: i~n~~,i~
n. ~ }y ~
b ~ t •'~:;
ty ~ t , ~ ~ y~E~~a .:
t9~f~ ~ ~",Y I rrBg~
b?;
~s ud.+ i
~h '~i~1 ~~'-~3~~~+~~e`ra'a
1, '~ I ~ ~'f~~l3F.~.
3 1 ''
{I Y ~ ~~ ~~d y~{'d ~'.
Meridian Planning 8t Zoning
December 7, 2006
. Page 52 of 90
Rohm: Thank you. Emma Leonard.
Ebling: I guess they are going to nominate me to speak, so I guess I'll come on up and
get it over with. My name is Keith Ebling and I live at 2150 Aspen Cove Drive. I'm just
beyond this -- where is the pointer. Figure out how to operate this. I live just beyond
this tum in the Ridenbaugh Canal here. I have here a letter that we sent in before the
October meeting. It has -- like the previous lady, it has 60 some signatures
u representing over 30 homes in the area that I talked to that are opposed to this
subdivision and this project, based primarily on the density of the project and the traffic
that it will create. Now, I have heard some things about the traffic that have eased
some of my concerns and I agree with the lady that was here previously that we need to
get some of this infrastructure in place prior to letting the completion of this subdivision.
Now, my take here is that if this was going to be a Meridian Greens or another Bear
} - Creek, there probably wouldn't be anybody here right now, because when I looked at
the map that was produced in the future development of this area and it was last
amended in April and I now understand we are trying to amend it again -- it called for
" It didn't call for any commercial in the area and now
low to medium density in this area
~ .
-- and I'm not even opposed to the commercial along Overland Road. But I think most
~ everybody in our community is really upset about is those bloody 35 foot lots, because
"`
~
-
~ five foot
they are nothing more -- you can call them alley homes, you can talk about
' easements on either side, but drive down south San Francisco, they are row houses.
9 ~-` That's exactly what they are. And they have the same effect on a neighborhood as a
' this window and
want to look ou
oes. This entleman here said he wouldn t
row housed g
x see a vacant house next door. I'm going to have to look out of my window and look
down on south San Francisco. And I don't think that's what I moved here -- I have been
~~ here 20 years and I have lived in that area 20 years and if you will look at this property
~
~: ~ ,y south of that line that's on the map, the other half of that section, the other 300 plus
1 acres, there is less than 100 homes there. They are all on five acres, two and a half
~ acres, one plus acres. And this was the disturbing thing. Now all of a sudden we are
"~ ` going to make this look like downtown San Francisco and I came to Idaho to get away
from that type of environment and I think most of my neighbors agree with me, that we
~. shouldn't have to have row houses in our area. I called the head of the planning staff
today to talk with them, I said tell me of another of these -- and I love this term --
traditional neighborhoods. I said tell me of another traditional neighborhood. Well,
~'° ' there is one I understand that's been developed over off of McMillan, maybe that's the
one you were refemng to. And that particular neighborhood sits right behind a
commercial shopping center and there is another one in development and I don't know
_ exactly where that one is located, but you look at everything south of 84 and there is no
development like this. And, sure, we can have some retail in this area, we can have
`~~" ~ some commercial development along there. I think what we really need to look at and I
' think what planning should be pushing for is a buffer zone along there of R-2 lots, then,
another buffer zone of R-4 lots, then, moving down to the R-10s and R-8s and throwing
these -- I think there are -- how many homes are in the alleyway situation? He can't
answer? Oh.
r
~
~ ~ t s
I } .
~. °'4 ~ ',
4 :
~
I
f •
..
q
p
i.
.I
y:~i"'
~~:
F.
}
.
`
;
`.l
I i1
8
T
`t
, ~.
i
•~
~t
a~'31~,
I
~
.~
,
•f
'
s
~~}
• .
!
'
1
:
'
f,
.. ,` rr. •
.
r „.; .: y
, v
.4..
{ .
1 •~ > 3.' .
. ~
{{
"!
~ ~$ a
~J „i
d
6
i
.r
'a ~~
~ `Kr
ad.
•
<~
r
a' R
'i t:
ti+
~,
t
fib.
~r
%- s'
•
.^T~
k i
~
` ~{
~.
.t
:
{.
~. k.fiai ~..
i ~
..
q
.
r
h'
~~
~
.1 i k i . {..'
]~~~5 j
I
I r
x
~..
eJ
i
{~i
F'
ti
. .:~
~ {
~ 1 A• ,~,' ^. ••i.<,. •. _
.,'(
~
s
}`
.
, ~
I I. ~:'. •'~tM,>• __tt ~k ~~ r ~ ' £ Li~1 Y g {~
x~ Wit` aP ~ '~ ~ t
: '..S'
i. ~ ~, 5.
. .
, yr
«t:
~
~ <
.
ly
~
I•e
1'.
:~- ~
-
'
~I
`'
.
.
, . ~~,
E
'
(;
b
4
` I ~
.} d ~
Ai , 1. '~,1A •'~'~e .'. 4 I t ti$ Y>' YL ) ~ k2 ~ y~' ~3f Y. ~,
~ ~
#.
~
~• ~
~i
I Lr .l' r
~
.~5.w .
4
7 •'
1
~
a ,r
.
r.
r.' '~
,
I
€.. a
:
r .
P, ;
..
Meridian Plannin & Zonin
9 9
December 7, 2006
Page 53 of 90
_ Rohm: He will have every opportunity to answer after --
Ebling: Well, my best guess is there is 125 down there and I don't know whether that's
an exact count or not, because on this plat map I got they are so bloody small I can't
count it. I need for you folks to understand that this is degrading our area, our way of
life. We have seen what happens when you put these thin, narrower houses in Boise.
There was an article in the Statesman, there is parking problems, there is crime
problems, the property value gets degraded and I'll tell you what will happen to these
. - houses, as soon as they are built the California investors and the out-of-states will come
in here and they will buy them 30, 40 at a time and they will turn them into rentals and
_ after they are rentals for about six months there will be two and three families living in
those things, half a dozen cars parked out front and that's how this neighborhood will
deteriorate. And maybe not in my short lifetime, because I'm an oldtimer, but, you
know, there will be gangs, drive-by shootings, and if I'm out mowing my lawn I'll
probably have to wear body armor. But this -- sure I'm being humorous and I'm being
ludicrous, but when you have this kind of development, this is the kind of thing you're
setting yourself up for. And the only nice thing I see about it is that it's an ideal place for
the drug dealers to go and they will be really close to the school, so they won't have to
drive to work, they can walk right across the street and sell it to our kids. You have to
take this into consideration. I know this gentleman is trying to make a dollar, but he's
also messing with our lives and I think you people have the opportunity to say this isn't
the Idaho that we have come to know and enjoy and the previous gentleman talked
about the quality of life. He talked about your mission statement. Now, you tell me
t- ` what your mission statement is. Is it not to preserve a quality of life? That don't look
like it to me. So, I'm asking you, as a concerned citizen, to take this into very
consideration and the other thing is to look at the impaca: of this -- in a city where you
~~ `` have public transportation you can afford to have housing like that. We don't have any
public transportation south of I-84. If we do I haven't seen it. I don't even know if there
is plans for it. Does anybody here know about that? I mean it's -- so, this is my point
that I'm trying to point across to you folks is that I think it's something that we need to
take a longer look at than just, oh, yeah, it's all in the TR, traditional neighborhood
,~ ~~ concept, which wasn't even part of our plan six months ago.
} . ;' .I Borup: Yes, it is.
Ebling: It was? When was it amended?
Borup: 2002.
'~ ;~Y=' Ebling: Well, there was an amendment -- the map I had it was a 2006 -- amended in
2006 that showed it. Maybe the printing on it was bad. I can bring you the map I got at
4_ .,:, ~ home if that would help you make a decision.
l Rohm: Sir, I think one of the things that -- typically that is incorporated into any
°
i develo ment is if -- here is our five acre arcels alon here --
p 9
p Y
~. :
I
~~((
31
.n
i?
i Yi
. ,.. c,
~~
H
z.
n •x.71 ~ ~~~'~~~'
! ~' ,~,.. p~,`s?~al.
~i
c a._
~ ;
r ; ~!' ~~'~j~;'~1~
r V I
AV;{.t.
1- CS
". ~'FAij!S:
p ,
t: 4~ awC~,
~j
r
It
d ~ ';~~t ~ 's~'
~^L
iaKl~ ~~:
I:
I~~
r~.^ ~ ~,t,i.
r~ ~ ~~ '~
'S-. t.' ~'P!Y
at ~~ _
ii < Q a,~
f... ~;~? ;eM
~ "~~. ~~~
•?`:t
~' : iy i d ry. . y ~. ~, (
~ I ' ;. ~
I ~'' Y"~s a-
.. ~. i }
..
Y I ~ ~ '
~
~ ~~ ~~ I i _
t
'
'
I
r
l ~ ~
~
~
;.
{, ~ ~
~ ~
A ~
4
5
7
v
` • '
~~
~~' 1 r*
:rE ~` a ~ ~ ~ - .; 3 i wry f .
I i~^•.'.,"r
$i~
. ~
~.
.' '
" c
K
: ~ 4 P
dd'
;
€ •-
~
~ ~.
' .
r a ,
~.
4•
F
'
I
I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 54 of 90
Ebling: Sure.
Rohm: -- and as the development goes -- and mind you that all of this is conceptual
right here. The only part of it that is being requested right now is just this point.
Ebling: I understand that.
Tn
~i.l
~~'
F~
'j
;,_
k
E
_.
~.;.
~:
.s
Rohm: But the point is as the development moves closer toward your larger parcels,
their parcels get larger as well. And I think that, typically, not just this development, but
typically developers are cognizant of their neighbors' desires to have larger parcels
adjacent to their own parcels and I think that if you're to have these right along your five
acre parcels here, that would be less desirous than having it further away from that
which you're trying to preserve. But just trying to respond a little bit to your --
Ebling: Oh, I understand what you're saying and there is a buffer, but a very thin one
and I would prefer there not even be those type of homes in that area.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. We are kind of jumping around here a little bit, just due to trying
to accommodate the desires of the audience here, so I'll just move on down the line
here. Bonnie Brenner. Theresa Ball.
Ball: I'm Theresa Ball, I live at 3503 West Lamont. Lamont is the road that comes out
at the south side of this subdivision and I ditto what was said by the gentleman previous
to me, I totally agree with his comments about density. My recommendation and
concern tends primarily to do with density and would recommend that the south and
west side, not the R-8 or R-15, which was a copy of the document that I received on
Tuesday at Mr. Jewett's open house, and, rather, be at least R-4 or R-2, so that the
entire outskirts of the subdivision are R-2 or R-4, especially on the south and west side,
so that there is a transition to the acreages and the environment and rural lifestyle that
those of us that live there want to retain. So, the north and east side where there is a
little village and some of the higher density may be an appropriate place for higher
density if it's not those row houses, but I believe that the south and west side needs to
be lower density, either R-2 or R-4 and this indicates R-8 in that triangle to the left. The
copy I got Tuesday night said R-15, which would be apartments, and we do not want
apartments next to our five acre lots off of Ten Mile. So, I'm very opposed to having an
R-15. So, I'd like clarification of whether that's being proposed as R-15 or R-8, but my
request would be that it would be at least R-4. I think there is significant opposition to
this development, especially to the density, and I think you have seen many people,
both from this meeting, the October meeting, the ACHD meeting and many had to leave
because this meeting is so long. So, there is significant opposition from the public.
Regarding Overland Road, on behalf of my neighbors down Lamont and Nova Lane and
Silver Terrace, many of them were at the ACHD meeting yesterday, because it was
denied they did not come tonight. So, based on staffs recommendation that we give
our feedback, on what we want to see on Overland Road, I don't think we are prepared
to do that, because many of those concerned people are not here due to the result of
~'; ,~~ sry~~i+
,.
~ , 5~ ~.
,<~ ~
rk ~-~fE~~
a t
v ~, ~~~ .
.,
t ,, ~ ~s
t ~us''~'~~i;.
.~'
t i'
d ~~~
f ;;
~,~ ~;, ~`v~3i~;
a ~"~ ~~
~ .lip ~~~~~~
y. SIR
g t ~~,~i_
;,y;.;_a.. ~.
~ ~ .~~Y:, _,'12'~~
9 -1- Fr ¢dry~`l?
i~ a ~~ 9 ~ ,L ~%
f 1 a~ j
~~ ~F~ I? ~ ~f ~~+$jl}
~~ i
~~~ r a a Kai...
i~
~ 'r ~_,~~~;~
,,.~i:
r ? ~I
~} C ~~ aB~'E~~f
,,~; ff
ItC i '13 L7?tiF{~:
n' t ~gr. ~',~~
t.ix li
~4 d q
~s ~„
~~ ; '' i ~~ ~.'~~
;;,,~ ~~~
z ~
~~
~i
~~1'~ t~~,r~",
- .<, - ~~
~+
~:
i
~'
4,~~~.
I=
~:.
~_ .
~<
l
4;
}'
,.:
t ,~~
fpjj y
7 +{~~
~ ~~
y~ ~
t ~ It
I d
k
~ ~~
~( gg
3 ~~ iJ
~5
i:~.
,.: a
r~
z
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 55 of 90
yesterday's meeting. My opinion on that would be that I do not want it to go down
Lamont Road and have Lamont become Overland.
Rohm: I'm curious, may I ask you do you think that the existing location of Overland
Road is in the best interest of the community as a whole?
Ball: I don't -- I think it -- probably curving makes sense. I don't know if it's in the exact
right spot. My concem being on Lamont is how am I going to get off Lamont onto Ten
Mile, turning left with no stop light, because the stop light is at Overland just several feet
down the road. So, that would be a huge issue, especially after the Ten Mile
interchange. So, we won't be able to get off our road onto Ten Mile. I don't know how
we will do that. So, that's a concem. I don't know -- the concerns that I heard from my
neighbors lie more about the extension of Overland to Black Cat.
Rohm: Points west.
Ball: Right. More so than maybe this area right here. So, a significant concem, if it
were to extend further, that I have heard from my neighbors, I don't know if this is the
right place for this Overland Road. My concem would be accessibility to the traffic for
the Ten Mile interchange and the subdivision to be able to get off of Lamont to Val Vista
or those side roads onto Ten Mile. The biggest concem is that we balance the quality of
life that we have out there, we live there for a reason, we have lived there a long time,
we don't want the transient environment of row houses or apartments on Ten Mile and
buffering that with lower density would allow a smoother transition to the rural
environment on the perimeter of the subdivision. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Robert Carlson.
Carlson: Commissioners, my name is Robert Carlson. I live at 2300 Aspen Cove Drive.
I won't repeat the things that Keith Ebling said, other than that I would like to say it's a
shame to take such a beautiful plan and surround a library and elementary school with a
slum area. You know, it's all right you're going to have some nice -- nice hopefully
commercial area along there. All right. The other thing I'm -- to try to get through that
area and walk down to that area through that, it's surrounded, it just will be a mess. I
had some questions about the timing. To put that kind of density in there all at once
now, if you, heaven forbid, let that happen, before the Ten Mile interchange takes place,
would be a disaster. We are already backed up to Linder Road in the mornings. The
five mile -- the five lane highway will help that a little bit, but the density and the
confusion and the mess that that's going to cause until that Ten Mile exchange -- we are
getting traffic all the way from Nampa trying to -- to the other side of Meridian, the other
side of the freeway coming across Ten Mile coming down there trying to get on the
freeway, because of the congestion. We need that before this development happens,
not after, so that we have to have the Ten Mile exchange in first, in my opinion. I'm also
concerned about where the water is coming from for those ponds and the plan for that.
I'd like to have that answered. And also the danger of the concem about Ridenbaugh
Canal and is that adequate -- adequately shored up and properly designed to have
-~~
d k '
c , f <i ~~
k L ! ~
11 yet
~ Sy.C~r;3
~ r
~~: ~~ ~,p. ~.. ~Il ~I ~7~1 _r~~i:
~R r
~~l i ~ ~* ~ ~~'i~
~ ~
$Y ~' ~,~
~~ 1
!'i 4 t~
~. b~ l„ E ff 77770000~~~[
~,,~ ' Y Mk~`i~
„f
J'
~ff L rS V
5 _
~,
~.. , ~~ .
~ i ~ ~~
x ~ !'~
S k
~ l
~ s'~~ ~i!
+ g9
9~ + i- Wr vi.li
$$,.
~; f:G
t :, v:
~ j ti'a,~
~3
~ i
i' ;E~~
~a~ r'el.`~~~~,~~~'.~.,.
~E a a; ItK,I~
~ i ~'' ~~ ~~~~
•,
t
~~ ~Ea
''~~
~.
,,~ .
~~
-~
i
,.;;
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~ S
December 7, 2006
Page 56 of 90
housing in that -- below that area. I know we have trouble with our rodents and that
digging holes in the -- in where we are at now and I think that's a very dangerous
situation. So, anyway, very opposed to the density and the timing. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. David Benaduchi. Steve Presbus.
Presbus: Steve Presbus. I live at 2530 South Del Ray Lane. And it starts right -- if I
can get this thing to work. It starts from here, comes down and goes here. So, I'm one
of the major players in this subdivision. It's hard -- it's hard to defend myself right now,
because of these mega blocks, because as you can see that's probably going to be
heard again down the road for that mega block. Now, I don't understand why he can't ~
do a conceptual plan and show everybody what it's going to be and just -- if it's going to
be approved, approve it as one and instead of having to come back nine times. I'm sure
you don't want to hear me talk nine times. That's my concem, because what I have to
say about my property, it's really not even a concem right now, because he's only doing,
according to Caleb, just that little section of the southeast comer. I want to touch just
one thing on a stub road is -- is on this plan he already shows a stub road through with
houses, nine lots in our subdivision. And a week and a half ago he had it -- he had it
surveyed, the property. There is marks all over the place. That's one of the big
concerns about the road. Now, I guess I can touch on -- you know, he talks about these
majestic views that he will build for some of these houses. What about our views that
we have been here for so long? I mean do we lose those? Are we not considered, you
know, one of the better people? I mean, you know, that's something that needs to be
answered. You know, I'm asking for single story houses behind my house and down.
There is only four houses affected in Val Vista that have views and I'm asking fora
height of 22 feet and 17,000 square foot lots back there. Also, I'm asking for larger rear
lots than a 15 foot setback. And, also, I asked them the other night about what are you
going to do for fences and he said a wrought iron fence. Well, I don't want to go out in i'
my backyard and look into somebody else's back yard. For years now I have been
looking out at animals and wildlife and stuff, I don't want to look at kids' toys or garbage
or whatever is going to be living behind me. So, I ask that there be some kind of -- not
cheap wood fence, but a substantial fence put in along that area. That's all I have to
say. ~
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Milt Shoemaker.
ti ~ Shoemaker: Oh, I thought you were --
E'
~.
>w
Y -'
t_~
+Y
r
~n
`a
S,
f
a
~ ,~
i ~:
Rohm: No. No. You're on.
Shoemaker: Milt Shoemaker. I was just waiting for you --
Rohm: Oh. And state your address, please.
Shoemaker: 1620 South Ten Mile. ~!
~~ 1 '~,. t~. Aid®'~ti9%i'''
q .~~ ~ ~.. ~rnd Y~r~.
tf
e n~ ~ i,:
'a ~
4~~' i ~ ~~S ~~U~t~'
~ ~,.c~
,, ~ ; ,.
x~ ~..
i q~,~~
~ ~ ~+'" e
~ ~~til~
~ i~.
~^ , ;Yrn: ~~,
~~~t' ,~ ~ i ~ yy~i_r,
an ~,j it r'~1 ~~ ~FI 3!
E~F~~ ~1 ~ S~" ~N a~71c~,.
... ~ I~
F E ~
« ~ .: € ;,,
iai ~ l I St~f {,~~. ,.
p 5
~µl r~ ~'i :,
a !
4 s.4 h ~ L
~~I~k~igy' 9 ?
a ~, f, ~ , +~''~
~`~ 4w r a i.~e, ~ ~~ ~k7 w
"u p
~ 3 <~'r `_
;,
~ S ~ ~ ~ {~3f k ~ ~:
P uh2~i
~ ~~~7~~ ~~~.
~~ri 5 ~ ~~ l;i~~~i ~s .
~~ ;'~°j. ~~ '~r~h~z~4i~r%
Y...
~_
~ ~ ~,4 fd~! ~~t 9~lS,::
~ ~ t ~ r ~ : ~
a rt' f. j.
ii
i
~,.
`. ~,
F.
Yd ,. `...~. ~ -9
~,
.~,~, ~ i
..
_ I
r
.~
,a
~~
~'
~~
+,`
1 ~~~
~~
,~
i
~;
.~
"t
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~ •
December 7, 2006
Page 57 of 90
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Shoemaker: And that is right -- can I walk over there and point to it? Needless to say,
this guy is going to put a major serious impact on our lifestyle. We have -- we raised
livestock on that property, we have been there for a long long time, and -- and I'm
against the density. I'm not going to go into all that for the various same reasons that
these guys are, but one other thing that's going to happen with this Overland Road new
proposal they got, now it's going to tum everything down Ten Mile, instead of dispersing
what was on Overland Road before to the north, it's going to bring it up and all down
Ten Mile and that's a bad deal. That's a bad deal for us. And one of the proposals for
the interchange -- and this is why ACHD I think put the binders on yesterday -- one of
the proposals for the interchange is to come this side of our property. I don't run one of
these things very good. I'd like to go over there and look right at it, but to come right up
through here -- come right up through here and, then, out to Ten Mile. Right now you
have the people at Davis Drive that I don't know how they'd ever get out on there. I
don't know how we would get out on there. I don't know how our neighbors could get
out on there. I don't know how the people right here would get out on there. I don't
know how Tasa would get out on there, because they are estimating that with the stop
lights here at the interchange they are going to have stacking clear back to here. So, if
they were to put that interchange over on this side and come up around, it would not
disturb the neighborhood in here. And I don't what you said yesterday.
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Shoemaker, can you speak in the mike.
Rohm: I think that in response to --
Shoemaker: I also have aletter --
Rohm: I think in response to your comments, Ada County Highway District specifically
remanded this whole thing back to the City of Meridian, so that we could go through this
process that we are going through tonight. I mean that's the long and short of it. Ada
County doesn't want to decide where the road goes specifically until we figure out how
we want to use the land and so I don't think that there is anybody at Ada County that is
specifically against finding the right location for relocating Overland or the Ten Mile -- I
mean the Ten Mile interchange is going to happen. I mean it's just -- it's going to
happen. And the -- all we are trying to do here tonight is try and help with the land use
that's surrounds that Ten Mile interchange, so that it all works well together and that's
why we have these hearings is so we can take public input and come up with answers
that are most beneficial to the public at large.
Shoemaker: I totally understand that, in addition to Meridian's input, they also want the
interchange input. That's what my ears heard.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Sharon Shoemaker. From the audience she says she's
been spoken for. Lyle Larkin.
i Y~F ~sY
f +.1 `` Mr I`~~
a. J.
~ £ ~t
h
~ a i; P Y
~r~r3 ~
~`r ~, rs ~'' f
,.~ ~ ,~:
Ilia 9~-~%`~ ~~~~'
'/ ~Fi~
t,~ ~ 3ji~ ~~ #,@67' +"
.~
r t ~ ~
t~
r.' e
P~ c'.: ~~`p „9~
t s
i ~~~ r, ,
~s~ § n ~ ~ ~~~Qf =,
~s f,t-,
w %' ~ ~5 ~p~aj~
..a . i
No ~ ~1f S ..,
T~C~)~~J
i r °~a ~ t~:~i
t EE~~ t~lj _ r
~x
~,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~jHr~~
~ ~ ~ y ~~~~~~ ~,
~ ~ ~~r ~~~I!~~ ~
F t ;
~i rt t ' `i°~c
IiL GI r .r ~~~jF~, --
4 ~-. t~ ~~p,;~..
' ~ r~ f
3 ~c qq i ~~
E c
i v v ~ ~ ~ ~a~a~.
~ ti~ 9'
~ 3 1 ~~ ~~~` j~~= i
y~ t?A_C: ~~' Alf; » r ,
1 ~ f' ~~ 1~~~'
i ~' , c~ ~'~~fis~s':, +
IR,..r,. ~,ti ,~'
16
_~ Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7
2006
` ,
Page 58 of 90
Larkin: Thank you. Lyle Larkin, 3030 South Francine. I'm well passed my bedtime, so I
will make it short. Density too thick. Next to five acre lots why can't we have one acre
lots on the other side of the five acres and, then, two acres across the street -- or two to
the acre across the street. R-1, R-2. We keep hearing library. That's going to be
shoved down our throats just like the school district bond election until it gets voted in.
It was voted down, so we are still keeping land for a library. Is he going to build us a
f'' ~`~ library? It was voted down. So, the library is out. How long has it been since the City
of Meridian's got a large grocery store to come into this town? He's saying a small one.
~~ A small one for that many people? What are we talking, a 7 Eleven? We need a
_` grocery store out on this side of town. Need you folks to go out and bring them in. I
mean we have got how many homes on the north side and they haven't had a grocery
~~ store put out there since Albertson's on Ten Mile. So, density and like the other man,
Mr. Presbow saw that stub drawn in there with ten -- so you're telling us there is not
~~
:
going to be a road coming, but yet he's got home designed to be on the lot in Val Vista
,, Subdivision. He's showing a road with home lots on it. Other than that, that's all I have
got to say. Density is too high, especially against Val Vista. I know -- from what I saw
'' ` yesterday, ACHD said study, study, study, they want public input, public input, it sounds
'~` like they have had enough of this, people coming back on them, because they didn't
;
~ have enough public input. Curtis Road. So forth. So, this redesign is going to take
;
.,
awhile. It sounded like it was going to be a year to me at least. So, that's all I have got
to say. Thank you.
:x
G =~
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Mrs. Larkin. From the audience she says that she's been
"~ spoken for. Susan Carlson.
- S. Carlson: President and Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. There have
;~' been many issues that have already been addressed and so I won't go into detail about
those. I do have concems about the density, about the traffic and about the whole
project in general. Before I say anything about that, it was my understanding yesterday
~ at the ACRD meeting that also they needed to know what was happening with the Ten
Mile interchange, because there are -- because I went to that meeting and there actually
~. ; ~ are some proposals that go to the north side of the freeway, so that's an important part
~ of the equation to know what they are doing with the interchange before they can decide
what needs to be done with which roads. So, going onto my concems, I live right here
"~:=`~I on Aspen Cove Drive. My name is Susan Carlson, 2300 Aspen Cove Drive, and my
`' concern is -- is make sure that you know that this is basically half of a square mile and
x '~ ~` as said that they are mostly five acres and they are higher up, so our view is down, but I
,:~ ;
. want you to know that I'm aware that development is part of progression and I fully am
aware of that and I'm in favor of that and if it was a subdivision that was lower density I
~~~ ~~`~ ' would be fine with that. A Meridian Greens -- it's just that it's such a contrast to what we
have. The other reason why I have questions about this whole project, like I said, the
~~' traffic has already been dealt with and I won't go on anymore about that and the density,
but it's because of the reputation of the developer has preceded himself regarding him
finishing projects, his regard for neighbors, and his dishonesty. If I understand you
~ Commissioners, there were some of you commissioners on the last issue that were
affected by the public opinion, there were numerous people who -- dozens and dozens
i
t r }S }'
'
~v^ b
~. '1~ :a;~,. ;
i
x~ yr ~.Y t ',
t : i 7`
sr ° .,£
~
a q
P`e> ~ i
y ~
Y
~
~
F
r (T 1. ~~ i
i
~ I I. .e` .(A,~?r~ ly..•
~
,. ~. y. ~ p~ ~ I
`
~'
I
~ 1 , i
4 ' 1. . ; ~t}it •.
.a (y J.
Y I ~:
~
~ ~ ~~~
~
~ ~-v r -~tl^ • =k
~ i w~. ~
~
+ i^1 ~
u ~`
'
F Fay
•a r
+
~ I' ~ ..
t
~ ,,, ~
r
,
A %.~ ~;
~ ~ a 'i.... I
Y`". qtr;
a r (~ ,`•i::
,
-" ~ ~ ~~. " r t
•s; ~ . ~ ~' ~ T ~iiii ~.t. Ery..~i.~%~` Lq?~i
lt; ' ~~ , •.
+. -
} }~
•e.
,
~t .
..
Tt~ }}}... n.•~ 2 ttpp
,
r _ ~i ~
7
S ~ i' fi
'~i~~'~i ~ ~ i ~ 1..;~.`•r.'I'n ~, *~~
~ :~J
i`•
I •` •+•
k
: ^3 :~ "- Y.
~y.
~
,fir 1
~
I
rr 7 t 7!r
.
! i'
. 7~. .r
,ti ^
~
. f
}.
IItt { _
k
1°~ I _
r
1
t.
d'•`
. •A.
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
- December 7, 2006
~'~ ~ ~ Page 59 of 80
~'
~>
who came to the last meeting in October, there were several who came yesterday at
~`' noon hour who couldn't stay for the whole meeting with the ACHD meeting that --
mean most of the whole area is concemed about the issues that you have been hearing
=~ ;~ about. Thank you very much.
Rohm: Thank you. Phil Gardner. From the audience he said he's been spoken for.
t ~ Wayne Meane.
~'~
~~
~ Meane: My name is Wayne Meane. I live at 2155 West Overland for the last 46 years.
All my life. Which is that spot. Mr. Jewett seems to be pretty free with wanting my
~` easement and thinking that I'm going to be part of his development for South Ridge. I'm
'` ~ here to tell you I will not be no part of it. Thank you.
Rohm: Well, that is pretty clear. Loma Hewett. Okay. Sorry. Julie Gould. Diane
~, Eberling. Okay. Boy, that's a mystery. How about that one? Is there a Pat Warren?
~~ ` Pat Marin.
''
s Marro: Pat Marin. I live at 2524 Ariel Lane. And most of the things that I am concemed
, about have been spoken for tonight. The traffic is a major problem. It's a problem right
now. I hope that before he's allowed to do any developing that something will be done
with the roads, because it's a problem right now, the traffic coming out of Linder I'm
~<:: `~ backed up every morning going to work and I have a terrific problem with the density. I
~~ live on five acres and I think the amount of homes that's going in this -- in this huge
~~ - '
' subdivision is way way too many. That's all I have to say.
~
,.
~~
f Rohm: Thank you, sir. Was your wife also signed up?
i
Marin: Yes. She's okay.
'' Rohm: Okay. I couldn't read the first name, so I e so, you're the one I skipped. Okay.
~'° '~ Thank you. Christina Postileau. Probably butchering this, but --
` ' ~ Postileau: Christina Postileau. I live at 23 South Ten Mile -- 2360 South Ten Mile. This
. is my property right here. So, I'm one of the people that might be driven through,
f~ ~ depending on how the road reroutes. So, I have been well spoken for on a lot of my
concerns. The only thing I'd like to say is that it's pretty difficult as homeowners and
r~ - people -- you know, we have all these things going on in our lives to keep track of all of
it ~~ especially as much as it's changed and that's -- I think that's the hardest thing
this stuff
~` 4 ,
for everybody is that every time we come in it's reworked, I'm sure it's very frustrating for
~" °j
~
" you guys as well, but you have got half of us thinking it's one thing that it's not and that
'~' makes it difficult for us to become organized and come in here with some
' ~~ recommendations and some ideas of how we can see this thing going down. I think we
'~""`~ are all aware that it will happen, development is vital to Meridian, and understand that,
'` but we just want it to be done smartly and in a manner that -- I don't know, it's just -- it's
huge and to push it through and rush it through so quickly, it may not seem quick to the
t ` ~ developer, but it is because of the scale and the type of project and how many changes
~.
:.
a
~'f
~~
e/
i!
,:
5
~~
. , ;:
;~~f
V;{,
N jy~y
j~
5 ~N~:
~ , ~ {. ~i
1
~~~~
W
~1
~ ~ ~'
+~ a.i r~ ~~~1
°:3
~~F
~' ~.~. M,.~.f.
lr
h
~ u ~ ~~
;~
ex~~"~
d ~ cy c~A€!
i~ ~~
,~t..
F _.
ry~
A
Gt kyy~ {
I" NA .1 ~A'~i5~
y y 2"
,,~1
s .',,
f : r: sn ~a~~;;il:
ay. ~~~
.~ +~ i•~.
;~ zr "q~;~~~~~~
H~ 9
~ ~ si~ ~~~
~~ ~ ..
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 60 of 90
are going on and the different impacts. And so, you know, it's -- we come in tonight and
now -- now maybe instead of even evaluating the subdivision, we are talking about how
we are going to reroute Overland Road. Well, we don't know that until we get here. So,
that makes it problematic for us as concerned neighbors and citizens. And, then, the
only other thing I wanted to touch on was the Overland Road reroute -- you know, since
we are going to talk about that tonight, I don't think there has been enough time to really
evaluate how that road is going to flow through. We have had some presentations from
Jewett's staff on that flow and it seems kind of -- it seems like to be a lot of
contradiction. You have got we want to keep everybody in this neighborhood and we
have this little -- this nice little park and the school and we are going to have some plays
and we are going to have all this and, then, we are going to have a 55 mile per hour
road going through over here and, you know, we want to have all these pathways and
walkways, it's going to be lovely, and a 55 mile per hour road, and I think that -- it just
seems to be a lot of contradiction in the planning and I would like to see these things get
smoothed out and a little bit more -- a lot more consideration for everybody's concern in
zoning and density and how this is going to impact their quality of life and that's all.
Thank you.
S~;
~~L
r,.
d
}~
1
tiF
e
e ~~
:, ~,
r
}
;F7
.z
ss}ya~
'i5
a
i%
~~
Rohm: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Dan Thompson. Oh.
Okay. Gary Liddell. I appreciate you spelling that out.
Liddell: My name is Gary Liddell. That's L-i-d-d-a-I-I. I live at 2118 Aspen Cove Drive.
First of all, I have got to thank the members of the Commission. You guys have an
awful lot of patience. This seems to be the most -- so regardless of anything else, thank
you for your patience and the amount of time you guys spend doing this. It's amazing.
Succinctly, I object to the density of the matter. I know that's redundant, but if you said
it -- if it was said a thousand times it wouldn't adequately reflect how people feel about
the masses of the 35-foot wide houses. I would suggest any of you, as an experiment,
try to see if you and a husband or wife can turn your cars into the left or right angle to
park two cars in a two car garage. I have lived in different towns and I have been in this
house for 15 years, we enjoy the space, but people are going to park on the streets,
they are going to buy boats, their kids are going to get a car, this is just not going to
work for a good social environment. People are going to be upset, they are going to
fight with each other, and they are going to be calling the Meridian police department,
it's -- all those neighborhood disputes are engineered into this program and I think the
architect did a fine job drawing the plans, but it's -- I think anybody can -- I see that 35
foot wide -- 25 foot wide houses are going to create a problem, 13,000 at least, vehicle
trips a day for this discrete area is severe. Further development is going to go on to the
south. I would ask that you consider somewhat the long term. I know Meridian is going
to keep growing, we all accept that. It's going to continue growing to the south, not only
are there going to be 13,000 people -- if we broaden it just a tiny bit and know that there
is going to be 13,000 more people on these 40 acres -- or 200 acres a little bit further
south and a little bit further south there is going to be another 300 acres developed,
within a very short period of time we are going to have -- traffic is going to be maxed out
again, so I would simply ask that you consider the density issue, not only for this
discrete area, but in terms of future growth in Meridian. I'd like to see a place where
i
z
~i
.5
~' ! ~I 9nitl.
-N i yy {~,
i 1[ ~''
~~,~~
~ ~
~~~~~~ 1 t d r> i~L ~~[~
yi~,f' a { ~ ~c ~3w~i
i
N r x~r~~ ~i~~'~i.
~ ~
r ~ f.` s C ',
n~S ~~-ii
1
~~~ ,. ~~ ~d:y.
,~ y .
y ~.'`~- ~k '+~h.
1 ' ~~.
~ ~ ~~ a
p i ~ a t
~ ~ ~~. ~5~
r S~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~~zd
~~ ~af~ r ° * F~~~~ ~~3~~
., S~ a ~~ iiir+..
i.:
~ ~~
p ~~,¢
,_ ~ ~ ~~-~
K ~ , ?" ~~t ~;~
3.
a J,: i -
~ i s.-_ ~ ~ 7, . c ~' .
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 61 of 90
everybody would -- we'd all like to live, rather than become synonymous with a town
that's 35 foot wide houses and heavily trafficked and the kind of neighborhood problems
that occur. So, anyway, for the redundant part I apologize, but thank you again. Any
questions?
' "i
`'
3:i'.
<;
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Curtis Elton.
Elton: Curtis Elton, 2906 West Val Vista. It's hard to come up with something new, but I
do want to take a bit of your time. Mainly my concern is the transition from five acre
parcels to dense housing and a dense subdivision, putting all that -- all of that
subdivision right up against ours. Remember, we got horses literally off the back of
ours and that's going to be within feet of theirs and I think there should be somewhat of
a transition and our majestic view is going to be shared with all of them -- that
subdivision now and, therefore, I'd like to see houses in the back up against the border
of Val Vista to be a minimum of -- or I should say a maximum of one single level, so that
it doesn't totally block out our view and that we have a barrier between the two
subdivisions that separates the subdivision. Again, we have animals -- basically Val
Vista is pretty much a horse community and we aren't going to really coincide with a
nonhorse community, because there are several animals there and there is going to be
somewhat of an overlay of lifestyles. Therefore, if we take and have a good barrier, a
good setback, and share the view, instead of getting it wiped out with two story houses
and if they are one story we would still have somewhat of a view and retain some of the
lifestyle that we have. Another thing I'm really concerned about is the sequence of
development, that the housing and the construction isn't started and worked on where
we get an extreme amount of congestion, more than we have now when these houses
are developed, so that the roadway is developed so that it can be used for construction,
not developed after construction is done and the houses are being sold, because,
otherwise, we have to put up with all that right now and that construction is going to go
on for I'm sure for years. Therefore, the roadway should be planned out and developed
before the construction and the housing development starts. The traffic is a problem
now and I just can't imagine developing this many houses in this small an area and,
then, running a 55 mile an hour road through it. It just isn't logical. You're going to have
kids from one side of the road going to the park, you're going to have pedestrians
crossing, so forth, and you're going to run a 55 mile an hour -- 55 mile an hour highway
through the middle. I seriously consider that you think about that in relationship to the
safety for the community. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. My only comment to that 55 mile an hour roadway is it isn't 55
miles an hour from one end of Overland all the way through to my knowledge. I can't
think of --that's my point, is if it's -- if all of it that is developed right now is less than 55, I
can't imagine that it will be 55 through this one acre -- or one mile stretch, but I may be
wrong.
Borup: I think they said that the road was designed that it could handle that; isn't that
correct? Not that it would, but that it could. There is a difference.
K* J
..
~
Y
Y.~
Y
I
1'
~
~
a~ :~ ;~ Via.
1
,~
I. ~ ~ ~ ~'. ' S ; ~~~
;
~
~
{
I S fi
.g
~;.
w'y. `.~~
I
~
{ 1 y
~.. . 4 } py
`
-
~
~ ~z
N ~
f
1 q y t` J
i F •+`S
(
S
g'
'SSL w/8 i § +6 Y
~
I
: ~ r
~~. '
~I
~
~
1
t.
_..
.~
G
~;
ti
;;
if ;
r•
i;
'
~;
5' ~
'
" ~ ~ F Ai=F ri ~
w
~
~~
~
-.~,v
~1! '~, ~ ~
~ di'.
~ a ~s'
„ ~ ~
~ ~s r
~
t.."
i
`
$'s rE".
'~ 1 ~i ~. ~.; };;'
}J
N
•
~ i i
I `)
~`..
f.~'
~
~ .~ 1 .. 4
If ~. 1 1~Y
e
i
r ~ s
~ p
~ I A
I i
i e,,~ `3!''
~ ~ 3~ . ~.~ 12
~ ~ .~:
r'~
t~
e
.
1
F u5' ~4#y
'
~~'Y ~
'~G 'S' 1~ ~ ~`' f' ,~i ..a'kfb r:
i
{ ` ~
~
...
a .. y~sj -
~
~ +. it ~w.
,~ ~~n
.j.,
.k
~ ~
I
~, ;.
~. a i
, . .
1 i ~;°•a~
j '
~ ~ ~ =:.. ~I:. ~- !.
.. y Iw ,. ,: {
~~i~i ? a ; . ..~ f a~~ •K x. ~ . ,.~d .~1 ~d~. ~ A,.
~~ ~ • s
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
~' December 7, 2006
' Page 62 of 90
~',
' Rohm: And design and operation are two different things and, you know, I'm just
~. thinking, you know, I have driven Overland -- I, too -- I was bom in Boise a long time
ago and I have driven Overland my whole life and I don't believe that -- I don't believe
that that section will be 55 any more than the rest of it is. But that's just -- that's just
because I have lived here forever. Anyway, moving on. Right. Designed to 55, but I
~~„ .: don't think anybody is going to post a 55 mile an hour speed limit. Joe Granika. He's
~; been spoken for. I probably butchered that name pretty well. Patty Zunika.
~; ::
~` Zunika: I'm Patty Zunika and I live at 2102 Aspen Cove Drive and most of my concems ~:
' have already been addressed. The main things are the traffic and the density that I
have concems about and I just wanted to let you know that when I commute to work in
the morning, like other people have said, the traffic is often backed up to Linder and
that's nine-tenths of a mile from Meridian and it takes longer to get from Linder to
Meridian now than it does to get from Meridian Road to downtown Boise where I work
and if we have a whole other neighborhood going in with Bear Creek and, then, we
have this high density where we are talking about here, Ijust -- I can't imagine what the
fu traffic is going to be like even with the increase -- increased lanes on Overland and --
~` '= and, then, the other thing is just like the 35 -- 25 foot wide houses -- it sounds to me like
it's, basically, a trailer park and just -- I just -- I guess I want to think about whether
~` Meridian really wants to have a reputation where they maybe have the crime that may
~~ occur here and do we want to be like some of the other towns where you have the
reputation of having drive-by shootings and drug sales and things like that. So, even if
.: ~ you don't live right on our neighborhood, if bad things are going on as a result of this, it
could affect your reputation, too. That's it. ~
Rohm: Thank you. I think that's specifically why that Ten Mile interchange is going in,
though. I can tell you that there is no easy way -- I live on Franklin Road west of Ten
4 Mile and you can either drive in on Franklin and, then, fight your way to the freeway in °,-
'
town or you can cross the freeway at Ten Mile and fight your way down Overland. I ~
~~ ~~
mean either way it's a struggle to get to Boise and you're exactly right, the first two miles '~
takes longer than the balance of the trip into town and so you're absolutely right, but the `f h
Ten Mile interchange is going to that and it's going to make our community better as a
~~
-; whole.
~
i
~.
x
Zunika: One other question that brings up with the interchange, at the ACHD meeting ~
4
yesterday one of the commissioners made a comment that there could be some issues
.' where it might be as long as 2015 before the interchange was built. Does anybody else '~~"~
~~: remember that comment? So, that might be something that you guys would want to ~ ~,
'~~ follow up on. Well, that's what some people are saying, that maybe it would be 2009, ~~
but she also did make a comment that it could be delayed, depending -- it has ~ .
F ~~ ~ ove Overland it would be too far
ht . And if the m
somethin to do with Overland• ri
Y
9
9 '
away and feds -- federal agencies might have some problems with that. So, I think that ~ .~
might be some -- a questions that should be followed up on.
s `_ Rohm: Well, I guess the only thing that I'd respond to that is everybody from the City of ~~
Meridian's perspective is doing everything we can -- and as a matter of fact, that's part ~.
} ~
,
j
.~
~ ~ x
~ ~ ~ -`
,~ ~~
~ ~ ; ~ ~.-~£ e~,~, ,
~ i
'
f
e
~
~
~ 9
~
~~ti=~~ ,- ~h,~
v
f}~ ~3~~' i
t
,~.
~
Ekl„i
~
,.
I ~
,
,tt ~i~
' y Tt~ Sits
Y ri ,
-
t~}fr ~ ! ! ~~W~~~,!'r
a
F
~: f M~
f ~' s
_
~
~ ~ .
~~. ~. ~ ~
~ i
J
~ ~ y ~JI'7.
~ Gay t' A ~
i7
~
~,
" ~ [
.~ S~CS~.~lJ3
K~ ~ i ~
~
p
,
~ °
~
=
,
' ~,
,
v r
i
(,i
a5 ~
'~' t 3 ~; a~ ~sa~~,~~
~ .;
.~!' ~
~,n ~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~~ k " y ~~'S, ~ ~
s d
~~ ~ . y iu ~iy°~`
~r 1f'.
~a
G.:
`~'
ti
n
, ~.
~;i D;. hiF
~~... ~ '. i ~ a a,
f ~S ~e K ~ ~s I~~~&~ ~'~i:
~ ~
~, ` i ~~ r
~ fl,~~ir ~
f
C# ~~ ~
~ ~~
~~ ~ ~ 4
~ ~ s ~~; f
~ ~.
~~', 1
:
r ~ _ ,`~~',~,~'~.~
5 .~. ~ ~ ~~~ti
r, ,- ~1 ~.#~! i t
K V r ~
YI
St
~
~
..
~
~ ~
,
,~~~.- `
~
r.
_ ~
.~. i
~ ~ (
I'~. p.
rr ~(~
~ ~~~ ~}~fieil ~ ~ ,L,
~; ~
.a.
i y E~ { _~X ~SY ~ F,~
' i 9 r~~H'
~ ~ .i
E
~t 7 M
~ a
'
,~ ~ ~' f
~
ka
`~r
~~.
"n
E:
~_,.., _.
L
~4
F;
k
~;
y
4. ,
~;,
'`'-
a
r
a%
;4
7
Ih
I L~
Sy:
/.
,:<(i
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 63 of 90
•
of why we are here tonight is to help get that Ten Mile interchange in, which will help
everybody in this room, in my opinion, having that Ten Mile interchange in there, so --
and tonight's hearing is not about that specifically, but that in itself will affect all this as
well. Thank you for your comments. Nancy Darr.
Darr: Very short. Nancy Darr, 2112 Aspen Cove. I mean just density again, but I'm
going to read -- it says now the proposed elementary school is not part -- if I got this
right here -- not part of the upcoming school bond. According to the Meridian School
District the final school to be built as part of the current 2005 bond will be built in 2008 in
the Paramount development. The bond plan in 2007 includes the elementary school on
the comer of Eagle Road and Amity in the Tuscany development. This school was
already built by the time the proposed development opened. Additionally, no agreement
has been -- this was done about a month ago -- has been reached with the school
district as to the price of the property or even if it is what happens in the future if the
bond does fail. Instead of further crowding existing public schools, lower density
housing could help keep the number of new students down, giving all the city's public
schools a better chance of having the lower thing. That's just another segment of by
bringing the density down, especially with the rural houses that's -- I mean you build that
one little section, that's the first section, and I understand that he wants to get started,
but you build that density in there. The schools that aren't even coming to
accommodate that number of -- those aren't accommodating people with first time
homes. I'm not sure he was saying there would be about 300 to 350 thousand dollar
homes, I'm not sure, that's the last I heard. That's going to be -- you know, these are
first time home builders and there is going to be a lot of kids -- they can't even afford
that maybe, but if he brings it down, I'm not sure what's happening, because this thing
has changed so many different times, you're going to have crowded schools and it's not
even in the bond situation until way down. I'm just -- maybe come back and tell us a
little bit more, but I'm really concerned about our children being just crowded in with all
the developments that are coming and the schools are not here. We are supposed to
be planning for our children also. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Just to speak to the school -- not to you
specifically, but to speak to schools a little bit, the school district takes a look at every
single development that comes to us and has an opportunity to provide input and I think
that, basically, the larger the development the more interest there always is in
garnishing a portion of it for a potential school down the road and that's not to say that
that specific school is the next one that's going to be built, but it's better to plan for a
new school as our population base expands than it is to have an expanded population
and no place to put a school and it's -- I don't know if it's the cart before the horse or
what it is, but that's the process that every single development goes through, the school
district has an opportunity for input and we try to work with the school district to address
their concerns over time as well from a city's perspective and the developer ultimately
get pulled into the fray. Moving on. Clark Leonard. Oh, Mr. Eberling spoke for him.
Mike Cleffner. From the audience he says he's been spoken for. And Mary Cleffner.
And she's been spoke for as well. That's the end of the list of people that have signed
up to speak, but if I missed somebody certainly please come forward.
3~
w~dD #.
* 1
' ~ ~'~
..~ F~ t ~~. '_
W a ~ q rP ~ t ~'?~p~
W 4 sa + YY~'~i7 "
i'-
~' ~ i s
b ~ =,.F~
F ~ ~ ~~ ~ r
~ 3 ~ ~a ~ ~~_L.
~ ' ~ S' ~b,'"'~~'
r
,:'.~:
a ', ~~~,.
s ~~~ ;
I~~~i ~
t S~^ ~
o +N
ul~ar~ ~ k~~i!.
~! t.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~s7
. ,, ~,.
~' : p~~ ~~~x~~
~ ;, ,
Fy M' ~~ L+~Si Ni,
'~ s z° ~ ~st ;,~,~.
~,, '
Y F~c, .12 V
S~ j ey~~L^~1 ~ y
I i ~ ~1]]
1
1~
+~ ~,'
t 9 i 4~ ~ ~'.~:,.
~'s~ ~~ ~r ~~ ~:
'. ~
t ~ ~ u- ~s ~~~~~
s ~~~d'~
v < ' s a~h~!~~
<_
~- E
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 64 of 90
S. Fawcett: I did not plan to speak. My husband spoke earlier. My name is Sheny
Fawcett. I live at 2755 West Val Vista Court. One of my concerns is the school district.
I think it's wonderful that there is an area for an elementary school. My children have
x: lived there for 14 years and when Bear Creek went in we got the school districts
redrawn, we moved schools, because Bear Creek came in, put too many kids in the
school district, our kids had to change schools. The issue now -- my children are in
middle school and high school, there are no properties -- there is a middle school
property south of the freeway, there is no high school property south of the freeway. I
have gone to the boundary meetings at the school district, it's great they are giving
elementary. No developer is going to give them high school property, it's too big of a
land area, there is not an area for that and Mountain View High School, if you guys have
`'° " it's way too overcrowded and nothing is coming on for a bond to
children going there
- ,
alleviate that. This density is going to push that -- that much more overcrowded. The
other issue I have a lot of concern about tonight is the interpretation that the city planner
had of Ada County Highway District's proposal on the Overland Road realignment. Do
you guys have a copy of what City of Meridian planning department received? Because
%' the way the city planner interpreted it that it was turned over to the city, that is not the
way I interpret the same document that I received from ACHD. It says -- if I can just
'' read part of it, is that after hearing testimony that they determined that a different public
f
`' ~` involvement process would be necessary for such a major realignment of a principal
`' arterial roadway. I don't see that as saying we are turning that over to the city to make a
w` ~ decision tonight on. ACHD also determined that acting on this proposed application
would be premature due to the fact that the City of Meridian has not completed the
ti ; public process for Ten Mile area plan and has not yet formally adopted the plan. That is
, the city's deal, but, again, it hasn't gone through public -- they feel it has not gone
through the public process. In addition, it's critical to know the interchange design
selection for Ten Mile prior to acting on realignment of Overland Road. The revised
South Ridge Subdivision proposal was remanded back to district staff with no definite
date to reschedule the item back on the commission agenda. And maybe that's
"'~ ' interpretation, but I don't necessarily agree with what the city planner said, that they
turned it over to the city to decide that. I think they said there needs to be a lot more
public involvement in that process, because it's a very large project. Thank you.
Borup: And I think that's what staff did say. They wanted the public process to be
completed and that means getting the final results on the Ten Mile plan.
Newton-Huckabay: Can we take a five minute break?
Rohm: Yes, we can. We are going to take a five minute break. Thank you for all your
input. We need a short break.
(Recess.)
rt
~~
4;
~.
~,
r I ~.:.
~~
#S
+ ~
~
Y
A
,. ~~ ~': ..f. •a2r ~R ~ }. ~ •.,F ~Y YfL
'F~..x
i
~ Ir` WR.e~v rs }`yy) `
i ~
~ ` r'! 1
t t:. ( „
~
'+'
i d 'S
'
7- :I: i'a~;~ft~~ •
T
''~ 3
i
n 5..:. \~
C `
.~..
! 1 y
R
f
F
;
t
<
F ;*'i ]•R M`.0 b~ t AFT "t;;r ~~i~~~"
! e ~.;. l~ ~ fk
3
3 ~ ~.
~ S 1{ h {
>
I
y
",~'
:0
, ~.~
t kk
~i`~ 3~r$ r.
I'
~
~
. ~
+
'Y~~
~
'
.
; .: z
+•:~
•a F .;Y
d
~-
~ ~
~
~ ~~ w '~'~a ,~
R
!
r,••. e
.'~.6 .:ks%"i
-. ..
.~~
s- q
y
k..
,8
n
!t e.
.:sF
.Ax. <Y+x.S~•:n ~. ~ :
1
t. , '~a ,
~
,
s, .5i •(. p
,' ey.
x
'
! a t ~
f
t J• A
}} 2 %. .
4~ I ~.. ~ ~' A.~^'Y: 3 i ~ lr{ .Fe n~'•p~~ jai "f~':ftif~
ii
t ~3` ~
;5~.:
~-
~
:~
~
- I' b>';
.
t I
4
-
3
~
i
~
.
r
i>
r
I
,
-
''J'
y
i
~
i
1
'
i- ,
.
"va
.i.
E
~::•
e
:
^
~9'
•
.
~
'
s
..V .'~_'rd ¢;
~; t
F I .
y
q_t<
,~ :
~
c
,~
;,q.,
;f. ~
~.~.;.~;
.y~;A.~~}~.
M1 ~ -
,
Meridian Plannin 8~ Zonin
9 9
December 7, 2006
~- Page 65 of 90
Rohm: Thank you for allowing us to take this short break and at this time we will
reconvene and we have taken all the public testimony and I -- oh, excuse me. I went
through the entire list and -- okay. Well, you certainly have -- state your name and --
~:,
Smith: Donald Smith and I live at 2141 Aspen Cove Drive, Meridian. And I was at that
meeting yesterday and I think the concern here was putting it back and knew what to do
~` ` with Overland. Now, also was concemed -- they had -- if -- right now there was no
~~ money appropriated any further than Overland and Ten Mile, if the freeway came off
~~:.: there. If it went any further down Ten Mile to where he wants to put in a new road, they ~;
was concerned who was going to pay for that, where there was no federal money as of a
now to pay for that additional roadway.
~~
~~ Rohm: Would you restate your name for the recorder, sir.
~~~ °~ Smith: Oh, yes. Don Smith. Don Smith at 2141 Aspen Cove Drive.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Smith: And everybody heard this and I was just concemed why this didn't come up
earlier from staff that -- was Meridian going to come up with this money to build that
2,200 foot of road? Do you have the money for that? Because there is no federal
money as of now appropriated for any further than Overland and Ten Mile.
Rohm: Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. I believe that that concludes the public testimony and at this time we will
give the applicant time for their response. j
Jewett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I will be as quick as I can here. I
could spend quite some time, but I think in light of things we can move very quickly.
First of all, there was a statement made very early on about potential of fencing around
the park in regards to the canal if the park was built in the first phase and I think that
was a very good comment and I think that that would have to be addressed by some
temporary fencing around the park, not only for the canal, but for the construction that
would occur in future phases. So, I think that we would have to work with the parks
'' department to come up with some temporary fencing to make sure that the park is
protected both way, going in and going out. Secondly, I think a lot of the issues ~
~:- surrounded density and traffic and I'm going to do the best I can to address how we
came up with what we did and how we as developers address the traffic. Having been
in this part of the county and lived south of the freeway for, you know, most of the last
s':. I 16 years, I recognize what Overland is, I recognize what Meridian is. We have finally
gotten Meridian rebuilt here a few years ago and Overland now from there to Eagle
Road rebuilt within the last couple of years as well. And the next component of that --
that contract was let by ACRD last Wednesday for the completion of Linder Road from
..
-
1{ `S I-. y
F
~~'~
~'
~ ~~.
.. t ." ~
~ ~$ .
1
t 1 ~ I fktr .~6:
':i
f
i
. a F .
.
~
~ y
~'
'~ w ~ 7 ~ ' j ~
''`
~~
•
.• .
3
~
'
~`
r
I
r 3r.
~~v•.i"
n
.. •1ts
'
~}
..
r
..
S~
I
~
R
..
~a4 :.
1 ~:ln
w
~.I .
, .
i
+
c 4~
'°
J'k °.~ } ~,, lll$,j . t y.. , by '~.^ i'".n , tl., ~
e ' , 6 . ~. y
9
i { "
,?f°• K~ .
, ,
r
,~ ~1 ~ ~ 4, :.. ~~ i
~
- ~
~ ,~ fwd,
I :
.
-. F;~
~ ~ I ~ ~~r~.~~ r
x
~ ..
: 1 > 4.
I I ... :~?
I ~ ~ Y
' {
'~( i +
+ ', s
..
}
~ ~Y ~ I 1 • , '
l
p
s
~ •
{{
4':
1
' .
~•
}
? '
}F' ,
i
'
3 t '
;
yy
_$V
.W~:
•~I'~L1 r,+,y
{ 'Ar j; •.+ f
rr
FF
~ ,:} "
> '~•
:z.
i.
. .. M> P,. ~f "t
.e
111 ..
Y•'.d •.; ':~=, 1
1 Y
.
"~
.~•• _' •~~s_;
4~''•
.
.; , s
r,; :
_
!' .
a i~
,
..
•.^
1
i
~
:7'
~~' rw
.
I `~. i y~ i f { ~ ~.'i s~ i
~
;
f £ s . ~ tF ~.a e 4 t 9 4d P. 3 t ~~~ xe. r+~S ?::;x`..•~
7'~ ^;-( 'k
_ ` ~
r~
.e
'1 •'7~ 'r"~~•.''''
• s 5•r~ .ter..
:I,.`.•_
~
.
'
> ^zK i I ;fir.
;$ •
'~ ~
~•~
s, z
•~..
'•~
Jj ~ ~ ~;i.~ a~~
~ , ~ { ~A
Meridian Planning i;< Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 66 of 90
approximately my entrance -- actually, you know, west of Linder, from my entrance back
to Meridian Road, including seven full lanes across Meridian Road in all directions to
help with that turning. So, I think that relief is coming. That's one of the driving forces
as far as the timing of our project. We recognize that a transportation corridor needs to
a be there, that dumping all this traffic on a rural two lane road doesn't work. So, that's
~' ' coming. We also -- the timing of our project is predicated by Meridian bringing their
sewer across the freeway. Our project was -- our project has been in the planning for
several years now. The sewer is coming across the freeway this winter, it will be at our
front doorstep probably by January or February, so that's the other public works project
that's fueling the moving of this project along. As far as density, when we first started
this project a few years ago, we looked at the entire mile surrounding this -- and if we
can get an aerial up there I will show that, but when we looked at that mile and we
looked at the Comp Plan that Meridian has had in place for as long as I have been here,
17 years, we saw that because of some of the subdivisions south of -- south of us here,
Aspen Cove and Majestic View, and which I compliment those neighbors who live in
_ there, they have very nice homes, they have very well kept homes, and it's a desirable
neighborhood to live in, but recognizing that the urban-rural nature in which they were
developed, if Meridian is to achieve the densities that the Comp Plan envisions, it has to
go somewhere and when you have major transportation corridors like Overland that's
being reconstructed and Ten Mile off ramp that's going to be built, the most logical area
,, to place density would be along those corridors. That will help preserve those rural
lifestyle, because the more we build larger lots, the faster we grow out, the more we
build urban lots the slower we grow out, the more we keep that transportation and that
traffic condensed to the areas in which the infrastructure is being built. So, I know it's
hard to comprehend for some people, but this type of development helps them in
maintaining their rural lifestyle. It doesn't take away. And because that transportation
corridor is being built now and most likely will be completed by the time our first homes
are ever built or around the first time our homes are built, that will exist. Secondly, we
4 : ~ recognize that the need to build Overland from here -- from here to here needed to be
done as well and not being a funded ACHD project or not even in their five year CIP, we
were a strong force the last year and a half in asking the city -- this city to ask ACHD to
' ~' put that on. Now, as of July that has been added to the CIP. It is now a project that is
in the works and because of that we could offer ACHD to construct Overland Road for
them in an impact free agreement and as you will see in the staff report that is a
component that ACHD is going to work with us so we can complete as much of
Overland Road as we can, pending the final disposition of where it's going to be. But
where it's not going to move, we are committed to ACHD to enter into a development
_ agreement to fund that portion of the construction at the same time their portion of
~> - Overland is being constructed from Linder back to Meridian Road. The 35 foot lots. I
think there was a lot of questions about the 35 foot lots. The way we can derive at
diversity in a plat is to have large lots combined with small lots. I can give you
numerous examples of alley loaded 35 foot lots in this town, in Boise, and in Meridian --
I mean in Eagle that have all been successful. Some I have been involved in, some I
haven't been involved in. It's just a different type of living, but there is people that want
°`' that living. It's not row housing in the sense of a negative. Yes, it's row housing in a
r general term, but it's not slums. It's good quality housing, it's housing that fits a different
,
~~:
'si
!$
~;
s'.'
IL ~'
{1
,y
~+ ~~ ~~~p~'~
t
~ ~»
~ ~~ . ~a,,~,.
r
,„
h ~ ~t.
{
~ :~f
i v a' a
b ! D~ H4;1~{'•
p ti.
~J~ ' ~ i ~~~~~
'' ~-~ b , ~ z ~ ~ ~:,
,:_ ' ~~~1
}
" ~ ~ ~~ 4 . .
~ ,~ .
:x~~L~ ? t ~Z k~ .~~~
F~''
r
..~.
w k)
:~° }c
;~ :gip!p
k,t t~. E1
t
1~?
} . ~~,
~~ ~ ~~
~:.
n +~
~ i ~4 }t
4 zs i
»s
~ ~,ry~ q~~
~~~''l~i
~~: ~_;
,;~
qua
~~~~~'.
Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ •
December 7, 2006
Page 67 of 90
~~
; ~ lifes le and we have eo le that want that lifes le, es eciall next to the -- the thin s
tY p p tY p Y 9
.
~" the library and some cafes and retail and
that we want to bring to our village center
,
that's important, so -- but that 35 foot wide lot allows us to do these 17,000 square foot
k" lots at the lower end. It's that diversity. It also allows us to have a complete diverse
nature within that plat. Families start at that alley loaded lots and 30 years from now
live on the back lot. They can simple progress through that subdivision as they
~' progress in life. So, it does offer a lifestyle of a lot of other subdivisions. Now, you have
~il .
~~ heard the word cookie cutter. If I took the 35 foot wide lots and you took the other big
~f!,
lots and that's what you'd have, you'd have a cookie cutter of 8,000 square foot lots and
that's not what we set out to do and I think what we have set out to do is what you see,
s~. is a diverse nature of lots from anywhere from 35 foot up to the estate lots, which would
,..
be 90 foot and wider up on the bluff. There was a couple comments regarding -- it was
R-15 showing on the plat. There was an error made on the plat and we corrected that
~~ today and gave it back to the staff. We did display an area on the far west that showed
R-15, that was in error, that has been corrected. There has also been a couple
comments about me showing a stub street and some lodging in that. I'll take 30
seconds to explain that. During this process that property came up for sale, I did place
an offer on it, I did do a conceptual layout so everybody could see what that might look
like. I, as well as you, got the message and so I am no longer in contract to buy that
Y property and no longer interested in any property along the Val Vista boundary. I got
~s`- the message. I heard loud and clear. The one comment about the row houses would
become rentals. Because of our design guidelines, because of the way we want to
. - promote the subdivision, that's not what we want. We will have in this plat long-term
~x build out apartments along Overland Road, but not this type of housing. This is not
going to be rentals. This is going to be for people to live. And the last thing I want to
touch on is schools. I'm happy to say that in several of my projects across the valley I
~A~-" have schools located in them and I'm happy to say that some of those school sites I
have donated to the school district and some of them I sold them at a discounted rate.
I'm happy to say I think that I have done as much as I can as a developer in pushing
~~~
,
, forward to have promotion of schools. I have children that are eight, nine, and 16, that
,~
,.
~:
are at all schools right here that everybody mentioned, Mary Mack, Mountain View, and
~:~,;
:~
,;
~
I do recognize the need for a high school and I know that I have talked to the school
.
"=
~ district and they have asked me if I know of a property that they -- that I could steer
;
them to for a high school -- another high school south of the freeway. I know it's an
c' ' ` important thing and I know the school district is moving towards that. This school land
purchase was in the last bond and the construction of this school will be in the next
bond in I believe 2007 or 2008, I don't recall when the next bond is going to be. So, with
~~
~° that I would stand for an uestions.
Y q
r: ~~" Rohm: The first question that comes to my mind is in your -- as this develops out there
were a number of people that spoke to the elevation of the structures adjacent to that
~~ south line.
Jewett: And if you will notice the comment, there was a lot of those comments in the
comments I responded to. I'm not objectionable to single story homes against the
boundary of those properties. I recognize, as I put in my comments, that they have a
~,'
55
R
f'.5
hY~
r
~.
t
~' f ~ ~~~ ~}A~~
.~~ .<i
x ~'' ~~r`tF,
i 5
_? ?Nlizlt°
f# ~ ~~ i~' ~k~~~
a k~t1 ~1
~ ~' ~~~i~
(, ,,f{{
L ', i'~.
rq ~ ~ [~ ~,~ tib~~
;2'pr ;+Pi},
y~ a
1 ~4 h~~-~,
1 1
f~ k i 4 ~ ~~ ~}5i~~
'A ~ ~A i{f'~'.
` 4. ~f Z i ~ h ~ ~' ~~
~ , i,A-
~~ 1 ~Yjie
~? t r t
Tf.
~~ ra i~~ ;
~ ~f ~7
f ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~{,
~i;eto~ tea:,,
k~~~ .~<
t;a~
~ 1.•r
yy1
xt "~.
t ~
a'" 3 ~ i54v. a ili ~-:
r
~` ~ i. ~~ ~ y r' ~ t'~:
i k i 4 ;~.:
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
December 7, 2006
<? Page 68 of 90
view and they have had a view for years and if there is something we can do by bigger
lots, by greater rear setbacks, or for lower story homes, if the P&Z is -- that's their desire
to place that upon that -- those lots, I'm more than willing to accept that.
Rohm: Thank you. Are there any questions?
>I
~: i
4>.
i,`
.t i
i-
.T:G ' -
I
-'
C_F-. "~
ti . ~ .
t•
~~~!
{ ~ r'/~
k
{ }:~
,.
` ~9:
t~
;, -'q3
~~
1
r
~~
a',t
c
t~
'i
Borup: Mr. Chairman, yes, I -- just a couple. One of the questions was on where the
water for the pond's coming from.
Jewett: Very good question. I'm sorry I forgot that one. Can you switch over? What
our proposal to the parks department is -- that these would be lined ponds and what
they would do is they would derive their water to irrigate their park out of those ponds,
so they wouldn't have to mix with ours and they could water when they wished. Our
pumping station is located right there and that's Nampa-Meridian pumping station.
So, what we would do is Nampa-Meridian would pump right out of the canal to service
the entire subdivision. Their water would come from our existing source up here at Val
Vista and it would feed into these ponds. They are lined, so they would be able to
control the amount of water they put in, versus what they apply out. So, it's their own
water. It would be the water that would be assigned to that -- all park site that would be
given to the -- to the parks department upon transfer of the park to them. So, it's their
own water.
Borup: Okay.
Jewett: And they are lined. As long as they control them at the end of the year they
should be able to keep maintaining them. The only loss they would have over the
winter would be the evaporation. And, hopefully, the rainfall would equal out the
evaporation.
Borup: Okay. Then, another question on -- I realize we are only looking at platted lots
on this eastern portion, but other than the mega lots, but with -- do you have an
approximate number of total lots --
Jewett: I do.
Borup: --for the entire future subdivision?
Jewett: I do. In the existing preliminary plat we have 260 dwelling unit lots. With the
295.04 acres, utilizing densities that we have shown, the TN-R, the R-8, the R-4, the R-
2, calculating that density against the acreage, the maximum total of units would be
1,252 or 4.24 units to the acre. Now, that's based on a maximum density. That's eight
units are R-8, that's 15 on TN-R. And I think we all recognize that those levels are
usually about 60 percent, because you just simply, because of the roads, don't get that.
So, our original count, based on the master planning we did, we are around 960 to 970
lots, which would be the density at around 3.5 units gross.
y t ~ "' ~ Q ~ ' Iv- a
7 r§ qv~ ~.r; ~.
~ ~ i
,.
a+. }
~L r~ x~ri ~ ~~~.
.
~
p~ ?
4 `~.
.
~ R ~ i
+r+
~i ~ ~ k ~"~ ~~ tl~
~
3 h,t
:
P~ ~.,
E~ ~ ° g SCI ~~ 1~~
^ '
~ 4
,
~t~rx -'! ~' ~ r4i~F"'
~ '" t ~ _
i ~' +
P c 3 l L~
M y ,yyy ~ S
9 '.4 3~ ~`~~~~~'
~ z ~ i'r"~p~~
~ i
~ b .L. ~~
y. ~~.
4.
:. T~' 1~7. 111AAAR:Vf X~
b , ~ u~
~
A ~'
~~~ ~ 1 ~i ~~
E
~ _ -
~
r
E 3 f 9~ ~A71~;'
.
~
A~
Y
~
~y 1~}
~hu ~1,
{ .
d
~
'I ~r :1 C ._~r
t},, ~'b~~~'•
~'- ~ F
7a~ ~t ~1 G~Y~f
'.~~ s
~ w ~
i` 1
~~
~
.
~
.t
~~ ~
~4
'
#~
' .
,"
~~
i
r
1 ~~: r; ~,.,~~~~~:
i ;,y.
~ r.
'Gy., aF ~ Y ~j ~'~ ~~:1D~ ., ~C
~~ _
r'p~ e y ~~~~~7!~a.,
~' f r.,
,~
a~
~ ~'1. ~ i ! r1 = r
~ I t "' ii~'~~g~,~,.
~"`
~
,
~
~~~
a
~
, ~ ~
~
'
~o- ~ i r
t~ pc~~t,,,
#
~r ~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 69 of 90
Borup: So, you're saying less than 1,000, probably.
Jewett: Less than 1,000. That includes the multi-family.
Borup: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Jewett: There was one other question. How many of the alley loaded lots. I had my
planner count them, there was 105. So, approximately, ten percent of the overall plat
would be alley loaded. Or the 35 footers.
Rohm: Any other questions?
Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I was just going to clarify, so the development agreement
or your endeavor to enter in with a ACHD development agreement for the remainder of
Overland from Linder to as far as you can go on your property, would be -- take place
as you develop phase one?
Jewett: Can you go back to a map that shows that. Right now my -- the conditions of
approval with ACHD allows me to enter into an agreement to go from approximately
here where the terminus of their constructions --
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
fi:~-. _,
:,
y?~.~'
N
%~
,~
a?
1 ~~~
.:~
r
r7
r Er
~~
b
i
~'~
Jewett: -- to about right here with a development agreement. This area here, if
relocated, would have to be worked out. So, right now there is two thoughts. We can
either come to our first plat level and stop the improvements here or come to this half
mile line where there would not be any deviation regardless of what plan ends up in the
long term.
Newton-Huckabay: So, if -- and that agreement would be taking place during phase
one?
Jewett: That's correct.
Newton-Huckabay: And when did you say the Linder-Meridian Road project --
Jewett: That contract was -- was let out to the contractor last Wednesday and they
anticipate starting the relocation next month.
Rohm: Let's just get Overland all the way to Ten Mile.
Jewett: You will see that was my original proposal and I still think that potential exists. I
think there is a process we have to go through over the next four to five months that
involves this city, it involves ACHD, it involves ITD. I won't be much farther down the
road in five months than I am right now, because it is winter. So, I think that opportunity
~ ~.~ Na ~ >~. ,~~:~
?~f~ ~~ ~ ~i4~~Ngx~,
~`~ ~~ "4~~~4N
~~ ~ ~..
Lq 1
9 Y
1 r~
~~ ~,,
~ t rA ~; hC5 -
ty~ ~ ~ Hi~~~~~"•
~~ ~# 4 F y t t~ 3..'.~
~ ~ r ~ 7 ^~~~i.
Ce~G,„,,
L y@ .~
~ ~~ ~~„,~
a 7.,;i
3
~ t X ~! '
~y~ *1~~~
1 M 11
I M q7 l~~'~:;.
~~~x t ~ l~~l~b~~!~
;. ~ ~ :,.
~~ t
p-aQ~Q~~ f~S
ll ~~ f ! J
~ T Fri ~~ P l.pr;r.
V r~; `
SS gg~
14 ~ ~~ A ~~'.,
~,f ~ ~ ,fzq a ~
}F~ ~ s d ~ qb ~'J, 1'
-... ~ :'
1;. t ~ i
~~~~. e *_ sE~~S~tal
1'l? I ~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~'
r°
~ ~~ s g~ ,.
r9 : ~r,1... .
""'
¢,
~'° .
~,
,,
'- .~
,~
,_
~,
;.
.7
~~
~~~
~-:
:-4
k'.}
~r
x~
~:
~::: ~
~~y
jT~i
t
l
y
r`
{Y~
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 70 of 90
still exists. I encourage any comments that this Commission can offer myself, the
public, and your own staff as to what you would like to see for Overload Road.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. I think we have concluded with the public testimony
here. Is there anyone that would like to make a motion to close these hearings?
Newton-Huckabay: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-031 and
PP 06-031. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay.
Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask staff a couple questions?
Rohm. You're dam right.
Newton-Huckabay: I just want to get a few things straight here. On the order of what's
going on -- so we have a couple things going on with the city, we had the -- we had a
charrette and we had one other Ten Mile meeting prior to the charrette, didn't we?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I'm not aware of the one prior to
the charrette. There were several staff meetings that we had in preparation for getting
ready for the charrette. The most recent one that I can think of was we did bring the
results of that charrette to the Council. I'm not sure how many of you all attended that.
It was a joint meeting with the Commission, and kind of outlayed that plan before you
and so this is what we are looking at doing and got comments back. But that's -- before
all that I'm not sure what --
Newton-Huckabay: I may have had two invitations to the charrette. That could have
been, so -- okay. So, we had the Ten Mile area charrette and, then, we put together the
Ten Mile area plan, we reviewed that before which -- with the City Council a couple
weeks ago. And that is the proposal that's coming before -- or being turned in now or
later this month and that concludes Meridian's -- or our preference for the interchange?
I didn't get a copy of it.
Hood: It doesn't include our proposal for the interchange. That's ITD and that's a
separate -- the Ten Mile area specific plan is going to have to be molded a little bit to
conform with where ever this -- the touchdown lands and the SPUI or moving it further
to the west or whatever they decide to do north or where ever. So, right now the way
that the Ten Mile area is, there is just some general land uses around the interstate and
pretty generous, in my opinion, of, you know, an area that is -- may or may not be used
ri" F~~~?~ r~ .;
~' a`
,, x s
Y'
Y ~y 3 ~yy~~
~'n ~ ~,~ ~
~I~ -. RR icy '~
~~ j~~~i IE Ff~ ~~
~ +F i'`,
J 1~
'(1 t Iir~l. ~~.
a ` - ~ ~~:.: ~.
~_` ~
a'S
s ~ ~ ~ i i ~"
~~q~ ~~~~
,.~ ~k~~~
y 4 r. a .~
a,
s r~ h~ ~ d
A pia W'.F f ~t~d~k'
~; 3~ a ~~~~ ~~
~, ~~
~~ ~ z a-
~. i,~~s~~i ~~-,
'-~~sr ~ ~ spa ~ d'K
r
x y f5 Pf '~
~ t ~ !
.4 .q x ~ ti~ ~~It i'r
~` ;:. a
R;
y s
A 4 ,4 f,'s 9
. ,~
~,
~~'
„' ~~ r. H~.;I,_.
'i v
~:~ .. F ~'~ ..
,~
,.
F
°I
~;
`~
~.
'I
~"
~: =`
J
,,1
1
x . , .
n ..
}
a;
.. .:
~.
~.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 71 of 90
for the actual interchange, but there are land uses shown on there that go out further,
that if it goes one way or the other it really doesn't change the plan too much.
Newton-Huckabay: Right. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
Hood: And that plan is a working document, too. So, next spring -- I mean if there are -
- by, then, hopefully, they will at least have a design and maybe we do need to tweak
something here or there or change some ratios of some different land uses proposed,
but, generally, I think it's a pretty solid plan and probably will move forward. There will
be some changes I'm sure.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, I like the plan, I just hadn't -- like I said, they didn't get us a
copy if it that day. Did we resolve the stub -- understanding of the stub road?
Rohm: Let's put it this way: I explained it to the best of my ability, but the fact of the
matter is there are a number of people that don't want a stub to the south on the west
end of the project, but the point is is just because there is stub there doesn't mean that it
actually goes into their development, I don't know what more we can say about that.
Newton-Huckabay: I can't imagine that this plan will pass through City Council without
some south stubs somewhere --
Rohm: I agree a hundred percent.
Newton-Huckabay: But --
Rohm: And I don't think that it's going to leave this body without a stub to the south.
Newton-Huckabay: That was all my questions I had.
Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have some final thoughts?
Borup: Well, just -- I guess one of the things I'm looking at strongly is we have had a
Comprehensive Plan for this area since 2002. That plan has designated this area as
medium density, which is up to eight units per acre. I'm not sure how long this applicant
has been looking at this property, but I'm sure that's the assumption he went in when he
-- when he worked at acquiring it is that he would be able to follow the Comprehensive
Plan. Eight units per acre for the residential area that I calculate would be over 2,000
homes. He's stated that it's going to be under a thousand. So, that's well within the
maximum and if you want to take the Comprehensive Plan literally, the R-2 lots wouldn't
even be allowed in this area without asking for a step down in zoning, which I don't think
we -- is this a planned unit? No. Did we need to ask for a step down or is that just --
was it a given?
Hood: There is a request, Mr. Chair, Commissioner --
.: ~:
~,
~r
~' . , °`.~
_:;
+:
}
fiY
.;?~
`#
Y
i
i
~~
'S
:~`,?
'~
"~
,~
f~
''.~
Meridian Planning & Zoning • •
December 7, 2006
Page 72 of 90
Borup: Okay.
Hood: There is not a formal request for that step down. That was one of the things that
has changed since the first --
Borup: Right. That was astaff -- that was some of the earlier negotiations.
Hood: It's based on the charrette. It's based on comments from a lot of the neighbors.
Borup: Right. I think it's a good thing. I think it does make good transition to go to the
R-2. I mean if you didn't understand what it's saying there, normally that wouldn't even
be allowed in this zone without a special request and so they are requesting that to
allow that transition to the following neighbors. Some of the same comments I have
heard here are exact same comments I heard when Heritage Commons went in. After
we approved that I was approached by some people that said what are you guys
thinking allowing those little low income trashy homes to go in there. A year later after
they were built someone said have you seen the price of those homes? Nobody but
rich people can afford them. They are talking about the exact same subdivision, only a
year apart. And that -- that's more than likely, looking at the design, the same thing
happened here. The only thing I would comment on design is -- well, no, we saw the
designs. So, with an alley loaded you can have a nice exterior on the front, because
you don't have that garage there interfering with that. Thirty-five is probably a pretty
minimal, forty would be nicer, but -- on designwise, but it looks like they have already
thought through that. That's all the comments I have.
Rohm: Thank you. Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: One of the things that we consistently talk about is wanting to have
interesting projects. The applicant mentioned cookie cutter and that's a horrible thing.
You know, we don't want those. We have asked applicants over and over to provide us
with some creativity and some variety and I see that here. The applicant -- the overall
average density not only meets the Comprehensive Plan, but it is even a little bit low for
the Comprehensive Plan for this area, which went through a lot of public hearings. This
is not something that was done in a hung or in a secret. It took years. Within those
limits the applicant has brought us some creativity that I think that's useful. The
applicant mentioned that the likely scenario is that people would move into the smaller
homes as starter homes, and, then, move up, but they don't intend them to be cheap
homes. I'm getting of an age where I'm thinking the other direction. I live in a bigger
home now and I could be seeking one of the smaller homes. I don't want as much to
care for anymore. So, we have learned in other communities and even within Meridian
some of the more recent developments that have provided a variety of sizes that people
appreciate being able to live in the same community, even if they move from a big
house to a small house or a small house to a house, without leaving the neighbors or
their kids or grandchildren, they don't change schools, I realize with the growth that's
going on sometimes there is other reasons why a school gets changed, but they stay in
the neighborhood, get a sense of neighborhood and whether they live in a big house or
~'
,Y~ ~ r~
,~
~~ ~ ~ F~ ~ w k~a-; .
~,
~ r ,.:
~ ~ z ,~~~~~s~;
~~ ~„
3 ~ z h, . _
. T i ` b4 ~~ b~{Fi'
q ~ ~~ ~~t:
w
,,~ s Nm ~" Ca r
7
~' S
f -:. ~'~.
4g~ y 1~4;,
.Y t
c~ i ~ ~ ~~dl'~I
4 g '
?~ r'`-
~ ~. t
~ I' z .
y
s,
,~
~. ~ f ;~ iry
J M
~ M.i
fi s~~•~>
f ?/ 1!
.t
<~ ~
:~
t . _.
r ~ ~3 ~ F
~ I ,gym'.. .
~~ +~
t .~ I"
I~~ r • ~:1'.i~
~N`i
u~ "~
r~~~~'
~~v~i
~`j;ir'
~~r;%
r. ,
~ `~
k
•I
€~,
._
,''`';
~~
~~
<`
- a
Ct .
f
;;
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 73 of 90
a small house, or move from one or the other, they are still there. In the overall picture
of the Ten Mile interchange area plan, which this is on the edge of and just below, the
re-alignment of Overland solves a whole lot of problems that people have been tearing
their hair out about for a long time. I think that is an excellent thing to do. The charrette
got buy-in to that from a lot of people. That was also a well publicized public process
and there were a lot of people that attended it. Whether or not this is the exact location
within ten feet or a hundred feet to me isn't the issue. That concept is, eventually, going
to make such an improvement for the overall use of Meridian that it needs to end up
something like that. I guess what I'm saying -- I realize the mega lots are not permanent
yet, but I also understand the roadways can't be put in unless there is some platting
done. The mega lots probably aren't going to be replatted for years. Maybe if the
market moves along it will happen sooner, maybe not. But I agree that the Ten Mile
interchange will probably be there before most of this is built. The realignment of
Overland needs to be a solution to some of the problems that the current alignment --
there is no way to solve them without doing something like this. So, I'll have to say I
appreciate the creativity. I don't think the density -- overall density is any problem in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan. I think this is a good thing for Meridian.
Rohm: Thank you. I guess my final thoughts on this are -- we as a Commission are
about planning and from my perspective this development is occurring via a plan. I
mean there is a Ten Mile interchange that's coming. The sewer is crossing over to the
south side of the freeway. Overland Road is continuing to be developed to its potential.
All of these things work together and I would be the -- I would agree that it's scary,
because it's changed and there is still some unknowns out there, but all of these things
working together, I think we are going to end up with something that is going to be
beneficial to all of us. The Overland Road where it currently dumps into Ten Mile, that's
an accident waiting to happen. I'm surprised that there is not something there on a
weekly basis. That's a dangerous intersection. And moving that up to the top of the hill,
getting it away from the Ten Mile interchange, that's the only might answer from my
perspective and I don't know the specific location of it any more than the next, but I think
that we all would agree that you can't have it dumping into Ten Mile a hundred feet from
the -- from the interchange itself, it just -- it won't work that way. In any case, in
conclusion, I seriously appreciate everybody's comments here tonight and I think that
this development is better for the comments that have been provided that has changed
the lay of the plat over the last six months and the bottom line is we got nine mega lots
that are yet to be fully developed out and you will have every opportunity to -- for input
on those as they come, but I would venture to say that Ten Mile interchange is going to
be in before they get all the way through this whole project, but I guess we will have to
wait and see. So, that's my comments and thank you all. And so with that being said,
I'd entertain a motion if somebody's ready to move forward with that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would attempt it.
Rohm: Okay.
T'
~- .'
'~
°,~ ~
~; ,
~'"
4
Y rV
~3
r§
fir.
"!
~ij'}t~
k, 1
~#
yro
r;
s
..y
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 74 of 90
•
Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 7, 2006, with the following
modifications -- and I would ask Mr. Caleb Hood to read into the record modifications for
Exhibit B, paragraph four, paragraph 13, paragraph 19, paragraph 23 to be inserted into
my motion, if you can do that, Mr. Hood. Didn't mean to spring that on you.
Hood: In Exhibit B, conditions of approval, item number four, it should read that prior to
annexation ordinance approval new legal descriptions for the R-2, R-4, R-8, TN-C, TN-
R, and L-O zones be submitted. That said legal description should depict zones
consistent with the master concept plan, except the TN-C located at the northwest of
Overland Road, north of the canal, should be zoned TN-R and except for a small pocket
located at the northeast side of local street intersection with the Overland Road. This
area should be zoned L-O. Provision number 13 shall be deleted in its entirety. And
provision 14 shall be modified to read that except for mega lot four, the city park lot,
which shall be included within the first final plat phase of this development, all other
mega lots shown on the master concept plan west of the first phase shall be annexed
and recorded, but no home or road construction shall occur in this area until such time
as the Ten Mile area specific plan is adopted by the city. After such time the mega
blocks may be developed if they -- if the new preliminary and final plats are consistent
with the adopted Ten Mile area specific plan. And 19, I believe you said, should read
that with the construction of the first phase prior to any occupancy being granted, a ten
foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed on this site generally on the north side
of the Ridenbaugh Canal from Linder Road to the city park lot. And in parenthesis,
temporarily terminating at the city park, with the remainder out to Ten Mile Road to be
constructed with future phases. And it goes on -- that a future phase are -- that as
future phases are brought in for replatting, the city will require additional multi-use
pathways along the Ridenbaugh Canal and/or within the northwest pipeline easement.
And, then, 23, excuse me, should read that the applicant agrees to construct a
development and public street system on this site that is in general compliance with the
submitted master concept plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., labeled sheet M1.0,
dated 4/15/06, with the provisions mentioned above, in parenthesis, detailed approval of
the internal street system will be reviewed and approved with the resubdivision of each
mega lot. And this is what I added as a stub street to at least one of the five acre lots in
Val Vista when mega lot two develops shall be shown. That was all the changes that
you asked me to read as part of your motion, Commissioner. I did have one more on
three and it's --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I didn't know I missed one.
Hood: -- an easy one.
Zaremba: Go ahead.
Hood: It was just to change the R-15 that's bolded to TN-C. There is no R-15. So, that
to TN-C.
°°11 1;
>v ' ~ y~lQh~, .r
4 x Y ~~~
~~
~'~x ~Y"rr_~l ~~''...
~~' ~ ~ ~ i~~~~~i±~;
s. e ~' i3pp}~j~7di:
s f7 s, ,~
'~~ ~ _ ?t~i~'`,~'
T - z ~ i~
r ~~1
cER ~. K' ~.~ ' 4
x ~ ~~~'~i~~.
ad ~ ~ ,..f ~~~ ~ ,~
q
} i, ~#Y ~~i ~~''
~' ~
t a 3 k ~"Q?~I"
A L~ 1~ d H
L I
r ~ ;~ ~ ~
„~
.,s 4~.~ri°ir.
a, ~ MM? Y",
,~V~ I ~ {{ drl ~~ ~ N7 Gi
p ~ ~„
5 ~~ ~~~g1~~;,
~ ~ ~ ~S
x~:=~~
~ v ` v 4~ ;BUDh~~
~ ?,
~~~ ':~ ;
~~ _ ~ ~~ r ~
cF ~~
a.
~1, 'a;~
~~;
Y'V
`i
~~~
~o
4 ,.~
,_;
~$
~~
~~
ti~
:~
~~
5
:ry
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 75 of 90
Zaremba: I include that as well. Then I would add a paragraph 24 in that area that says
the applicant has agreed to limit the height of homes on his southem border shared with
Val Vista Subdivision to single story and to consider a larger than 15 foot setback. Are
you agreeing to do it a little farther east than that as well? The applicant is nodding his
head. Homes along his southem border farther east can also be restricted to single
story.
Borup: I just -- I guess I need a comment. I'm opposed to height restrictions.
Newton-Huckabay: Are you saying farther than a 15 foot setback up against a five acre
parcel?
Zaremba: The applicant agreed to it, so -- he didn't agree to a hundred foot setback,
but he agreed to restrict them to more than the standard setback, which is 15.
Newton-Huckabay: Okay.
Zaremba: I think we should take him up on that.
Rohm: Okay. We have amotion --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, the motion is not complete.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Zaremba: I'd further move to direct the applicant to submit, first, new annexation and
zoning legal descriptions for each zone prepared by a licensed surveyor prior to the city
clerk sending out notices for this project for the City Council review. And, second, ten
full size, plus one eight and a half inch by 11 inch, plus one pdf and one jpg, jpeg, copy
of the revised preliminary plat and landscape plan that includes all changes listed in
Exhibit B to staff by Thursday, December 14th, so agencies and departments within the
city can comment prior to the City Council hearing. There is an agency department
meeting scheduled for December 15th. End of motion.
Hood: One point of clarification for the maker of the motion. Is that in addition to 15?
Did you have a number in mind? Is it 16 or does it just have to be more than 15 or 20 or
Zaremba: Can we say work with staff on that?
Hood: If you work and he shows a 16, that's consistent, so I'm just -
Zaremba: We are discussing a future subdivision of the mega lots, so we will get a
chance to talk about this again, but --
~. r~ ~~~
~ . ~a~,z
s 4
,~, e,ti.~~. ~~~
G
~x
~i ~ ~` f~~
,Y.!r? ~,t~~:
;';i 1 ii
s~ ~ ~ 3~~ .a ~~
~E~ :;~ ~' fie!,
~,
,,, ~.
~y
y ~ 4 ~~
r. a s g ,.
~a
.~,1
~.,
x;':
~5 ~
;i ~ n ~~3i$'~
~i # .~ ~ r?i;i..
~~ ~~~ ~~
4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~
.-~. ~~
~. ~ z w la~~ ~~
~ ~ ~~'~~
Y€~" a ~~ r~ ~~~~i~
3 ,c
V - ~~' (3
i "'
' ~~FS q r' ~r *~r~
f r ~Y~ '~
~ ~~~j.
~ t;
~ ~ 4 I f F
i2 tR ~ F ~?f ~y t5~i~ ~~'~
`"" Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 76 of 90
Hood: We can word it that way.
` °' Zaremba: I just want it on the record that we have agreed to more than 15. Because
those lots aren't etched in stone. They are not even platted yet. Just so we know that
~:! discussion's coming.
Rohm: Okay. We have a motion.
Zaremba: Is that satisfactory?
`~ Rohm: Could I get a second?
Newton-Huckabay: I will second it.
Rohm: Okay. We have got a motion and a second. It's been moved and seconded
that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031,
;; to include all staff report amended as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
:~ sign?
Borup: No. I need to say I'm in favor of the motion, but I am opposed to a height
restriction.
Rohm: Duly noted.
' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
a.
-..~ Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-056 Request for Annexation and zoning of 5.2
F acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -
'~ ` ~ 1035 E. McMillan Road:
Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11
residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.2 acres in the proposed R-4 zone
for Clearsprings Subdivision by Mike Hill -1035 E. McMillan Road:
Rohm: Thank you all for your input and thank you coming in. All right. We have -- I
have been told that the last two items are going to be very short. With the cooperation
''' I of the balance of the Commission I'd like to open the public hearing on AZ 06-056 and
PP 06-054, both items related to Clearsprings Subdivision and begin with the staff
~ report.
;~ Lucas: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. I think we are in the process of trying to
get our presentation back up here. There. All right. I believe we are ready to begin.
As was stated, this is the Clears rin s Subdivision. It's located on the south side of
p
9
~~~~ McMillan Road approximately 3,300 feet east of the North Meridian Road, right in this
area. The application includes annexation and zoning to R-4, which is medium low
_ .. density residential for approximately 5.2 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada
,:~
~~6
°~
iY
~~ ~ ~ ~~p~~~~iF;
~t~ ~ y~ ~~ Y~k ~?~:
~ trfe ~n
a
~ ~" '~j ~ s
~ ti~
~ t ~~~4@@
_yr { 3
'} A...fa I i- ~ ~'~ -
~u ~ ~~
~,-
- ~ ~,:
.~
~~~~~~
~e' ~ ~ k)~d;,r..
~~~ ~ ~
r
mi 1 ~r-
R _~
t
~~~y r ~~~~~~~;~
r~s ~~ zt~
t ~ ~'
1 1 ~ ~ ~ C
a .-I
~~ < <-. (~7 ..
MM L .'
`;~ ~
,~rvt~'~!aw~
,_ ,_-
~ P ~ t, fad ~~~~}f~~t
'i ~ ~ ~
~a si"- ~~~3~~:.
z `' J
r' ~ ~ ~y~ ~r9~'~~
t
~s'1~ i~
t~l t ~ y^" 1~
h
~~ ~ p ~sd~ . ~~~.
5~ 6~ 7 ~ N: ~3 $ ~~a
n
~;
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 77 of 90
~',
~, County. The application also includes preliminary -- a request for a preliminary plat
' approval of 11 single family residential building lots and two common lots in the
proposed R-4 zone. As the Commission might remember, numerous other parcels very
similar to this have recently developed, including the Silverspring Subdivision which
>.
includes these two parcels to the -- to the west. The Harpe Subdivision, which includes
'! this area to the east, and they have all developed in a similar way. They are all about
~' ''~~ five acres and continue to develop, as stated, in a similar way. To the north there is
some single family homes in the Larkwood Subdivision, zoned RUT, and to the east, as
::, ' I stated, there is some proposed single family homes. And similar situation, this is the
Havasu Creek Subdivision to the south. Let's move on to the aerial photograph, which
just gives a -- pretty much an overview of what I just stated. And we can now show the
~x< _ proposed preliminary plat. The preliminary plat includes 11 lots, as you can see, taking
a - access -- there is a proposed access off of McMillan Road. I believe it's called
Silversprings Way or something like that, which runs down and, then, this street is
. ~ called Copper Ridge Street, which I guess are either -- are proposed to begin
construction soon or are either under construction out here, I am not sure. But this is a
~~:~~ • previously approved subdivision. And, then, this is the applicant's proposal here. Pretty
straight forward, as many of these others have developed with lot sizes over 8,000
square feet, it meets all the minimum standards for the R-4 district. There is a large lot
~~~~ approximately 50,000 square feet, that will retain an existing home that's on that site.
~ ~ The cul-de-sac all of the frontage requirements have been met. And it's, in general,
there are very few issues that came up in this subdivision proposal. The only thing that
was out of the ordinary, really, was the stub street in the southeast comer. By no fault
of the applicant, there was a stub street that was really only provided to half of their
property. The stub street is bisected by a property line, so half of the stub street is on
~` site and half off site. Through working with ACHD the applicant was able to work out a
solution and just -- will build as much as they can at this point on site and bamcade that
f
~~
eet of pavement
-- that stub street at the top, because it only allows for about 11
currently, which isn't really safe for vehicular traffic. And when this parcel to the east
develops, that stub street will be completed and it will be pushed through. Other than
that, there were no major issues that came up and staff is recommending approval of !,
~: the proposed Clearsprings Subdivision, with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff
report. And I will stand for any questions.
'= ~ Rohm: Thank you for your presentation. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant
like to come forward, please?
1,,
~:~~~ ' Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, Ross Erickson, 1854 East Lanark Street. I'm
here representing the developer for the Clearsprings Subdivision. We don't -- we don't
"~, really have a lot to I guess add to the staff report. It's a pretty straight forward
~~ subdivision. A couple of the highlights. I guess if you want to call them highlights. We
~F are going to do a 36 foot street section on the project, with eight foot planter strips to the
four foot detached sidewalks. As part of the construction of the development we will
install the trees and imgation and things and have a nice product for the builders when
T they come in to actually build. There were a few trees on site that we had to get rid of.
"
' '
~"-
We couldn
t quite design around them, so the trees that will be planted in the detached
,~
' ,; ~
~ S r, , ~' P
, 7 .. ef~ F~
;
'~
R
1
c,~ i ,
i
~ ~'~ ' 1
~ ,~~, ~
I J
~ ~ 1~ ~
,~ 3G1 `~fi
5
t
I ,
~
~V ~
3
~
Fy ~ ~
~ 3 ~ t
~ 7ft~
~'~
tt}}yy Id b ~
~~h~
tl ~ ~~ a ~~~~•
"# ~ - I. ~ .
n r ~E,
t
~ -~n P` t .. -
pp
S r~ ~ ! 'ti
~
~
S
~
~ ! F
T +G~~it
I
;t ~ I ~ aTl ~4i
7
-
I ,
~ ; .~- e1b-
+
1
~
~ll
~ Icy ~1
(
t i
,
y
~~ 1
L ^ ` t
1
~4 ~ 1 , i
~
`li
F gg
~~ l -
~
~
~
i
'~e VIII I
S'
J
k~ Y1 R " ~ ;'
~~
~ 5~7~~~'''~
E
l ~ ~~
5
i ~
i C ~ ~ i'!
t:
,;
i ~ `^ ~
~ ~~~jy, e ,
~ :.i'~ ~
} .: ~ ~
s~ ~x~ i..~~ r
.g ,
~ ~
S ~
1: V. 1
~ . .
i
,'V
~,
~
f .~
r 4a~
~ )
~
4
! (n ~~ 4" ~ y
~
~~ 0 ~ 1~ j~ ~r - ~
~,
j 4 v {
~ 3 '~.
4
~ i1 R
Y
~
~T
~
~~ {
+f~
~r7~~~~'
r[
I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~~~~i~
~ a t,.
t
r •i
~ 1 2 ~!H
F Y k~ F ~' Y
~
t '
{
rl `" f'd~~~. ,~ ~ ii
~
~ E t ~ r {- ~ ~~ f ~
5kkk
~
,~~
:~ ~
~ ~ a
-. r~ls
R,4
~ r~ ~ i~, ; ~ ,14
~
' N
~s ~ ~ 1
~`.
~1
e
t~~~~ a
~
~
Meridian Planning ~ Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 78 of 90
•
-- the planter between the sidewalk and the curb will more than accommodate the
mitigation requirement. Like staff mentioned, the stub street to the south for Mooney
Falls, it's not even centered on our property line, it's actually offset about five or six feet,
so we can't even get a half section in there, but like they had mentioned, we will just end
up building it to the property line and, then, when the property to the east develops they
will come in and finish it out with their proposal. With that I guess I will stand for any
questions. There is not a whole lot to it.
^
t
~.
ti_
Y
~,;;:.
i
,}
t;
~~
k
t
~'~:
;~f
'.
t'~'
r3
~~N
~~
s~7
{1
r
~~
~~
h
~~
Borup: I don't think I have any. No. His letter already stated they agreed with and
complied with all the conditions, so that makes it easy.
Rohm: Works forme. ~
Newton-Huckabay: I just wish this would have come before the other one, so we could
give an example of the challenges of developing only a couple of acres.
Borup: Yeah. ~'
Newton-Huckabay: You, too? Is that what you said?
Rohm: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: That was a given, I thought. Okay. Public testimony. Is there
anybody that would like to speak to this application?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, a question either of the applicant or the staff. Somewhere I
missed it. Are they being required to build a sidewalk along McMillan?
Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, we are. We will do a five foot
detached sidewalk that will meander through the berm along the frontage of the zone.
Zaremba: I thought I knew that, but I couldn't find it right now. Just wanted to be sure.
Good. Thank you. That's the only question I had.
Newton-Huckabay: Is the property to the east in the pipeline to be developed?
Because aren't they all -- the other three are already --
Lucas: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- I think I have touched a
wrong button here. But I think that -- from what I understand there has -- there has
been discussions on numerous of those properties. All of those five acre parcels have
been in contact with -- with all but one I'm hearing from Mike Cole -- have been in
contact with planning staff and Public Works regarding possible redevelopment. I don't
know of any specific pre-application meeting that has taken place that I have been --
that Ihave attended, but from other planners I have heard that there is -- there are plans
for those -- for those parcels.
S
Ae o
A !p
~~ ~ ~ ~S ~.
~ K f
~ ~ ~
~~ir~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~Y.
.. ~ ~ ,,
:N~ ~.Y1~
4
' S t r ,~ f t~~~yxV
3
3' ~r ~ R~i~',..
I~ 7y P
r d t
~4
~j~ ,
~~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~
a.~ ^~ "k.~ c2 ## ~
~~ ~ air ~
fir. ~? K ~ a
,.t~~
,,,-`
~,
~Z, ~ ~ ~~ ~~~;
~ ~~ ~a
S ,a
'l y F, r.
}µ~ r ~~ c, ~,,
,1`~_ iln'~~..
r F~ ~ r j~a ¢T (h:E ':
qi
i ? ~ i t `x~~ ~~
~, I ;~:
r ~ r,x ti e~i,•
"! t ,e, y
~~ ~~ t~'~
4 2 j ~~}.
a !~
~ ., ,
b }f
(.
b" i~ S. ~ aa'~:..
h~
t¢ a ~~ ~
~ ~
x i
;,:;~
:~;`,
~I
fi, •'
~:
~6:
~:
~_
r%%
!T,
~~
~.,
~..
~~.
si
~T
Y
_~:
`:{i,
'~~
e~~
i N
~~
2 •.,
`y~
~~
>~
".;,fr
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 79 of 90
Newton-Huckabay: My only concern with these is what is it going to look like with these
great big huge lots? I mean will they be able to be redeveloped at some point when the
land becomes more valuable than the house? Are they big -- I mean are they big
enough to put similar size houses on?
Lucas: Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, absolutely. I believe there was a
note in the staff report that talks about the possible redevelopment of the lot. It was
discussed at length during the Harpe Subdivision. It was a little bit different, because
they had requested R-8 zoning. The discussion was shorter in the staff report this time,
because that 50,000 square foot lot, with the R-4 zoning and the low density
designation on the Comp Plan, there is a possibility for it to redevelop and it certainly
has enough street frontage to -- you know, to carve off possibly three or four lots there.
And that would still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the density for that
area. So, definitely, they do have redevelopment potential, but just to be clear, there
are no plans for that right now that I -- that we are aware of. The house is slated to
remain on that lot.
Newton-Huckabay: Right.
Borup: They would be pretty large homes to tear down.
Newton-Huckabay: I can understand the large homes, but they just look awkward when
the subdivisions are completed I think.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-056 and PP 06-054.
Borup: Second.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-056 and
PP 06-054. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, of which we didn't have
much, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-056 and PP
06-054 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 7th, 2006.
Newton-Huckabay: Second.
,t
I ~ Z~
Y.
J~R~1 ;~i,jfY ~:t Y l `: AM
4 ~}
~~ t ri y: 7~k~,
3 ~ y i.
S ii
~f` { A~ ~T
+C~y~
pN+4'1 Y 9 7 -hi` ~ ~t
r i4 4 1 r-, ~ .
~~,5y8tt ~: ;~
r'
f b' ~
i ~ yi, l .•
f ..~a
,::?
1 A f~ ~~
J ~ Nb !~
'~ ~ 3 r
~', i,
~~... L ~ t. ~•
i • ajl '
~T' "
--~YS -J
~ '~
J~ F '1 =
t
~ ~ I~
i It. TI
. ~.ti3
~.{
f~ r ~ {~,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 80 of 90
~~;
i
_~
1
;,~
~II
;.~
::r~
`~
.. ~: ,
,~
°~
-,
>~
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-056 and PP 06-54. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
Motion carves.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-055 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8
lots on 39.28 acres in existing I-L zone and C-G zones for Seyam
Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - 3660 E Lanark Street:
Rohm: We are done with that one. Shall we go home? Let's open -- at this time I'd like
to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-055 related to Seyam Subdivision and begin with
the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm and Commissioners. This project, as stated,
consists of a preliminary plat of approximately -- a proposed preliminary plat of
approximately 39.28 acres located on the north side of Franklin Road, approximately
1,200 feet east of the intersection of Franklin Road and Eagle Roads. The subject
property is currently zoned C-G and I-L and the applicant is requesting approval of -- for
a preliminary plat that contains eight lots with a mix of commercial and industrial zoning.
Just to clarify, the lots aren't necessarily all mixed between that zoning, but there are
some industrial lots and some commercial lots. I don't give an exact number, because
there is a little bit of -- there are some lots that have mixed zoning, so I couldn't tie that
down exactly. Just to give a little history of this area, to the -- to the west is the R.C.
Willey complex, which is a large, obviously, commercial development. To the north you
have the railroad tracks and the Commerce Park industrial subdivision, zoned I-L, this
large area here. To the south is Franklin Road and the Touchmark Living Center, which
is, as we all know, developing as a large medical residential care facility, all types of
uses that are going in there. And to the east is the -- are some rural residents, these
long, skinny parcels, obviously, zoned RUT and there is a small one zoned R-1 in Ada
County. Also, just of note, there has been some prior development on this -- within the
boundaries of this proposed preliminary plat. There is a large warehouse complex, I
believe it's -- the existing at 52,000 square feet. It's 72,000 square feet and there has
also been some proposals to expand that on both the east and west sides and also the
Ashley Fumiture store, the Ashley Fumiture building, which is located on the southwest
comer of the proposed preliminary plat. Just to give a -- kind of a history on what's
going on here and why there has been some previous development, in 2004 the current
property owner applied for and received approval for an administrative lot split, which
was allowed at that time for this parcel. The purpose of that one-time split was to create
the 3.74 Ashley Fumiture site, basically, and leave the 35.55 acres, which contains that
large warehouse. As a condition of that one time split, the applicant agreed to -- at
some point bring this whole thing into a preliminary plat, which included, basically, the
whole -- the whole original parcel. That kind of gives the history on why this is before us
and kind of the existing conditions in that area. I think we can move on. This is an older
aerial photograph that does not show the Ashley Fumiture site, but it definitely shows
the R.C. Willey complex there. This is the proposed preliminary plat. I think we will
~
{ f , ~ „ ~ i
' ~ r~ ccfv r x
~ t~~1
~ } -
1
,
1 ~ ~ pp..k
I E
I S f @di N
+;6
~ e j
,
.
r i r ~h~q~~
~~.
I ~ 1
~r r W 1 T? ' F c
~~
'
y.'
i i
I f
~:
~
--~~
~ .
r
~ 'u-~!n~
=
t...
Lc. .
Z!i.
f ~~ A~ ~ ~~ ~~`
~ obi T
•
. r ~ , ~ a ~ «r ~sa=
~
~7 1 ~ ~
~.~- ~ f ~"f ~F~1i1~
~, ~
~ ~ ~ ~'
,,
d i ~~ r ~';
=`
f
y iii
~
~
j ~k !
Y'ka ~H
~ '
r
~" r
T
~ LL t ~
'3
r
"
~
1 '
}"
f
Y.
ST IslII ~ ~k
~* '
.
, .
~~` _Q. i~Yl F
~ ~ ~-
a ~ ~ ~L ~~ r ,~v
-y~- ~ ~, i ~ C~ 7~8~
~ ~~ ..
~
~
~
,~. ~
r~ I ' ~ s SSt,, -
c> ~
irr
I
i r~
~A~~~~^ 3
,~: P
~"q~' i
~~~ w
f
,
~ _ ~.
~ 'Y ~ ~ ~ Y?il: 5
~ ky.
1
7
-,
a ~ , j
~~ ~~il
I'
III
t `
~ #
~'
~
~
V
~
I ~ 1
"t~ y
~ ?' F ~ ,f~M I
z
'~.
5
S S i
Y
a
4
'
~. ,
~ ~ A ~ y. ~ 4 ~~ ~~~q~. i
9:
Y
.y~
J y
'vP~4t
I ~
~,
~.
~' ,f ..
~
I 1 4
f• i _
~ ~ ~ c' ' ~, urn;
,~~ ~ , ,~
Idfh ~ 1
^~ ~~~
~
'~
.
6A
££ SW~ 19j ~i i iN Iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ]
'
E
~
~; M1
tl
z'
,IS•.~[<.~i.^ '.. _ Ott}, ,:1; :.. 4,';
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning • o
December 7, 2006
Page 81 of 90
~'_~ ~ start talking about the street sections. The applicant is proposing two new public streets
z' - with this application. The first of these streets, East Lanark, which runs like this, is
fi= , almost completely constructed at this time as a private street. After discussing it with
the applicant, they have been working with ACHD to insure that this met all the -- all the
standards to the -- at some point changed over to a public street and that's what they
are proposing to do at this time, is to tum that private street into a public street. The
applicant is also proposing to extend -- there is a -- currently a signalized intersection
here at Franklin and Touchmark and the applicant is proposing to extend that
"'' Touchmark Way to intersect with Lanark Street. This really -- I guess talking about the
r streets brings up the largest issue I think that came out of the staff report, which was the
extension of Lanark Street all the way to the eastem property boundary. Currently the
applicant is showing this as a future phase two, but they also are platting this as a -- or
proposing to plat this as a lot and block in a subdivision. After discussing numerous
' options with the applicant, we kind of came to the conclusion that the -- one of the best
ways to do this -- maybe not the best, but one of the ways we could do this -- just staffs,
a .
~,. I guess, main concern was that this street be extended as a stub to these properties to
the -- to the east. While it's not shown on this preliminary plat, after discussing it with
the applicant, we decided to just create this phase two as a no-build lot until a
subsequent preliminary plat is submitted for this site that shows Lanark Street being
extended all the way to the -- to the eastem property boundary. Now, staff isn't
z necessarily saying it has to go there, there are options, we'd just like to see a stub to the
eastem property boundary. And I believe the conditions were pretty clear in the staff
report on how that can work. I think probably the best thing to do now would be to
-~. address -- the applicant has submitted a specific letter talking about some -- some
points that -- of clarification or some -- maybe some disagreements that he may have
with the staff report. I think I'll just address those directly and that would probably help
finish this presentation. The first one he talks about is in Exhibit B, section 1.13, which
he talks about the grade difference along Franklin Road and how that grade is going
s: affect the installation of the landscape buffers on that road. The standard condition is
that we -- the UDC requires that all subdivision improvements be installed prior to
~~
~ occupancy of any structure that may be built within a subdivision and while the applicant
, ,
~~- ~
may be asking for that to be modified, staffs position is that that's what the -- the UDC
requires that and staff believes that that's the best way to do it, especially along an
entryway corridor where this is really kind of a gateway into the city and when we see
« the installation of a landscape buffer, it's nice to have it done all at one time, so when
the trees do mature they are all maturing at the same rate and there aren't large spaces
between where one lot may develop and one lot may not. It's nice to see it all go in
'` contiguously. I think that would be staffs response to that question. The second one is
in Exhibit B, section 1.1.3, the third bullet point, where the applicant discusses the
' ~ elimination of the requirement of the 25 buffer as required by the UDC between the C-G
and I-L zones. Once, again, that comes directly out of the Unified Development Code
- and staff believes that that buffer between those uses is -- is essential in these areas as
they develop to protect future land uses and conflicts that can arise from -- it's not just
~' C-G, but the UDC actually requires that there be a 25 foot buffer between I-L and all
`~' other -- any other district, except for I-H, which would be the heavy industrial. And so
~` staff response to that would be, once again, that that is a requirement we see as coming
x
~
`
~ a •~ ~r- .
~r
~4 <t
k
~ } ~
~
~ i ~~, ~ ~~ '1
i ; ~' ~.
a
;'
,
~
~ ,
[
~
~
I ~ 4t'S4 ~ ~ ~
~'~~~;~_''
.
~
,c~~ ~
:.
~ w ~
;
.~
t
7.
.. . ~
h.
~r
'~•44
T~
y
, .
t ~
~ -
i
~9
~:
_ 4
I
y:.
~
9 i ~
r
.~rp ~ .
~ ~ '~ n~i~ ~ ~.
1 ice':
Uy . ~ _ ~ ~ '~
1 ~ ~ r
ri ~ 'vJ1t~~i~~lK;.
~~I
:~ ~
1
S t 7
r
r
~ i
r
4
y
..
i
'
1
-. ~ ~~a.~y~:
J
J ~~~} ~ }
~~~ ~ t :
~`
1. :
~ 7 4, .
R ~igy ~ ~ ~,5 ~ q~.F::
~ '§f 4 i L~ ~
~S ~~_
~
1 f
-
--
F
e'
1:. §
f
~•C
.~ ' r ~ f 1~~ ~f~i'r,'
~ 93~
~'.~ I ; ~. { ' 1 ~ f 9' 4 r v 1:.i'
;, ~ 1 j
1 ~ . x ~n
~
7 I
~ I~ a 1 ~~
~r
~ )+( Xti ~
a
~I ~~
t ~ ~ '
t
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~h ~k
~N
r ~
~~
~
~ ~;
;
,~ ,
~ ~ ~~,.
~~ 5~ l~~f r~k
` ~ 4 1;
`sd ~ ~ ~ t d At A~ i`bu~rr'.,.
~ / a
~i r . Ffly
~
-A~ S ~ 1.~ ~
"
r,
I
fy
~ ° Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
m~~
°
" ~
December 7, 2006
ti~ ;' ~ Page 82 of 90
_ .~~, straight out of the UDC and we would stand by the code. The last one will help clarify
:~ that a little bit. In the staff report we talked a little bit about how staff described a little bit
how the lot lines should coincide with the zoning district boundary and after discussing it
-'`i with the applicant, at least for this section, the applicant's proposing that rather than as
:~` , ' the staff report says to adjust the property boundary to coincide with the zoning district,
the a licant ro oses to have out -- to submit a rezone a lication, so that the zonin
pP~ P P PP~ 9
~- district will actually coincide with the property lines. Especially in this situation where
~:
the Ashley Furniture is already zoned C-G and the applicant seems to be proposing to
~
:: ,';:;
I zone this whole block as C-G, that is -- that would be consistent with -- I guess the
''" easiest way to say it -- staff used that as a favorable solution to that -- to that problem,
because bringing the zoning -- the C-G zoning district to the center line of that road and
zoning that all C-G is, generally, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff
would view that rezone as favorable, just to clean up that area a little bit and make
~;.:
rr.
~~ ' these all C-G lots, but staff does believe on this side that the -- that the district
~.:.
+" boundaries should coincide with the -- with the lot lines as described in the staff report.
So, it kind of cleans it up on this side, but there still remains the issue on this side.
`'~~~ ~ think that addresses all of the major concerns. Staff is recommending approval of the
~W ~ proposed Seyam Subdivision, with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report
,S. and I would stand for any questions.
~ "
~
~ , Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? I think you're on.
~.:
~' Miller: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Brad Miller, with Van
~: Auker Properties, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. I just want to point out first that --
s• excuse the odd name for the subdivision, we bought the property from the Mayes
family, Carmen and Orin Mayes and we wanted to call it the Mayes Subdivision, but the
`' county would not allow us to use that name, because they said it was too much, so we
put -- spelled Mayes backwards is what we did there, so -- because I wanted to show
respect to the Mayes family and recognize that. So, that's Mayes spelled backwards.
"~
Just so ou know. This buildin here is 72,000 s uare feet -- oh, that's reat, Justin.
~~ Y 9 q 9
Thank you. We are proposing to do an addition on both sides. We are already in for
the building permit. It's interesting, this whole area here has really changed. R.C. ;;
Willey there and Ashley Furniture there, I mean I really don't think that this area up here
is really right for industrial development right now and this here is more quasi-
~~~'= wholesale, very light industrial. I don't see manufacturing uses ever going in this area, it
just wouldn't be consistent with the neighborhood. We tend to -- other than the Ashley
site, we tend to subdivide, build on the properties, and, then, own the properties
ourselves, so this property here we lease it out and Mr. Van Auker owns it and we
would plan to do the same with all of these. So, we would be the ultimate owners. At
~' some point we would probably sell them, but we have properties now that we have
`~` owned since the '70s, so we are not big sellers of property. The reason for this over
here, this phase two, is we just don't know exactly what we want to do there in the
'`'`~ ` future, but we would agree that this road will be extended in the future, maybe it will be
;= straight across, maybe it will curve, we also own parcels down here and we have got, I
~' don't know, 20 acres or so down there. So, some of those long parcels we do own, so it
: • ~`r'~ ~} I
l •
~ 5 ~ 1 ~ ~~
,
~ ~ 6
' . ti
9 e'Y~K
~ e
'
~
I a I
~ I is ~
i ty4
.
~ ~ t
_
1
{{
..' Y ~ !'
~% ,
~~* ~ ~~~
: i' ;. II
~ I' I '
I i "
( I
;
~~~ '
x ~ °'
S.
i
.
y l
,~ u
°
q <
a~ s
l,:?,m,
~s fir, I
"''
~
I
~ j
I ~
a
o-
*
I
~
~ ' '
,
~ ~~
~ r
~. ~'
fl ~ ^,$
~3 ;~;.i d
I 1 1
,=~
~
L
~l
;
a :
~:tt
nY.+
~ ~:
I
I i
t
,
4 { ~y ,
I .
~ ~
' I ~~ .i. . . ~i ~ }a' ~,~ .,1~ ~..~ I~ ~ ~ ;..~..n. SAN., ,
~~
s?
`e~... ~: d. ~
2+ ? +~q ~~ i11~~;
~ ~;,.
3~
* ;~ ~f e~,r~~~,,
;i
~._.~, ,
;.;
~H: r ~r~~~~~~~~,:
st ~~~ it
r ,q:~~
w ?~- ~ . f1~~;,..
f
~~
' ~ i4'.Sta ~-
F ~~~ y S i~~f~~"'
5 ~,~ ~ y i ~~e~{
~.n ~, ~.
>r - ~k ,
r b ~~ 321;~4+i
4, p o- c
~~:: ; .
t Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
~~- Page 83 of 90
would be in our benefit at some point to extend that. In regard to --Justin, did you have
any of those photographs that I sent over to you?
~.,
~, Lucas: Let's see if I can bring them up.
Miller: In regards to the grade. If you would -- if you could go to the one of the Ashley
~
Furniture, the -- two issues on this on this landscaping. The staff report requires that it
~` ~ all be installed prior the final plat being recorded. In a residential subdivision typically
` that landscaping would be located in a separate common lot. In a subdivision such as
~~ `~ this the ownership of that area would not be in a common lot, it would be part of the --
~ each lot would own that -- the -- that area, but it would be designated as an easement
and by doing that the irrigation for each of these would be provided by that -- each
building that's built there would provide the irrigation there. So, we really don't have a
vehicle or a method right now to provide irrigation to all of this and, in addition, this area
here you will note if -- when Justin brings this up, that this area right here, a retaining
wall is required all around this area and because of the grade in here you're probably 10
to 12 feet below the road level and so there will be a retaining wall required along this
~" '' whole area here. This gets a -- it's probably five or six feet below road -- road level
there. So, we feel that right now that it would be very difficult to install the landscaping
~. ~ there and it wouldn't make any sense to install it right now. We would like to be able to
~ defer that, so that when these properties develop out that we would, obviously, do the ~"
landscaping at that time and we would operate against a master landscape plan. The
. issue of the zoning, you can see that line right there is the actual zoning line. It's C-G
on the south of that line and it's I-L up here. The Ashley parcel you can see it was
divided. We actually changed that zoning and modified it to the property lines. What I
':
~
,
would propose is I think that we are going to want to take all these properties to a
commercial use. The only real issue with this different zoning, this split zoning would be ~
right here and we would propose to probably just shift the zoning, so change this a little
bit to C-G here and we may or may not go see C-G with that. For now I think we will
just say keep it industrial. So, in regard to the 25 foot buffer between the commercial
r` ~ uses and the industrial uses, this would be the only -- assuming we -- we rezone all this,
this would be the only area property where that would be an issue and with us being
owners on both sides of that, on both properties, we don't see a conflict between the
proposed industrial use and the commercial use and the buffer is to protect the
commercial uses from the industrial uses and we don't feel a need to protect ourselves
on that. So, I would ask to -- that you, please, waive that. I think that -- I think that
covers everything. You couldn't find those pictures?
Lucas: I have them, actually.
~' Miller: Okay. That would be great if you could just shows those real quick. This is the
Ashley site and you can't see it very well. There is another one that's a straight on shot
of the retaining wall, Justin, if you have that. That right there you can see there is the
road level right there, you got the retaining wall right here and you have got landscaping
up above and landscaping down below, with parking lot lights there. We just think it
t: ' would be very difficult at this time for us to be able to do that landscaping -- I mean we
-:; 3
a~
%Y
t ~,_
,fi
;y
~~
~~
`~~~c
~_ ?t
~;,?
,~;
.??
i •'
~~~
a ~ " 'i~'
~;
a~ ~'~
~,
~ ~ ~ i'~:
~ ~ f~ ~{~,
f.
!t
f, } ~
iL.l ~~ ~`
i ~ 7 $
~ S
~~~';
~~ s~~
;.i.~ ~r~~~$k
~~ 4 ~!
t
s ';~ ~ ti„
i 'r ~ r'
r y;
vim. ~~ ~~ 4~~~
`Y
E 7 1 :1 0 ~.'~ f'4 '.
x ~ ;~~'
.#~
j
E v ~~~
ti~{' Q,
1FF~:y
~~ ~~4 1
1; ,t~iR~
~~~
a.~
N S a t~~
.,
r
~! >'
s
~_::;
n-:
1,
~r;
~)
"?I
s:
`Tk
~~
,.
;;
Ft
~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 84 of 90
fully intend to do -- this is only 25 feet of landscaping, but we fully intend to do 35 feet of
landscaping, but we feel that that should be developed out as each lot is constructed
on. And, Justin, could you just pull to a couple of those others that show -- this is
perfect. This shows the Ashley area here and this shows our property down to that
intersection of Touchmark, so you can see what we have there and what we are dealing
with there and I don't know exactly how we do that and -- because we don't know what
we are going to build here yet, but I would propose that I clean up those weeds and just
keep in looking nice and, then, do the landscaping at a later date when we build on
those lots.
Borup: It sounds like the retaining wall is the main problem with that.
Miller: The retaining wall is the real issue. That's correct. So, we don't know where the
parking would be and those things and we'd like to defer that, the perimeter landscaping
for now. Thank you.
Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none
--okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I probably would comment that I can see the applicant's point on paragraph
one of the applicant's letter. Paragraph two, I would want to discuss possibly altemate
compliance. If the buffer isn't there, could there be some extra trees put somewhere
else when you eventually do it or -- I guess that's a question for both the applicant and
staff. Is there a way to allow them to -- not really putting the 25 foot buffer, but altemate
compliance of some sort.
Lucas: Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, altemative compliance landscape buffers
between uses are eligible for altemative compliance, much like most of the streetscape
standards. So, the answer would be yes. That altemative -- usually the altemative
compliance applications -- it's a director determination, but staff always appreciates if
you -- if there are ideas from the Commission to give staff some direction on how -- on
what you think might be some good alternatives in that area, whether it be a -- simply a
reduction in the width of the buffer or as you -- you know, we go kind of on the hard 25
feet or ten feet or 15 feet, you know, whatever is viewed as appropriate by the
Commission.
Zaremba: Well, on my part it was not a fully formed thought, but I -- I always like the
idea of more trees. Trees exchange dirty air for clean air and, you know, if there could
be a few extra trees than required, does that help?
Lucas: Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it does. Actually, the description of the
landscape buffer between uses does require a full screen of trees at their full -- at their
a
.. ~
S.J ~: 4 3 ~
~ ~1 } i vv ~ a~t .
~ ~~j,~;
r tw ~s; N r,i~-
ti ' r. t 1~~.'.::-
~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ J~
t~
~ ~
~,r ,~ 4 ~~
v ~ ~~
,j •,.. .., •r~.
~~
- ,,
t~ ~~t~~1'~;
i ~ p %~~F:: v,~-
r. y f
~,
~ ~~;~~
w~ ~ ~4•:
~ F ~",~ '~
i ~ w a ~,~
~t~r ~ r~ o~ ~~'
~r Ya~r,~~9 ~M"r7i
it~z h~ w ~' y~, 19M1 ~ii~i,
r.,+..~- l ~3 k~~o!~A
s a ~ Rt c:c
r ~ ~~~,~J
w~},.
~ ~
!~ ~ .
! ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~ E~ ~.;
~ .
r l a~
t~ ~4
t''~E ~~ j;cyk ~~ i~t ~~'~~~i.
`~ 3 r:.
~'-,:,.
{+,
~~~ r e~ ~~~~i~~ia,•
~ ~
~ ,
~ ® •
I Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
,; ,:.:
rC~ December 7, 2006
~: Page 85 of 90
~~~ ' time of maturity, which means that just in the basic description it talks about how the
trees need to touch at the time of maturity. So, that is -- so, that his automatically built
;; into the landscaping buffer between uses, but if you feel that possibly 25 feet is too
~.: .
much, so maybe a -- the trees will go in, but maybe it's a reduction in the -- in the width
~~ ~ of that buffer that you might be looking for.
Zaremba: But I guess what I was doing is -- if I'm interpreting what the applicant is
interested in, certainly reducing the width of the landscaping buffer, but even putting the
trees somewhere else, not in that buffer, you know, adding if -- if there could 6e
~~ additional trees along the Franklin Road and that would make the place look better. I
~5:: , don't know. I'm just throwing out ideas.
Hood: And if I may, just -- what we are charged with looking at at staff with those
altemative compliance requests is -- is what's being proposed in our a as an altemative
superior in quality to what the ordinance currently requires. Now, that -- it can be -- it's
subjective, but it -- the ordinance is written up here, I don't know what anyone could
really do that's going to make it better, but, really, if the intent is met, we will approve
those on a regular basis. So, depending on where those trees are located, it may be --
it may be consistent with the intent of having the land use separation in the buffer, but
not knowing where buildings or parking is going to go, it's hard to say where those trees
should go. I mean I have -- you know, next to buildings, you know, between the front
door of the industrial building and the front door of the commercial building, kind of -- I
mean I don't know, but without having a site plan and knowing where the buildings are
- going to be sited, it -- that's real difficult.
Borup: I think that's a problem. I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, I have got
conflicting -- that's the only item I have got concern on from the applicant's changes.
But we have got an unknown. I mean if they are both zoned C-G, then, that problem
~' wouldn't exist, but that's -- you say that's going to be the use, maybe that ought to be
'- ~` the way to go, but, you know, you say you're going to retain it, but that can change and
some day that could be a heavy industrial use there. We don't know. So, I think we
}'~~`` need an alternate compliance may be the answer, I -- you know, if we are looking at
screening, I would look at -- I mean I would be in favor of some ~ of bushes in between
the trees, as the trees mature and grow, you know, you take the bushes out, if that's
~~ ~ what needs to be, but something needs to be there.
~`
~,
,;. Miller: Commissioner Borup, there would never be any heavy industrial uses there,
~_
because it would not -- it's not allowed within an I-L zone, so --
,;
~~ Borup: Well, yeah, Ididn't -- I mean more intense industrial.
~; Miller: Right. But we would have --
~a° ~ Borup: More than what's there on the other industrial property now.
-..
ly k' Ir ~ ia~'l3~;.
v d~yi_
5 . 2, ~ I ~ ~;l~,
t .~
i !.',?"
!~ ~;~i__
~i~~i~ g
~~l~ ~~¢~
fi7! y i,
s $
r
I
1 x l j ~ ~ ,~ i 4i.
/ ~ ! b ~ 1 lh .` .y V
iE' y ~ ~ h ..~ .: ~•
.fit ,. ;~•.,:, ,.;t r , , ` ,~ ~ \f `3.r...~~.
p gq~~.
.. _.. _....w! F s9~._ ... .f;'.:i: V.' ... ~ S ~ - I _ _.'F3'l~t:Ny..b
0.
1
Y
_,::~
y
i~/
~'j
=k
hf
t ~a[r
~y ~
IK r 7
~r~ ~~ "~
~ , ~~
s
~. '~! i + ~ El+
~~~ r ti Y ~~~'~
z '~~{{~
~ }. ~ 1~,
-f. ~ C
L
£~~ I }
( ~.
Y1 1f~
{ ~} 4
~Y ~ }:.7.
af~ ~ ~ ~~ }
LC Y f j 7
}r' ! ~:
F~I Y ~y
i~ TF
~ ~,'~f
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
t ;,
t';ii
a
f 5•iA,F'.~j~l.
~._;w3t ~n„~~~r
y: ~~
i
it:
a
SR
r,f
~~
6~
~`~
:k
Meridian Planning & Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 86 of 90
C
Miller: Right. There would be a minimum of five feet on each side of the property line
as we develop those out, so there would be a minimum ten feet total that we would -- of
landscaping that we would put in with each project. We just don't see a reason for the
25 feet. And if you want more trees, I mean we are okay with that. I mean we would be
willing to work with staff to try to find a solution that, like you say --
Borup: But you still want to keep the I-L zone, though?
Miller: Well, I don't know if we do or not. I mean for now, yeah, I think so. Because we
don't know what's going to go there. I mean we have owned that property for 13 years
and, you know, we haven't been in a big hurry just to develop it. It could be another 13
years before we have it fully developed out. But since we don't know what's going to go
there, I mean it's kind of hard to come up with an alternate compliance.
Borup: And that's the same reason we need a buffer, because we don't know what's
going to go there. You're making our argument or the staffs argument.
Miller: But is 25 feet of landscaping any different than ten feet? I mean is it really going
to make a difference? My argument's no, it's not going to, because you're going to have
the trees there, you're --
Borup: Oh, I agree with that. Something can be reduced. But five feet doesn't --
doesn't do it.
Miller: Well, it would be a total of ten.
Borup: But that's on the other property.
Miller: Well, you're going to have five on one, five on the other, so -- anyway, thank you.
Borup: Well, what's been agood -- a good buffer from previous applications on a
reduced setback. Has there been -- does staff have -- I mean does ten do it? Does it
need to be 15?
Lucas: Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think a recent application from this same
applicant -- I believe it was the Creamline Park Subdivision, there was a similar
situation, it was I-L abutting a county residential district and in that situation the City
Council -- when it went before City Council they required a ten foot land use buffer --
landscaping buffer between uses with six foot vinyl fence and that was the requirement.
They came through that --
Borup: Is that the one at Franklin and Linder area?
Lucas: Yes. Yes.
Borup: Okay. Did we close the hearing?
~ , ~ i E ~s
~' 3it ii ~~~~~.
~~77 3'l
} .~
fl `~ C~1
r, ~.,'
x ~ •,
,~, ~„~..
~_
cF ~~>ta b ~
~,J,
n ~ ~?if
-.~P as a ,? '~+~ ~ ~~i
bard ~+~ ~
s~ ¢.~ ~ t~.aK,~~~r
+>;:
F ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~>
r~~
~. r ~ ': a~ ~~~~
.. ~i, ~n~
Y f : ~ ~ n
~E
'~~~:.
,;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~a...:
E«.~ ro ~ ~~t ~.
ta~~r~i~i ~`~~
p~~ er a ~ ,~E ~~~3h,,'
i
F ~,:
i'.~r tcau
} a lye
~E r fi
r ~r ~ k ~ N'ttn~..
..
~. ~~ ~ Y~ t r ~~
~~
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
_, ~.~ Page 87 of 90
.~
i
Rohm: I don't think we did, but I was thinking -- no, I don't think we have.
~~~ Zaremba: So moved.
Moe: Second.
4~`°° ``~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing.
~o,
~~ , I
Rohm: Public Hearing on PP 06-055. All those in favor say aye. Okay.
~' Commissioner Borup, you appear to have a pretty good feel for this. Would you like to
_;
take a stab at a motion?
Borup: Well, maybe some discussion. I think I agree with Commissioner Zaremba, I'm
~ -`_' ~ -- the buffer was the only -- main concern Ihad -- Item No. 3, staff was in agreement
with, so Item Number 1 is where we would differ from staffs comments and I, too, have
_ ; ' the same concern with landsca rn alon
p' g g -- along Franklin, but probably if it wasn't for
~`` °~ ' the grade, we would have a different opinion about it. So, I know how Commissioner
Zaremba felt. Do the other Commissioners agree or --
~ Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the -- Commissioner Zaremba and Borup in
~''
; ~' regards to this hearing, as far as the buffer. I really don't have a problem with a ten foot
~:
`;
buffer.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Then, if everyone's in agreement -- it's not going to get back.
t.
~~
Zaremba: On page one.
s~ ,` Borup: Yeah. After considering all staff, applicant testimony, I move to recommend
`= approval to the City Council file number PP 06-055 as presented in the staff report
for
,
the hearing date of December 7th, 2006. The following modifications to include the
paragraphs -- I mean to include the comments from Mr. Miller in his letter dated
December 7th, to item one as he states it and Item 2, the 3rd bullet from 1.13 to allow
reduced buffer between the two zones of ten feet, with some additional landscaping
worked out by staff. And then -- and, then, also to do the -- as he recommended, do the
;, zoning adjustments to coincide with the lot lines.
~.
~~ Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of P&Z 06-055 to include all staff comments, hence the aforementioned
modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
,~a
t . _~.
,:
'~~
{
,#
r
;~
S
' A~
r,.
'~ i " ~~ t~~ ~dk~~~';
~
~,
j,t {{
3 ~, f~ Y ~'~
~~ ~
axe' ~~
'
~
~
'~ ~
°
,
~~ ~~~ '~t
x t ~{.
a~~~, W E ~~~` ~~~~
;~ ~~~ ~ ~~
t j i F#^ r, ~ +`
k ~r ~
~y ~ y 3 _
~ ~~~~~
+,.
~~ ~ Ai ~~
*r
h S f 1 ?`~ / Pt ,~' ,Ir ~, r,
b i
1 ~ -ri411~~R
~' i,1;
~r i ~ ,
~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ z
. ~ ,~
r ;;
3
~ ~ ~ ~~~a;
gg r1~;
~yGr 1 `~ ~~Nt~~~'
rSti ! .~c 1ie fi~i~~~~
~ ~~
~' l
x
~;'
H
~',
rR:
~`
:~.-
,`1
~: _;:
r~
ji
z
+~
It
T~,
•!
;8
:}
~3
M
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 88 of 90
Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91
acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River
Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road:
Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73
residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15
zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055
& 6185 N. Jericho Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-057 and PP 06-56 for the
sole purpose of continuing them to the February 8th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Moe: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056 to
the regularly scheduled meeting of February 8th, 2007. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 16: Election of Officers for 2007:
Rohm: We have one item.
Moe: Just take another year and we'll call it good.
Rohm: Well, actually, I would like to do it another year, but --
Moe: You can do a two year. I nominate Michael Rohm for Commission chairman for
next year. Is there a second?
Zaremba: I do and I move the nominations cease.
Moe: Second.
Newton-Huckabay: And are we -- are we allowed to do that?
Borup: Unless Wendy wanted to do it. Is that what we are saying?
Moe: It's a two year thing.
Zaremba: It can be.
i,F y ~1~~
~
VVII
" ~
IG
~ x-#~i z
i
s
~~
_
~
~ K +
~;
~
4
I h
1 ~ , V y i y
IY 1 'p i~ R~~
~~i ~
~
.y
}
.
i (NF
i f ~ 1 `
~
~
~
t
J
~ ~
I
~~ '~ ~ J
~r
H~~ ~ ~7 ~
S V v. ! ~. ;.r
3 i
~~
~>gt ~~ yyyy~
y~)~ ~.
'3 ~~
'~
:
d~
~ ~ `
C
~
j
~
{.
y t
i
i~
~
r
~
2~" t )
)
~ $-q x ~. iC Cr ~~l~~f l
l
~. F ,. j i` ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~~
~
~
y
;r
td
~
a
C
y'
s
, ~ 1 P
y
p
"'~ ~~1 ~r a'1~.j.
~yi 11 111''' _
j 4
b i
y
~ } ' ii i;
}
~~ {
4
e
1- I
~
~ } p y~
~£ 7, fJ
~
r~'17_ I
~ _. ~. ~~
_
i a3
s +
r n ~ i
# ~d~e4?~L.
y
~
,.~
F v' a `~„
f k~ 115 ~.`~i ~
!
L
' ~ I
~
~
a,
,~
. i x
~ 9 b ,~I ~y1~ 'M1q ~:
3~ 7 ~ 4 xk"~,ifakf~
~'
wA. , r ~ r i ~;
i
e
,~ a- tt .
~
~e
_ S9. i~'t'~
F ~(¢. ~~
"
~
~ :i
~ f ~
I
1
i
~ x
~~w
yr, ~ i ~
y Y
I ~
F
F'. :.
~.
G
\I
JV
~~
~~
~{
;~
Y
,.::
~.
., ,~
-C~
%;a#
~4
5?
~::
~ 3~
:~
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning •
December 7, 2006
Page 89 of 90
Borup: It can be. It takes nine months to learn what you're doing, doesn't it?
Rohm: It does. I'm just starting to feel a little bit more comfortable. I'd like to -- I'd like
to do that for another year, so it's been moved and seconded that Mike Rohm be placed
the nomination for chairman of the P&Z for 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to nominate Commissioner Moe to be vice-chairman.
Zaremba: Second. Mr. Chairman, I move the nominations cease.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Are we looking at moving up the chairs, more or less? So, Commissioner Moe
is going to be ready in a year?
Rohm: That's the thought.
Zaremba: I think we ought to just keep shifting.
Rohm: Yeah. I'm down there by Mr. Nary next year.
Nary: That's great.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: Good night, folks.
..aid tij~, ~~ ~M1~;:
~ ~ pJ ,
~i~ i b fs ~~0
t~ e5 ~~=
~~ Y ~ ~ ~~~. ~ 14
L q{ ~_
~~ w < ~~ tY vjY
peq~~sy ~3@ t } Fv ~Y a~ s.
e:'r.
y
`' p i',
'ed "' 6r~A~r~~
r 6
a ~ ~i
~~~;'
,~ ~~ a `~ r v any;.:
r ;~~ ~'_~
~_ i
~ ~ sir
~r~ LL~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti~,~~•y ~,~ _
~ .r~
r d ~ 2~ y
~ h if ~i~l~i
A j ~. Zry 5 d~~Ya.-.
6 'l(, `
`~ ~~ If
,ail ~ ~~
i S
~~~F~ 4 ~ ~~i~ ~ .
t t .~ r afi~~~t~~t~i,.
} l}5..
% 4 ,
j j ~:
f. •.~ ~~ :{3.:r
s1 ei,..
~~
> ~~ ~ ~~ '~
~;. ~~ ~
~~C~:
~r f ~ ~ ~§„
-- ~ ~~;
~~ FCt i
_R _. _.. _. it ~d~.~~. ~;.
Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning
December 7, 2006
Page 90 of 90
. ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:53 A.M.
`F
Y', ' ~ (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
i=
w
~'
~e
3: MICHAEL E. ROH -CHAIRMAN
ATTESTED:
dl ~ ~ $ ~ Cj-1
DATE APPROVED
\\\\\\1,,,,11111111/,,,~/,
~'° ~ ~
1 ~-
G. BERG JR., CITY CL ~,~~
~ ~' o
-y
6
111111 1111111
5 ~~'
R~ ~~~~~r
;'"
r
e 'l ;~ yi ~ l!--
Y ~_'F~ ~~Y.'!~
~~ ~ ~~
p ~ : ± ~~ ::;~;
4 { ~~
+ ~ ~7~,
sq~'~ e fi Ck ~ Yl ~~'~~
. ~, ~ t ~r to iAj~, ~~.
T', 1."
-~ E `t i,~ ~~HEr~i
¢ ~ .. t'F ~ I~53~.
~~,~ ~ ~. Er ~ ~~¢;;~
~ 141 ~~'~F,~
1~# a R ~;
,:
i ~,, , :~~,~~a 1s-
r 1 {:-
.Sk s ~ a~ q
~'`t-f9 13Ir ~~fr~~li^l
a f~- <S xi~~-'
~1 - ~~3.s.';
~ : ' ~'k, 7'ij
t L yJ 1
~ti ~ 9 ~~ ~~fF~i
U fr r k
1 ~~ ~Oi
2- a -~~~ ~~~<'fi
t d
iii ~ ~ t', i ~ ~1:;-,
~5~+ ~ ~
~~(i ~K~j~II
Y ~ 1 "~ s 3``~i~~~'E;.
~ r i` o ~ ~S.
i'3 ~ F J +~ ~b6~ gay ~.
'~{~~Z~ pfd.;
tl~~ A ~ fa 7~
,. i
r~ npl ry.4
~f
~r;
.~~:.:
eMS ~
.
+..Yt.~=
,;,.s.
~~~?~ -
~ 'Yl.-
::3 ~:~
~~'4~~,
x~.~.
i ,~`
~ '~~~
s
,
'
4:
~,-,~:.
s
r~ : ,n
~'
,s
~. ~~
'
:
~~ .
,;
~ ~~.
_r,.
fi.: ;
~ ~.
>w~
~ ~~
~~>
'aid
~.~. -
,,,~,,
~.~
.;~_
ti'i~
f
i
0 0
December 4, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B
REQUEST Approve Minutes of November 2, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting:
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
I
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
I
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT: '
I
CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ ~ ^ I;~~ Lei
,,/~
CITY WATER DEPT: ~°
CITY SEWER DEPT: I ~~
~~~
CITY PARKS DEPT: l
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: j
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
I
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: j
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian.
r ...
i~~~.
.<• > .
~:~~..
¢ ~::
~.;~
~ ~
December 4, 2006 CUP 06-033
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Una Mas, LLC ITEM NO. 3-C
~~.:
REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval- Conditional Use Permit
fora 6,300 square foot Daycare Center in a C-G zone for Una Mas Daycare -
• 3475 E. Ustick Road
AGENCY
s
r
~~.
x,. -
q.. .,.
~~ ~
I
`-
~ ~'~ l
• S
?~1
x l~yy
f i'4
t~~~
,~
Y
;;
`~
rT
V
}r,
Sa
32
~R
. i~$f
S•'I
f~ Y.}
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
COMMENTS
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT: `
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~J,,
~~a"~G~
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT: I'
I
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: ~~~- ~"~-~I •
Emailed: ~ ~~5-2~c~1r~,~1~~,~~'('Oc~~(;p~; Sta Initials: ~~'
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Fk~ ~, s ~ ~
`~ ~ u ~ }
~•• ,~ -,~
~"~ ~' 3 4 6 ~'' ~ 1,
~ ~ '~~ ~ ~ r~ -.
,
f .f' k i'
fly
~~
. _
NW' ~ a' ~ fi I.~ 1 ~~
~
Jr .? ,
~
y
Z~i~ i F.j yf~T.~$~~'.
1.'. ;
7 c ~' ~~'~ ilk f#~ii'
~ 4 .
Vii.
~ {a ~
I
~
~
2f h ..
{ ~
~ / K
77
tii ~ r
e
I2
~~~R' ~~.
'
_
~
~
- c
~
~
'S
'
~
' ~ ` ~ v
~
'
-
~
1
r
3 I
s ~' ~57~ a
"
~ ~
~
IE
x
~
~
~~
'
"
~
•
-
Si ~~~j
~~ ~
. ~
~" ) ~ 5 f
' 1
t - e .
,a r
1 -~ 1~ ~~ ' ~
,~ { e
`~~ }{
F-,
~~~
~ ~
. r ~k i r ~g 1~~~~;~.
~
~
~
R' ~ G EM (~ a' 2~: f
ti' r f fi
'
~ ~ ~ ~
Yf t ~
q,.
~: t ~
4 ~
~ ~ Y, r
0 q I ' •
H
d ~~
r• _,. ~ Y
4~ t a ~ e
_ S y ~~,~
k ~
~~ ~ Y b ~~ 7 ~~9~1 ~
.Y
f
~
;~ t~ ~ 4{{{r ..
~~
sri
E ~
r,.
CITY OF MERIDIAN - . ~,,
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~, ~~':~~? µ'
.~
~> ,.~:.
LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
_~ e ~ v . ~tt..~~,,
"-'~~ lip tct ~+,.3.~iw.u`- '_,'T74D^~
L"<,
~ In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center on 9.5 Acres in the C-G
', District, by Una Mas LLC.
Case No(s): CUP-06-033
ce
€~ ~ For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: November 2, 2006 (continued to
- ~ ; November 16, 2006 with findings for approval on December 7, 2006 Commission agenda)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006
~' incorporated by reference)
i4'
~'` ' --~ I 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006
~~
~` ' ` into orated b reference
~ m y )
~. ~~
.~
'.,:, ~ 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 City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code
codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002,
Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code §
11-SA.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-033 -PAGE 1 of 4
i4y~J
~',li
2
`?:S
'' '.~
._v
T~
1
~S~
v
i '~Y
P
a
a
~;
µt~
-,a
:w~ w w-~ ~ ~~~
;ri~ d~41~i'(~~,
r2r ~ a, s
~ ~ ~ ~; ,
~~ ",,
'~ < r ~/,
~ ~ ~ ~~$~~;.
~ ~~ ~lr
~ ~~~:
;~~ ~ s ~'~ ~b~
X
r
r 4~ xi ~p~
1 ~ h i
1
f 3
f~
4
~~ t
(~ ~ ~ A~'~
a 1t
R_ i i ~ ~~~
~i'~.~-.v j S 7~±i
Yi- 7.k t-tlr
5~ ~ ~
~ t~~ F
}~~jkl
~:,i,ay.
[ ~ '~ ~ ~•
{
~3 ~ ~ + ~ ~~
~,t i a a F: I ~~
t ±S'~i~
~ µ
f 'd € L i i,,. ,,
*_ 3 ~`;~ _
~]
1'
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
~' subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
~ 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Commission Chair and City Clerk and then a copy served by the
.; Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and
~''~` ` I
~ any affected party requesting notice.
u
~
7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan and the Conditions of Approval in the
attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by
reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet
such requirements as a condition of approval of the application.
'~
s; ~,
~;, . C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City
>' ~~' Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein
adopted, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan A0.00 dated
June 29, 2006, is hereby conditionally approved; and,
t,. <
2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff
Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 incorporated by reference.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable)
1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a
~` - eriod of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City.
maximum
p
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
t,-.._
~~' `'~- ' 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
i 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
" `~ uest and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the
on written re
U
void
a q
p
.
period in accord with 11-SB-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
'~'
.. ~; .
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-033 -PAGE 2 of 4
~~~..
~ ,..
~.
Y • r;
4
Ft^_,
r~~
Sh'~~
~ ryT
;~;
~~
.-~
t~
,;si
~-6
.. ?2
t;
,~ ,~
w ~ i~ T,
`
i ~u ~
~
h~~ F ~ ~'
W
bra ~:t ~ ,~ ~ fib.
~c'- ~ i k` ~.
1.
x
~~
~ rat
~
1
+
~~ ~~_'
f 1 ~y6;i~; ~ 1 F
i ~,~~•
r
I } S ~~ 4f f
~' ~ ~
~ ~~P
~3 j
~
Y
~' ~ f ('
1
~
~
{'
`
~ ~ ~
~
13 ~
a
.
~
:r , ~
~i ~ ~ ~ a
r.
~.
.
~ i
j ' j `.
~ "' it~ ~Q~B~`
i
~
i '+ <
~~
+~n~~, ~~
x j~ ~;, <
j
'+
k
3
'
~
~
~'~~ F~ t' ~ ~r .,
~~~
~
~ i
Y
~:
4:
F'
~
~~ r :''~~~~~~~ i s
S
a
k t
Y y'?~i;W ~.~f /'. it
r f
I
~
~~
~i"n~
~2+'~~ ~~ * a , k t
'~i ~ ! v2 1A
f ~ ~ f ~ g;33i <.
'
.
.,.
r :..
j
~z~'
~~ i ~ m~
a r~ r ~+•~:~.
f
~ L ~Z~Ap9
. cg Ee S L~~l~.F
..
}
time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the
Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may
require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code
Title 11. _
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis r.
!
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 maybe filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of -
s°: ' ' Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
~
+
.
.
1 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-06-033 -PAGE 3 of 4
~`
Yy:
?~
~ ~.
{~:~
~ Ik~
f
F~
' 1a
j~ia
[ ('M1
;~~{
~4
~,+
a
'~'
~~i
+3
~';!
ff7 ~G~yi
t~ ' y yy~ .Y ~;i ~'
S ° 4 C
r +~r
Kfh ~ '
~ ~ 7?q'
'~ 3 ,'t. i4t:
k yi
~~~
H ~
` w. `t~
i. '^ ~'i.'~~
SS f
1'.d r ,:9 :W~.
~,
~ i~ f.
~ ~: ~T
~~ ~ a ,'~~
~ ` ~.YS ~k,Yi
171
f~ ( ~~I~~
ll I
~~ ~q~'4~
E1 s R~~
~~~iAA~rr~ ~ ~ F3 ~
1}' i ~~ ~~
i
~.
K _~
4 ~~'
k G ~ `
1 iii
~ i, ~;
~ $ s
~. s ~ t,.
~ z Tit
,'~
<~
!".~ - `~'
`~~~
hs~1
~ ~`~
S
~
~
{ ~
~ t.
.
~~
1
~~
z L
.
F
,
r.
W~ x
~ r
t
~ ~ 1
i
d
~,
;~ f
a M,
4 t}.
k
^` h
.. h. .. ~~ _ -..
} i
$~
~~ ~
~ T ~.
~ ?.
~' 3
1{.
~. ~t
~~' r
~~
~;^ f ':
~~~ t
n=~
~~ ` i
;};~
Yr
a,
~)
n
C7
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~~ ~'
day of 9~C~z~.~l~~~v , 2006.
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM
(CHAIR)
COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE
COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY
COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP
COMMISSIONER DAVID ZAREMBA
VOTED
VOTED l ~-~
VOTED Z~~
VOTED_ ~~_
VOTED l ~~~`~
MICHAEL ROHM
``\\`\``~ `~~unue+ii~~~~~0`'sap
Attest: ~ ~ C~~~~~ '"s
~.~~ ~~
ara Green, Deputy City Clerk ~, ~' ~~~
~P .e
r~~''/ ~ \, \o
~~~„~ ,~~
Copy served upon Applicant, The Plannf9~g+De~pa~ient, Public Works Department and City
Attorney.
By: ~~~ ~1~, L~~ Dated:,
City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). CUP-06-033 -PAGE 4 of 4
~ Z-I'Z ~~
t,t 9~ Afi~,; y
t, ~a a Ps r ; 3~ :.
r' x q
r.
~
~
F ~
~
t rq + ~~ d
f
~
s r
~ ~;
. i~ ~~,
~
A !
~ ~
}y ~ FY
K h t y S~ Fa~~~ tiY.
~ } fs
.. ~?.~
l .. t`( ~
_
r ~ v i
7x ~
F~ ~~ gt.z`~,._
n a
t i
~
~
4 ~ ~
~
1i
.
~ t'
~
~ '
~
! 1
~
i}
yea 3 i c~r ~~~~
~ ~ ! .y},
~a~E
,
~
~ {, G~ ~
``:g~ ~.
s ~' I ~
~s
v f~i - -
~ ~
~
i }'ti
~ 2
H` 3j Y ~ ~ ~~. { .,.
;
y ~.yyQ r: iy,
F~
, '~~ 5 %
~~~ M
& ~ ~
l
~
r ~
3.f
~~ n x a ~
i p;~b
. ` e .. _. - .,. .
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING-DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
4. ~I
y ,'~~
~i ;
~-
~ ,~~
f;
,.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Hearing Date: 11/2/2006
Continued to 11/16/2006
Planning & Zoning Commission
Justin Lucas
Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Una Mas Daycare
• CUP-06-033
~ 4
c I'64' ,rr
i ~~
~r~~ - ' ~~
r 19`'_
Conditional Use Permit fora 6,300 square foot Day Care Center on 9.55
acres in the C-G District, by Una Mas, LLC.
1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST
The applicant, Una Mas LLC., is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to operate a day care
center for up to 75 children in the C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) district. The
proposed child care center will be located within a 6,300 square foot building on the southern portion of a
9.55 acre parcel, generally located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately 1,000 feet east of the
intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads. The property is currently zoned C-G; day care centers are
conditional uses in the C-G zone.
2. Si.T1VIMARY RECOMMENDATION
Below, Staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested
Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends approval of the subject application, CUP-06-033,
with the conditions contained in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning_and Zoning Commission heard this
item on November 16 2006 (continued from the November 2~ hearing due to improper noticina). At th
public hearing they approved the CUP with no changes.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin:
i. In favor: Jeff Foster
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Staff presenting, application: Justin Lucas
v. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. -None
c. Kev Commission Chaves to Staff Recommendation:
i. -None
3. PROPOSED MOTIONS
Approval
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
modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to
direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and
Commission hearing on November 16, 2006.
~~
k i E~
i`i
.~
~'~
~~.
a'~
.v
,~,`
r.-.
c `>~
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033
PAGE1
i, ~:
1 ~ ~~ '~
~ ~~~
s.
~ e4
~,.
i
4x
~~~t',~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a ~ z
~ k. ~ ~~ a .
y ;,~;i
"'~,
~n',~
~~~_~~ ~ ~
S k; " } i
~. j t,i 1L ;w"~.
I ~, z:Y
i
z"
~'
a ~ ~ ~ ik
y;+ ~'. i
E '"
~'~ ~ S~' ,
~~r~ ~F a J~:a e k~ -
,`•
Y ~ 7 r i "_:
}
•"
i ,..
~'~a ~ ~~
r.'~fr 1~ ~{ 7:
~.-: ,
~. .
,.. •
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIlq"G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
,~, ,
i
f~ _ Denial
I move to deny File Number CUP-06-033 as presented during the hearing on November 2, 2006,
for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial.) I further move to direct
r'
Planning Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning
' and Commission hearing on November 16, 2006.
Recommend Continuance
,~a I move to continue File Number CUP-06-033 to the heazing date of (insert continued heazing
ti, °> ~" date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
~, I 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
~~'< I
a. Site Address/Location:
3475 E. Ustick Road /on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately 1000 feet east of
~ Eagle Road, Section 4, T3N R1 E
b. Owner:
~ ''~~.,'~ Una Mas_ LLC
4
M 1717 Chisholm Drive
~;,
Nampa, ID 83687
c. Applicant:
Same as owner
d. Representative: Taylor Ebright, Hansen Rice Construction
e. Present Zoning: C-G
r:
~:; _ f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Regional
`^ g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit
~r approval to operate a child care center in the C-G zone. The proposed child care center will be
'F located within a 6,300 squaze foot building on the southern portion of a 9.55 acre parcel
(Parcel #S 1104223082). The applicant is proposing to provide some outdoor play areas, and
18 parent and employee parking spaces.
~~, <<
1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): June 29, 2006
2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): August 15, 2006
3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): July 7, 2006
h. Applicant's StatementlJustification: We believe due to the proposed future residential
development directly to the south of this project the Daycare is good business as transition
between commercial office/retail and residential.
x ~:
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-SB-6, a public hearing is required before
the Planning Commission on this matter.
b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 16~' and 30~`, 2006
c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 6th, 2006
d. Applicant posted notice on site by: October 23rd, 2006
~'.
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033 PAGE 2
I~i~
rA jl
4'
f
`:~
~~~
'}
7~
2F
'r~
.~
~ 44~}
d
4
,y
:5~
~~
,~
~~s'~°f' i 4
~~?
i~ A~
~
.
y
~ ~`, „~ ~ ~ ~i~~;
': --
~~ ~$~~`
~ ~; ~~~
', . ~? ~
~ ~ ~ ~
,~
`
h
~
g
i
anG §
..
~
i ~
~
SwF ',~y ~yj ~-~
~~ ~ 9- '
i' ~~C
,
"q ~ U f'` ~Y ~I~
~- ~
r
f ~ ~~ ] t - ~ 7 ~ ~
r J
~y a~ ~ ~ I f ~ ~~~ -
t 4,.~~
[[I _ 1;
1~ t ~ _ }~~~~`
S
{,+~ ','# ' ~ 'Erik;?,
t ~~ t
F ., r~~ c
4
~
~~
d
~
E7 ~ !~ ~ FE ~ ~-
,
T
y
+~ ~ ~ ~i~~(
i ~
~e
~~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~
S
'
~3.
;- !
F ~ )
1y~ qq k ..
to a ~ a~3
a ~ 'k~~ ~
~
~ { ~
~4
i t x.,..i.
rah
f
..
~~s~
~~_
~
~
' r~
~ .
.
t ~
k
x ,
' ~
,
y~u
;~
~~+
~ x r~ dl
~~
_.-. c•~
t a
Q~ a 2, sR6 ~yl~
~
(x P ~• ~S'~I~~f~; ~ ~
~ r
7 ~y~Yr
~ ~ r f~ ~9 ~ ~~ ~.'
R~ ~ T, +'M
X~
~
~S
§~~
~ '~:. •
~::
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
6. LAND USE
~:' a. Existing Land Use(s): Bare land.
~; ; ~ b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is rapidly transitioning into a mixed-
' ~ : `i use area. There are various commercial developments that have been approved in this area
~~ including the Gateway Marketplace to the west, undeveloped commercial land to the south,
~ I
~
~: the Lowes development to the north and rural residences to east.
i
~.,
~:' c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning
1. North: Smitchger Subdivision (Lowes), zoned C-G
~~
r. .
2. East: Rural residences, zoned RUT (Ada County)
;~
~~.
3. South: Undeveloped commercial land, zoned C-G
4. West: Vacant, Approved Gateway Marketplace, zoned C-G
~~ . ~ `' : I d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was recently annexed into the city as the
Una Mas annexation (AZ-OS-061). Along with the annexation the applicants were required to
enter into a development agreement with the city. This development agreement is recorded in
:~ ;' the office of the Ada County recorder as instrument number 106137048. The applicants are
': subject to all of the conditions of the annexation and development agreement. The applicants
have also been issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-06-162) for a building shell
.~ -'~ on this property. This shell building will house the proposed daycare if CUP approval is
5 granted.
t
.-.::
~~ ~ <
e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities
1. Public Works
Location of sewer: There is currently a sewer main in Ustick Road.
~-
Location of water: There is currently a water main in Ustick Road.
~?
~.. -' Issues or concerns: None.
2. Vegetation: N/A
3. Flood plain: N/A
~;~ 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Milk Lateral runs through the southern portion of this
j~ site. Various other small irrigation facilities also run through the site.
~:
~:- 5. Hazards: N/A
~'
~' 6. Existing Zoning: C-G
:.
~'° '~ 7. Size of Property: 9.55 acres
~:
~ f. Conditional Use Information:
` 1. Non-residential square footage: 6,300 square foot building
9:$
~~ 2. Proposed building height: 24 feet
~~:
~a '^ 3. Number of Residential units: 0
4 g. Off-Street Parking:
~.;'
~~ 1. Parking spaces required: 13
t<~ x'
~`?: ~;; `. 2. Parking spaces proposed: 18
3. Compact spaces proposed: 0
~:
r~.
~;
'~'" ' Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033 PAGE 3
,..
ri
,~ ~ s~
r,1
. ~,',:
F
a
^~S
~ iT}
~,f~
,1,
:~
~ti
~~
r,
S S _
f F ~ )~}
1
i ~~f,
~
~
fr
c 3~ s
S ~ ~~
^~~ ~~ '
c f j , ~ ~~4k~A
y
~,,,
t
~~' ~ ,~F~'~ F
~ ~
~ r ~ ~~I ~~
f
~'
' I~~ ~ F {{~
'J~~~~'
~ -
i E
~ a ,.y
~ i t r, S],
~~.~ ~'
.~iV ~~~
c
~~o b'~ gt ~ ',tl
a , :a P ~
~
i
A
~
g
„C ~ ~' 1 ril IM ih-'
XY~' S.' ?C ~~8~~t.' '~,,
~ f~ my~~
"t
~.:
~
~ ~
y
~
s ~
~ i~
F ` ('~'l ~h
x. .
`'{, ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ 1- ~
LfE I .~ 1~
~ ~~ C
s r ~
t i~~~~ .
tk i~ ~
6d i~
F
yy
,y,~,,~
r~ f 1'~ 3~ )YL~ ~~~,
r' '
1~2' ~ "b!~@ ~}F~i ~
~ t
3 }y t .~ i~ G~~;
~
i
_ h
~1
~
k ~. R' ~
j '~ ~ L~~L .
s 1
Y
S . a
~
3
~
~1
~`~
i ~ ~
~~.
~ ~~
~,
~' ~
~
~
s
~
~~~~
9 ~A ~ ~ k!~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~
~Y
~
~
yI
id+, ~ ~ Y
f ~~
+
6 'f
F
` ..
C
1
r~F
~~^1 t J tt1 `~ ~ ~
a 'y 1 ~ F. ~J Y _y.~ ~ . .
y' •
~s ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
~.
4. Off-site parking proposed: 0
°~ `~ ' ~ h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The
development agreement for the Una Mas Annexation restricts any access point off of Ustick
Road to this property. Due to this restriction the applicant is required to take access from the
E'= ' ` ~) proposed (not yet built) Allys Way to the east, or through a proposed (not yet built) cross
~~ access driveway to the west through the Gateway Marketplace project. For this CUP
,.;t
application the applicant is proposing to take access from the proposed collector roadway
Allys Way, which will extend south from Ustick Road through property currently owned by
ACRD, and eventually tie into Records Avenue at Fairview Avenue. It is important to note
~, ' - ~ that at this time that the subject property does not have frontage on Allys way and a cross
access agreement across ACRD property will have to be established before the daycare can be
occupied. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant is going to work in conjunction with
. ;~ ~~ ACRD and other property owners to construct Allys Way.
3: ~~ 7. COMMENTS MEETING
.,=` ta, 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 as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B.
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
This property is designated "Mixed Use -Regional" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the
proposed development (staff analysis in italics):
Mixed Use. There are three sub-categories of the Mixed Use designation. Generally, the
designation will provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed
under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which
are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where
innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to
offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. All development within this
designation will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit process (Chapter VII, Meridian
Comprehensive Plan).
Mixed Use- Regional: The following standards will apply to this category:
No upper limit of non-residential uses,
Over 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area,
Residential density of 3 to 40 units/acre
Sample uses include: grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat,
salons, daycare, professional offices, medical/dental clinics, retaiUgift shops, schools, parks,
churches, clubhouses, public uses, clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants,
banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station, department stores, entertainment uses, major
employment centers, clean industry.
• Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services.
(Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1)
z
x
i
a'~
`~
. °,~
`~~
When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the
subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands
proposed the following manner:
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033
PAGE4
~._~ . ,
> ~`
e J ~ y t r.
~ ~= ~.~~
a ~
i3{.> ~~
f o
2
~~ ~~'~e ~~.~
)~. ~ t.'
7 s"
'~~ 1~~J`
' i ~ ~ . ~i
t + ~~
~'
`:~ ~~'~~
;r inr ~.
r ~ ~S
°r
~ ~ 1'
~ ~ ~ ~.T
~ ~~~
t:a r,~~;
t '-> d
.~ ~: it ~ a
z ~ r '
~ i
}'~
~ ~ ~., r'
i
`~ ~ ~~ ~
pF F- •~
a F
~?d~
1. c
1 k~ ~i
~ ~ i`s ~x
'~ I ~ Y T
< S --
.~F
s r `~ ~'
s r
+s
~~ ~~.
~~ A
F ~q
F~ z ? ~o~
I~
.u
Y ~r
1
t
l
'
f ~.
r'
} *w
:' ;
~'
>,
:
r `'
i
t t
'
fi
~ ,.
~• s
r
R} {`'
l
i
r
~.
;'
~.
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING•PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
• Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the
developer's expense.
• The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire
District. The lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire
Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian
Rural Fire Department.
• The lands are serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD).
• The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained
by the Ada County Highway District (ACFID). This service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This
service will not change.
• The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This
service will not change.
Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department,
the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian
Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing
Services, and Sanitary Services Company.
• "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal
IV, Objective D, Action 2)
The applicant is not proposing any access to Ustick Road with the subject application. All
vehicular access will be taken from the future Allys Way collector to the east and cross
access driveways to the west.
• "Identify commercial zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as
office and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B, Action ~
Staff finds that daycares can be a good transitional use between intense commercial areas
and less intense uses. The proposed daycare can help act as a buffer between the proposed
Gateway Marketplace to the west and the rural residences to the east.
• "Ensure the ease of mobility of people and goods by implementing access control measures
on major transportation corridors. (Chapter VII, Goa12, Objective A, Action 6)
Staff finds that the construction of the proposed Allys way will increase circulation in this
area of the city and help to reduce the number of access points to Ustick Road.
Staff believes that the proposed day care center use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff'
recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the
public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property.
9. ZONING ORDINANCE
a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists the permitted, accessory,
and conditional uses in the C-G zoning district. Day care centers are an accessory or
conditional use in the C-G zone.
b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the
retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
,, ~~
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033 PAGE 5
z
l
3
'S
,5
s
~,~
• 4
.,g
;~
~'~
;~
r
'ine ~' :. i I~ ~ ~ ~~
aj~- ~ '`
~ 4 ?~~~
.1 ~ i ~ ~,.~'(
:7 ~i, ~- fir.
rry '. ~~-`H,p
Y
{ F
~ ST tix,l ~{ ~~1.
F 7 ~~ It
.~;.
~ i~ ri
_ ~ ~ t'l ~Myk y,.
., f ~ ~ ~,
~.
r
~` ~~-
~_
~:,
F
"`t°~ ~1 Fri ~~~~;<
F
s ~rR k5~~,~~,
f.,.~
~z ~ ~ s" i s'~ g:
w
~~ ~ ~
rd ~ ~u~~
{
~,~:,~~ 4 ' ~ ~~~
t
{ .s;
.~{'Y
.,;.r -Fr r
y _ tt
~} :~~~.r
~ ~,
s ' +•3 F P
frl
.#
~-
~ 'I
~'~ -
•;
;'J
,,a
;<
~~ .,f
~'
~`'
``
:~I
s
' ;'1
,;
~~
~,:
r..
~':
£Y
'_ :±
' ~,
.~
l
.~
r. !_ N!
f~
ti
~,~
i $~
1
l~
~~ppJJ
1
s
.• iG,q
c
}
h
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARTIQG DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
Four Districts aze designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures
accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location
of the district in proximity to streets and highways.
c. General Standazds: No dimensional modifications aze being requested for the proposed
development. There aze several day caze standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.9. Analysis of these
specific use standazds aze provided in Section 10 below.
10. ANALYSIS
a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation
UDC 11-4-3.91ists the following standards for all Day Caze Facilities:
1. In determining the type of day care facility, the total number of children Gazed for during the
day and not the number of children at the facility at one time, is the determining factor. The
operator's children are excluded from the number.
The proposed daycaze facility is projected accommodate up to 75 children. Because more
than 12 children will be at the facility, this is a day Gaze center.
2. On-site vehicle pickup, pazking and turnaround azeas shall be provided to ensure safe
discharge and pickup of clients.
The applicant is not proposing to designate a drop off/pickup area. All parents/guazdians will
be required to pazk in a striped stall and go in to pick-up the children. The proposed pazking
lot was designed in accordance with the City's current standards for pazking lot dimensions.
There is 25 feet between stalls; sufficient azea to maneuver. Staff recommends that the
applicant be required to install signs on both sides of the entrance to the north parking lot,
within the landscape planters, that state: "Vehicles must pazk in designated stalls only". This
should prevent cazs from pazking/waiting in the drive aisles, otherwise blocking pazked cars
from exiting the site efficiently.
3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours
of operation as conditions of approval.
Staff recommends that the Commission allow up to 75 children to use the subject facility, as
requested. Staff further recommends that the hours of operation for this business be limited
from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to provide sufficient time in the mornings and evening for
parents to drop off and pick up their children.
4. The applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Basic Day Care License from the State of
Idaho Department of Health and Welfaze -Family and Children's Services Division.
Staff is including this condition within Exhibit B.
5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be
between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This standazd may be modified through approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
See Standard #3 above.
Additional standazds for day Gaze facilities that serve children:
1. All outdoor play azeas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot (6') non-scalable
fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The
fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the Building Code in
accord with Title 10 of the Meridian City Municipal Code.
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033
PAGE6
.~,:
~ ~ ~ ~
n
~
' ,~' ,~
r ,`k
~ f f ~
~
i ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ '
~. ~yy
~1 i,:
YW$
~
`
~
~
i.
~' '` a ~ i J3 '~r' a
I ~ Sr ~'
f~'" ~ ~` ~
~~~ 7 "~
~" ~ ~ ~~ ! ~
'
~'
ry
~
~
+
~
~~ rya
~~
'
w ~}rrt
_
~
'r
~
r '9 ~,
5
~A
1
Y'
„ -
,
~ 1 K
r -
~ 14 ~~~~
~
.
ti ~ „~ P ~ ~ yr;'
~ ~.
f ES,, ~ ~ ~i~~~.
~
V .~ J~
j .~-i',1~~~~ Y~G'
JI~ ~ I~
~
'-t 1
~ ~ .
~.: ~ 511 fop ~.~ _ ~.
i{ ~ ~ .,~.
ti'$ '(~ ~ ~ 'J ;~ Q"M ,
1
4 Y,'~
_: .
;. y +
1' S J Tc~ ~ ~ C.
y,
'
'r ~.
it
~.~ rA1
L ; ~~ir ~~~r~
5
iM ~~~2~, A~ ~,
7
7 Y ~ ~
7
~~
.
~' ..A
l~ ~~" ; ~
~~
y5
'~:
~
M
~. _
~
~
C
I
~
~~ T
y
~«fiF
Y.
~~ ~y;a~l ~
(
Y .:5,
t a ~ ~ ~~~^~d~
Y
S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARTI~G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
i
~ The applicant is proposing to fence the outdoor play azea, but does not specify the type of
fencing to be used. The applicant should address the type of fencing proposed at the public
hearing and consider the following Staff recommendations: The applicant is required to
construct a 6-foot tall fence, in accordance with the provision listed above. Staff recommends
that any play area fence adjacent to a pazking lot or drive aisles be 6-feet tall, open-vision,
non-scaleable material. Any fencing adjacent to neighboring structures or property lines
~'`` `~'~ should be 6-feet tall, closed-vision, non-scaleable material.
2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yazd or within
an re uired azd.
Y q Y
Although no play equipment over six feet in height aze currently proposed Staff is including
` '~ ~ this restriction within Exhibit B.
3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used
after dusk.
II Staff is including this condition within Exhibit B.
Site Plan _When the subject property was originally annexed into the City (Una Mas Annexation
:'~ AZ-OS-061) there was a requirement in the development agreement that the applicant should
f ~' work with ACRD to determine if a public frontage road should be provided at the southern
boundary of the this property. At the time the applicant submitted this application for a
7.
Conditional Use Permit they included the public frontage road in their design because ACRD had
5I not et decided weather or not it was needed. During subsequent discussions with ACRD it
Y
became clear that this public frontage road at the southern boundary of the property would not be
required. Due to this decision by ACRD the applicant gained more property to work with at the
`'"~ southern portion of this pazcel, where the daycaze is to be located. The applicant has also been
working with ACRD to acquire a remnant piece of land that will be left over after the
construction of Allys Way. This remnant piece abuts the applicants eastern property line and if
acquired would provide them with public street frontage on the proposed Allys Way.
Due to these recent developments concerning the road placement and possible land acquisition,
the applicant has expressed some desire to modify the location of the building pad, and parking
lot configuration. While this request maybe somewhat unusual, Staff recognizes the uniqueness
of this situation and recommends that the applicant be given some flexibility as to the exact
location of the daycare building. Staff is confident that minor changes to the building pad location
and parking lot design will not affect the conditions of approval or analysis in this staff report. To
ensure that any future changes to the site plan aze in substantial compliance with the daycare
standards and conditions of approval Staff is requiring that the applicant obtain a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance permit.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): Prior to submittal of this CUP application the
applicant applied for and obtained a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-06-162) to construct
a shell building on this location. At the time the applicant was uncertain who the tenant of this
building would be, but they moved forwazd with Certificate of Zoning Compliance to instigate
the construction of the proposed collector roadway Allys Way. After receiving approval for this
CZC, the applicant found out that a daycaze center was interested in the building, which triggered
the subject CUP application. Due to the applicant's request for some flexibility with the site
design (as described above), and the additional requirements for daycazes that are included in this
report, Staff believes that the applicant should be required to submit an amendment to the
approved CZC-06-162. This requirement would give the applicant time to finalize their dealings
with ACRD and decide upon an exact location and site design for the proposed daycare. This
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033 PAGE 7
h
~
'j
y~!'
}+ ~~
~'
~~ LL b fCL'~~~~ ~- t
j
'
xG `
'~
]71
i x
,
~
~. ~ ~
l -
.
r
I €~
1~y~` ''
!]L
~
~
1
~~
,
~ ~~
I
^
~
I
a
4 .
~
- f ~
6 I i s. ;off', _:'~
~•
'Y~
q ~ ~w 'f '.5 i ~ '~.
G 7V
.~ t - i~i
t
~
jy ~ ~
~ I f'~ i
~ F f •~~~~~11~~" ~f
~ I
l
( 14 S~
~.yy~
7S
"'7 ~. i
l f S M ~ ~ 1k ~ -
;
#
I
it z
~ 1
i
f ,ti
xf'
' ~ t
`` ~
a
. ji
~
~.
~ i i.
r
~ ~ ~ i i _
~. k ~
~
,'~
~
' d
,',~
5:".~
r ~~~~ ~ i
a
~~~11P :.:~ ~~ ~,
§ ~
~ ~mv4r :.p.h ~~iiv
~~
- -
~
_
t
~ .
~ f' .
. . , ,
~„
-
: . ..:
~
it
~~ ~ ~,'
-~.o-i ri f1~8~~"~i w
~li
'
l~' I K ~~`~
~ ~
~
~, ~
~ i
i
~ , ~
.. ~'.
7, ,
t.
~:
i
F~ ~~~~~,..
~
i ~I ~ f r.A.,. ~~
'.
i t
y
:S
x n r
I
~,
~ ~
}r
C'
.-'~
a
;
'i ~ ii ~u'~. K!
e.ir - ~ ..,.
F !
~ ."
~
q+g'~I
~ "f ` !{r
~ ~
~
ii $ x~ } F ~
a_ l
~
-.
t Q
4" I
'~
'
~;
F I _
F ~ r T..
('~ I N ; ~~ ~ ~lt~++'. ~o
I ~ ~
~'~'
l
~
j
~ E _
..
_. .
.
k', ~ ~~f~.,F
i i, j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~I~I
*u,,
'I .._
~..
~.
uyy ,,,,yy
1
t K~=:
li yy ~ {
i t'
A.'4. .S ~, ..
~1
~ ~~f
f!
., ~~
.
f i
~{.
~~4 . ` r~:
s f `.
a.,
~;
F.
!~
i _ I
,;
r~
,,
-.
.:~~
`~I
`'VI
I
x,
~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAI~G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
requirement would also allow Staff to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the
establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC and subject CUP. If
the applicant proposes changes that are not in substantial compliance with UDC standards or the
conditions of approval of the subject CUP they should be required to submit a new CUP and CZC
application.
Access: The development agreement in affect for this property restricts the existing driveways
along Ustick Road for construction purposes only. Prior to occupancy of the daycare, access
should be provided to the building from either the Gateway Market Place project to the west or
from the ACHD property and Allys Way to the east. In either case written proof of a recorded
cross access agreement should be provided to the Planning Department prior to occupancy of the
daycare center. If the applicant is able to acquire the remnant ACHD property they would have
public street frontage along Allys Way and would not need a cross access agreement to the east.
The applicant should also provide connections between the drive aisle to the north of the
proposed daycare and the proposed drive aisle and cross access that will be extended from the
Gateway Marketplace to the southwest corner of the subject property. This southernmost cross
access point and drive aisle should be shown on any future plat or CZC that includes the southern
section of the property.
Elevations: The elevations submitted with this application seem to be appropriate for a day care
center in this location. The applicant should be required to construct the building in general
compliance with the submitted elevations.
Private Street Application: Due to the building location both Planning Staff and the Fire
Department believes that the applicant should be required to submit a private street application
for the drive aisle to the north of the day care building. There will be several buildings that will
use this drive aisle for access. A private street application, which is approved administratively by
the Planning Department, will allow for this main drive aisle to be named and signed which
provides more efficient access for emergency vehicles and the public. The applicant should
submit the private streets application prior to occupancy of the building. A temporary
construction address may be provided to the building off of Allys Way until the private street is
completed and the daycare can be given a permanent address.
b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-033 for Una Mas Daycare presented
in the Staff Report for the hearing date of November 2, 2006 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in
Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B.
11. EXI~BITS
A. Drawings
1. Date of CUP Site Plan: June 29, 2006
2. Date of Landscape plan: August 15, 2006
3. Date of Building Elevations: July 6, 2006
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Services
6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division
r'?..~
r
i~
~_
i~
~~
~.f,
fit.
R
,La
'F
C .'~
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033
PAGE 8
i
•l'
I y.Y 3 ~Y~`~J'~•.
~ F Ib RHG ~~t. [:-
ti ~ ~•k
fy
~~' ~ ;~ I k
n~ ~~~'~ s
~ESr ~ ~~ ~~~ r
~~~ ~ ` r I~~ _~~1
~,~,.
~ ~r£ ~ j;
~4~ .`+ ? ,` pie 7tl~~t
y@ c f:
F i tom,.
r w : y §
r ~ ~ y'
~. y.~.,~. ~~ ~~~_g..~,,~~.
.: ~ ~ ,:' .
zr' 4 '
~ 4 f `= Fit
~. y1 'w F f '~ ~ A.
'''ppp 1 ~ ~pe~ ~2~n
~ ~ Ya~!
.~ ~~ s ~ tt ,~ g~ ~y ~~{. .
i 4~~4
~N t ~`~~~
{ " ~'
4 ~ _ t.
h
1 ~~I ~ ~ ~,
~ pp ~.
~ r 1 ~ 'I~~3.~
t =. ~~ r ;
s a u
~k~ ~~ ~~y
55~k :~ 3~~b f4.
l'_
y ; y
~.t:' ~ dt~~~'~'~~
,... ,
t ~~ •
~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
r, •;
~.
r~::, ,
~~~
7. Ada County Highway District
~' ' ~' C. R uired Findin s from Unified Develo ment Code
eq g P
~~. i
~~-
~t
f
~~: ,~
~,,~
i,,
_ : -:~
i
g~
;#
;: `~~
5
~~:. `a
Una Mas Daycare CUP-06-033
ti~
Y
t~
5 R
)::: ~~
~~
r`1
r
`~
x
a4~
!'S
~:
y~~
fry
y:
PAGE 9
}C ~~~ u F f:-i ~ ~' ~'S~:
~
S _~' 1
4
~
4 t 1 t
s~ 3t ~ `~&~~~4~~.:
ty~,
~~ 4 ~ fr ~1j ~Gi~/~
111F
(
j]
£ ~ i
~
~~
~
7i
i.
1 '7
~
~ ~ t f'~+Y [q(~
S !
t
~~~ i
PF
' ~~
!~ 6~
4 L ~ I I
~
hh
t ~ ~ I { e~ 1
t
~R'
~ ~ ~
~~~~FY t i ~ ,3L' ~~
~
~
S ,
,
k L d~~
~~~,
7 ~~ x 4~'
t~ ,
Y ~~~. {4~G.~
s
t~ ~ ~1 7 R
M
a
h ~ ~
S
:'
~
:
s
7S
7
~
c:
)rte q 4 l-Y 1!~
~~~~ 1 a.~ ~~! h P- t
u
.
~~ n
~, h,.
~~~~~
~
~~_ , r,r ~ z~~
r ~
>
~
3i~~
>
~
;
K y
r I9
L
t ~ 7 . ~
~~
4
y,~
` y
z
(F~ 1 ~ {p, f~~ P
`
~
1
3 ~ 7 1~'~
~C~r ~
.
.4 p~Yl
1y'~y~, SS }~ 'J~ '
~ i MB
i'T7~~~~'
I~
~'
~
E
Ri
E
. f a5 t
~~ 4 ~; ~ ~,~~f,~
a t', i ~ ~n~i~L~~n~
7 ~ ~ J.
~ ~~ ~~~~
'
}, i
I ~
~ 1 ~ ~ ~
~
r
& c
~ ~
~~ ~
~
_
_
, ~ ~:
~t~
,
a~
•
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIFfG DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
8:; '-' .
~'` A. Drawings
1. CUP Site Plan (dated: June 29, 2006)
;~
~ u i :~i
- - ~ -• - r .,~... ~ - - - - -
`.~ '~
.a..m..~ I
I .
I 1
~ _
~
~
0 ~ dd
g ~
rr
~
%
~
Q~t~ I
1 0
~E
D
L I
I
~ ~
E ~ B
~~~ I~
~~ i~ F ~
V ~
I 4
~ I ~
~ k
~
~
R
I
~
i
~ 'I ~
~I ~
ii I
~~ 1
,~
~
I -
I
I ~ s
. _
~
L___~,~-~---- -
IPIDPVFLOPED LQ'~PFG~4 PRDPERn
-. ~ p f~ $$$¢ yyygFae
~ CRr+i . 8@21 DE6v~ib~v 111M6~OD O~ON D~f!
a y ~~~?
~ ~ ~ 1l5TIGK DGT CARE
iqg Bnn ~ E
9 A°
~
g
1'7ERIDIAN, IDAHO
~~'(~a cn~~cm<w aw Woei ann.o~m~
p.4.mewer umiweAmn
_
~ n
~6
~
g1
gg R PROP09ED BIIILDMG ON BITE c, '
l __
~
77 ® ~ ~~~
~
d 99p
$ ~ sITE PLaJ nmxn.rc..cam . v®..m
ma.
n
d E
::~ t
v~
y
~P
~~ ~
~.~
pi
`Q
. F~
ja'
Exhibit A Page 1
I~~f jl
0 4a
T - _ "~ i~
ply
~,~ * ~ ~~
~,_, f . ~ ; ' ~~~;
X 4 ~ y ~ '
~,,,
r:
-,~. e z
~' t ~ °~
t s ~ ~ ~
d ~
e ~ : t ~ ~,
$ i~
~ ~ r ~ fig
tr'~F`' ; ! ~+ ~ r~x
} ~
~~~ ~'" r ~~~4i
~~ I ~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ ~~ n
~. f . ~'~
~ ~ '~ ~,,,
~~ s
r~ ~ S i~ ~~
r. ~ t r ~.,
kt ~~
~~` [f ''
'< Very S~Y ~~~',..
i
b }k, 5 13s~
1 ¢ tp33~
~!f f ~ li
y '3.r
~ I ~ t
I ~ r + ' ~~~
a F(j } eta I y~
~::
a
~'~ ;' " ,a~~p~~
77:, ~~.
,,
7y
F,.
I~;
J ; ~
f E'
;` S
~ N
J ~
v
~
;
~
,
~'
,
a
~; r
~ '~
, ~" ;
4~
_
, ~ ;
.
t;
e
~. ?
,~;
'_
~
~t
T c' '+~
~~
L _
f
.~
`
}
«'
~~,.
"
-
(
~ f
_
L - r,4
o
+
~
~
~
I
~
~
~
ti
S~
_, , _ .
~. . F~
'.~
<.
~. ~.,:
..ry
'r
S:.
3
, ~°~
K
Ln H{
1~
4
:C~
i~
s7
.d
c;.
t ~"i
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIbTG DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
2. CUP Landscape Plan (dated: August 15, 2006)
N ~ _ >a ~ ~ ucwev,
~ ~ ~g ~
_ ~ ! f
D qApp ~ ii y
Z 7 ~ ®I F ~A ~ C¢ ~ ~83a~
~s ~ R C ~,a ~~ e~~~I
9~`
U+
m
~n
4 s -~~. us,-tiR av.o - q` y - - - - p c -
, ~
a
~ .I
P
^1 B ~
L e$~
E a
ii ~ Z
°I ~ m
11 ~ ~~
4i (~~
Exhibit A Page 2
;99~ ~
¢i~abaE pg~
~8i+~~~ &
~c t
E e~®
a g3
F a
w
~ $ ggg
5 $$ 9 P
g
^ p
qq~p(.
~ ~
~e F
~"~~
~ y
8
RE•
~ ~(I~p~~~
~`~
~ }
P
~
~
'
`'
~ ~ p
2
A
~$
~ SC
~ A~A
~
05 •
~'~ ~&
~A~
i99 aE
gr
8~ 465
CC~ $ F ;
'le
F ~
f ~
a I
i
J
A
I ~
~
f~ jj $$ ggx,tfl] #i
~
~
~ ~
f 8~6
99#$
q
2
S555
~ 3~ ~ ~
~
y6
l6
}
Y ~I
gg +~
~ £
~
g
gRg
tt
S
F
l
€
~ ~
d ~g '
d ~
A
~
y$
~
j
~
$ ~~I $~ YF8 a"s;$s; ~
r FFFtFsi
;E3oo°o
IJNA MAS, LLG. ...m... '~~'~
BOISE 'D ~~-~'n~"muw"
VEW OFFICE BJILDING ,.
LANDSCAPE PLAN
r '~~;~~~y ~r
1 ~~ ~ ~ s
y1
r 1 t ~ 4 ~.
~
7 tl ~.
~ f~
~ i~
~
l
•
A{ Si ~
{ 1y
~
~ ~ ~
~ }
~ ~ ,.
{ '.7II
~ ~ y'-
j~
''
~ ~ !
~
1
~
~~t
j ~ a~ ~yt~~~
ar ~
~
~.
':
~.
'
'
r :, _. j -
~ j
t
~
~
I~
is
'.
!
'~
:
~
~ ?> N
.1
~
y
$ ~
~~
,,yk
r ~ 9k€"
t' }
Ir 7 I.
Q
k
25 y ~ L
~
;i, ~
~ ~ ;~
rys r'
'
~
fit ~ i
s ~'
~ ~.
n '* ,
4'~"
i- "t j ~: ~ e i ~ a ~ ~ ~' r '~ ~~~:I.
i
~
~
9kr
, {.'
i
-.
~ ~
~
s v ;
~
4~ ~ ,d
~
} ~
~ ~i {
-u ~.
-
v 1} a t +- p '~ T
~."
} c
'J
~
~ar v ,,,
~Y S i~1 } ?i4~„
~
: ~'~
~ ~
~..
ay
~ ; ~d~ti4
` 4
~
(
~`r x ~ ~!
+
` ~ ~
,
I ~
fN
a~ ~ ~ r.,
~
- ~
y ~r ~ "
FI
~i {' l ~ I .~yZT
{f ~l i 1a~ ~~~.
,~.:
v ~ i•~
s
ky;
~'?'
+'
~°
> ;~
{'A
~-
r-
.. {
.~
;ri
t~l
~' ~' ~~
2.I
~'I
i
t
..
~ '- ~`
M.~'
i.
x~:
.. ~
;; ?:
4:~ ~i
k:
.1
5~
r
,'
a
s~,~S
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
3. Building Elevations (dated: July 6, 2006)
Exhibit A Page 3
F
wp
u~i
~' "s
~~
rc
~E
p~
~v
f-
~z ~~
~~.~
;. t
~, ~~, ~,~
}
~ ., r_
,` ` {..j
7t £ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~;
~ .~ !~ Y ~iis3.
5~ L
~~ ~~~ ~ 5 ti ~~ y ~.
+Y:
E
c ~ ~ y .~
~'hu la~ d
r~ ~:~
~.
~ ~ r ~~ ~~ ~~~~f~.
-r ~ ~ s
' <, i ~-
w ~ ? ;~
,, r_! r
, i r ' ;
~ ...'
~~~E
~ ~
a~
ap ~'~ a '~ ~;, ~~~
(~ ~'~a ~'~ F y4~_~r
>kRC~: 4 '4~ tR~
r'~ . ['~ i
l ;j'~
1 ;!
F +': h
1 ~ i ii ~K `7 ~.,~ ~'
/~ ~~R ~a~3W4'
r •
~q ~'„ ~~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
li
II
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval and development agreement for the
.~.: Una Mas annexation (AZ-OS-061)
1.2 The applicant shall be allowed to care for up to 75 children per day.
w
~ ~ '~ ~, 1.3 The applicant shall be required to install signs on both sides of the entrance to the west pazking
-- ~ lot within the landsca a lanters that state• "Vehicles must park in designated stalls only"
;i
n: p~
=^ i
~•~`~~
s
~'
ti
...}
• -~
,,}
AP
t 41
~;
C ~l~
r'~
'-_ is
~'~
4~~
s
i_
+t
~ti
~~
P P .
1.4 The hours of operation for this business shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
1.5 Prior to operation of the day Gaze facility, the applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a
Basic Day Care License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfaze -Family and
Children's Services Division. Proof of said license shall be provided to the Planning Department
prior to release of occupancy of this building for a day caze use.
1.6 The applicant is required to construct a minimum six-foot (6') non-scalable fence to secure
against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. Fencing adjacent to pazking
lots or drive aisles shall be 6-feet tall, open-vision, non-scaleable material. Fencing adjacent to
neighboring structures or property lines shall be 6-feet tall, closed-vision, non-scaleable material.
1.7 Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yazd or within any
required yazd.
1.8 Outdoor play azea(s) shall not be used after dusk.
1.9 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-06-033 aze complied with, the applicant
shall be required to submit an amendment to the approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance
(CZC-06-162) for this building. This amendment shall include all of the conditions of approval
described in this report and any modifications to the approved site plan and landscape plan. Any
modifications to the site design shown in this CUP application and CZC-06-162 shall be clearly
shown on the amended plans. If these changes aze not in substantial compliance with the
conditions of approval in this report the applicant shall be required to submit a new CUP
application and CZC application for the proposed daycaze.
1.10 Prior to occupancy of the daycaze, vehiculaz access shall be provided to the building from either
the Gateway Mazket Place project to the west or from the ACHD property and Allys Way to the
east. In either case written proof of a recorded cross access agreement shall be provided to the
Planning Department prior to occupancy of the daycaze center. NOTE: If the applicant is able to
acquire the remnant ACHD property they would have public street frontage along Allys Way and
would not need a cross access agreement to the east. In this instance, proof of ownership will be
required.
1.11 Any future Plat or CZC application for this property shall show a connection between the drive
aisle to the north of the proposed daycaze and the proposed drive aisle and cross access that will
be extended from the Gateway Mazketplace to the southwest corner of the subject property
1.12 The building shall be constructed in general compliance with the elevations (dated: July 6, 2006)
submitted with this application.
1.13 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord
with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of
approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation.
Exhibit B Page 1
A~ 3N
~ t ~ Il p~
4 c ~,` F
F~ ~ s~~
~..
~ c ~N
~a
r ~ y `~'~ ~~~~ ~a ~
f ._
~~ ~'_ f
i 2„
' ~I S ~~ IS '5~,~,
~1 1 ~ p7 N
4 1`4 ~4:
R 1 [.
} ~ 'zu
s ~ ; ~'~{~
~ ~.
IM [ `5 ~
F
~ ~ ~4 ~'F
$ ~ , ~ ~:.
L'. .it lly ~ f{
i~ ~f ~ ~ ~, ~ ~:
,d~~
~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ f ~ ~ ~a ' s
.~ ,~
~ a.'-,. 1 ~ " `
_, +.
~ ` ;`i~ ~~
~-
~ ~ s ~
~~ ' ; "~
a
a~~~ l£ . r~~t~ &i
~~; ~ E t F ,~,fi ~.
T.;~ ~.
,,,f,~. -.; i 5~~s
F •I
t
,__
::.;',
'.
~; ,.
i
.-
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
1.14 Prior to occupancy of the building, the applicant shall submit application and obtain approval for
a private street for the main drive aisle to the north of the daycare, from the Planning Department.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
°^ 2.10
2.11
~g
~~~
r
t,
7
-%3
.~
R~
3
f{_'
:~?
~:~
2.12
2.13
2.14
Sanitary sewer service to this development shall be from main line extensions from Ustick Road.
The applicant shall install mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and
routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standazd forms of easements for any
mains that are required to provide service.' Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if
cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
Water service to this site shall be from main line extensions from Ustick Road. The applicant
shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size
and routing with Public Works.
Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13
and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of
reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement
with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature.
Per 11-3A-15 of the UDC this development shall provide pressurized irrigation. The applicant
shall be required to use any surface water available.
The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a yeaz-round
source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface
water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, asingle-point connection to the
culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will
be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common azeas prior to signature on the
final plat by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during
plan review.
During plan review a looped system maybe required to achieve adequate fire flows.
The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way (include all water services and hydrants).
Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive
final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing,
micro-paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy.
Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
Exhibit B Page 2
i..; '4'i
t~ T e;y~l,~~~
~~i I
~~ ~ ~ ~~~
k ~ ~ x 2.i'Y[[[r.
t ~~~ ~ ~' ~~j~~~
i W ~ ^e
y1,t5.~.
I!
1 lF, ~;:
?~ i
`~ ~ t~t~~:
ki ~ '~ 1 i~'.I
F t t ~ A i
~ fii';
~ t ri~ ~~,~
~~ ~
..~~~~~
a~
~~ , ~~ I
~ ~;~
°i ,
-~ <" ~;
F 1' ~ S Sf I
I 1 ^, r
. ~ iy,;~
( '~~1~~
(~~i ~ ~'{R+~w
7 ~ j !J
`~ tiaii
tt
i(c F
1. i~ri
~: ~ I
fir, r~'!
j`
ti
%~~I; ` ~,,, ~~~,
F ~ s
4~ ,k !e :~
~ ~ t ~ ~ it
~ ~ ~
S ~ E. I
~ ~, ~.i
_{
~ ~ ti~'~~~
1 ~ ~ j;;_
i 7
~ ~~
y ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAI~G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
i
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 Final Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department
and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department.
a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle.
b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it.
c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications.
d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'.
f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade.
g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5.
h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
~' ~ ~ `- 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a fuming radius of 28' inside and 48' outside
i radius.
~<_
L
_1
a
z,
'~
x '. ;
'a
~:.:'
,: a
_. i
s'f ~ ~
t
~~
e
.~
i,d
gin{
?{
4
'"ff}
'~
~+i
t~~
r~~
'`
i
s
4~
i
x .~~
'~
,. •~
3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all
weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site.
3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire
Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D.
3.6 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the
development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient
response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be
borne by the developer.
3.7 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as
measured by an approved route azound the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants
and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout
with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or
903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183).
a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m).
b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in
accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet
(183 m).
3.8 All Daycazes with 7 or more children must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State
Fire Marshal. If the applicant has concerns about meeting the State Fire Marshal criteria an
inspection will be completed at a cost of $20.
Exhibit B Page 3
,~ ?_
'~t ~ ~ z 1~i~ ~~~
1
k I I+,~'1~~~1k
1 i'!i ~ 'C~n
y ~ f~ ~
I S Y~ 1~
~ ~'
4 r~
~4
~. T
A ~ryry ~~ f
t °~
>'t ~
h2
:. + f Y
1 Y.k I~~
bf ~~
~~ ~~
,~ ~~ ~
Y 3~~ ~
M IJ ~ ~
$ 9,h1
C ~: ,,f.
~r~ ~,~~?
- ;~ y
7 { ;y,
~r~
{
~ru~Er"r~^t 4 M ¢ titi ~ ,~;.~
~*,1;N ~'1 r l~
a s .:=
,. L ire
'+~m~
~~ ro ~"~~3~'i
~ f ~ sr,~ i ti~ ~,« ~~
~; s ~ y~ ~~~~,~
~ At
3~
h
3 1:# IlloJ
;~
{{
' 2006
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~G DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2
,
J ,
3.9 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy
3.10 The drive aisle to the north of the daycare shall be given a name to ensure that it is properly
addressed.
{~ ' ° 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 Fences for outdoor play azeas adjacent to drive aisles and pazking lots aze to be open-vision.
4.2 All trees neaz play azeas shall have a minimum seven foot canopy.
~' = 4.3 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not
exceed three feet in height.
5. SANITARY SERVICES
} 5.1 SSC did not provide any comments on this application.
Y•~ ~'~ `l 6. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT- ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
.. 6.1 Applicant will submit plans for child care center to Central District Health Department for
- review.
t 6.2 Contact Susan Simmons at CDHD for licensure requirements.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (DRAFT COMMENTS FOR CZC-06-162)
7.1 Enter into a Development Agreement with the District to provide for the design and construction
of Allys Way to a full 46-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides from
- Ustick Road south approximately 1,355-feet. The District should be responsible for the cost of
r curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side of Allys Way and 18-feet of pavement to complete the
'Q:` road section. The Development Agreement should be executed prior to approval of this
r certificate of zoning compliance. The Development Agreement shall also include the negotiated
location of access to Allys Way, across District property.
~` 7.2 Construct a 5-foot concrete sidewalk no closer than 5-feet from the existing back of curb for
Ustick Road. Any part of the sidewalk that is constructed outside of the right-of--way, should have
`` a public access easement.
7.3 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
x.
Y" -:
8. PARKS DEPARTMENT
- 8.1 Standazd for Mitigation of trees: The standard established in the City of Meridian Landscape
Ordinance (UDC 11-3B-10) will be followed.
~" 8.2 Standazd Plan for Protection of Existing Trees during Construction: The standazd established in
~, '~'
the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance (UDC 11-3B-10) will be followed.
Exhibit B Page 4
v
,*
c-~
i i~
~ <«, ' '
~ `'y'ip ~~~;
t y
a S r. w~ t a~~_:
~ .y ~~
y ~ ~~
~~ ~~ „~
.~
~~.~~~v ~kds~~~~
~~~Ffi z ~ r ~,~~~
4 fF:
*_ F _}
N
~~ ~
.3 ~~>,:
1k ~ ~ ! 9
~~ R
r ~
c
~ 7 t r ' i q)q~ Tr.
#'~ 7
• f'
~ ~ _ # ~W"
i ~ a ~ I ag
.~' u~ ~a~
~ ~ a c~ Ix`~'~`r.'a
t
+,
S~ < J~ k '.
i~~_. - 7 , ~,y iy e
C'iu a ~~ t
t F~ 9 .a ~ ~, w~
~qrt ~ F ~q . ~y#t;
R~~.
~ {' r; ~~
f
a
'~ e ~'~1 ~
!.
3
~~ ~ ~ ~ i Qi¢p{?;"
f 1 `°~9..
~f R i~ 5 ~µ~' ~"N
_ C ~~ i ,+ ,
„_..~
~!3
r ,,, .; i
e;_
?; i
~'
°~'
~_.
~;
~,``
~~:
~.
°'
CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF NOVEMEBR 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
The proposed use on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development
regulations regazding day care facilities. Commission is supportive of the layout for the proposed
parking plan and traffic flow pattern for this use.
Pazking stalls aze required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor azea in
commercial districts (iIDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 13 stalls are required. There aze 18
parking stalls provided on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision
exceeds the City's minimum pazking stall ratio. Commission finds that the project should have
ample parking.
Commission finds that the subject property is lazge enough to accommodate the required yazds
(setbacks), pazking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends
the Commission rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when
determining if this site is lazge enough to accommodate the proposed use.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
~,. -, Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Mixed Use
- Regional. The property has existing C-G zoning and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
for this azea. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see
%' - Section 10, Analysis above for more information regarding the requirements for day care
facilities in City Code.)
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
- the same area.
Commission is generally supportive of the site plan design. Within the text of the Comprehensive
Plan, day cares are used as example uses within mixed use -regional areas.
Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a day care facility should be
compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended
character of the azea.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Exhibit C Page 1
ac:;~
:-
_~si
f h
"~Y
Y~
.'~+',
>.F
,~
L t~5
°i
Y
„~~~
', ~~
1~
L t
i5
~,. i ~'
~ ,:>
;~
r ~ Y ~
~ ~~
~A~}}i: ~ ~ ~
9 1'
S ~~I
,~
~' `~ ~A
z~ ~
~~ .~
is3.nj+ r' r~~ i ~~a~r
t~y % iU ~ ~~~~
+'
{
~~ ~ F i u,i td ~~4 ~~
r .., !~ l~;~i
i xf .;i ~~.
~ cs~ yz ~~5 h
~i ~y}
pi
g _~~t~~.
~.>;:
-. ,
~a ~ ,
~z~
} !s] yl~,
~ -,
u~ _ d' ~, ~ 1 ~ aqa -
H~~~ } ~ y ~ I~ i~' ~~~
;~
it E~~~t'y ~..
~i
~ .' ~~~ ~~
Y. 1, C
~• CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTIVIENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF NOVEMEBR 2, 2006
Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
proposed day care use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission
should rel u on an ublic
testimon rovided to determine if the develo went will adversel
Y P YP
YP P Y
affect the other property in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Commission fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the
'~ Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation
and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Commission finds that the
-" : ~ proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development.
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
F proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare.
,
M1 .'
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
i
Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a day care facility
in this location; however, Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be
detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Commission does not anticipate the proposed use
11 will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Commission finds that the proposed
~ ~
:I use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with
~; - this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Commission finds that the
F proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance.
Exhibit C Page 2
,..`
.
~,.
.,
i
F '~ '~.
T
E ,
a
.s.
....
~
$'' ~r. •'
{,
I .. i
r
a
P
~
' ~ ,
x. `p~
y a
5
~,
~ [ ~j
?:~
I ?~
$~
I
-4~
t
e3,
5 ~^~
~a
pt
1
°'4
'7
4,
,tc
)~. ~,.
~. '~: { L F ' f- ..
i~r41~ • y. i~~r~~Y 3µi
1x
r k ? ti~r?~,~` _
5 `o-~el~k
r = .!
A
T t ,~
3 L
rF? v ~ ~ ~+i ~~
~ h} 5 i r+i ~M.y ~.
F
'~~~
E ~ e.
@ r f 4^0 s A
~. r; ~ ~
S I ~ K~
s ~$ ~ '~
t k ~ gg
a~ y
acjat r~ ~ P ~ 5
~_
~ ~r 'a~
~` ~ 7 g.
7
.~_ ~~i I
'~ >
I~ ,~ !
r ~ t I~
I, c } ~ S
~;,
December 4, 2006 AZ 06-055
~,.
MERIDIAN PLANNING 85 ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
~`''` APPLICANT Gene & Freda Babbitt ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to an R-4
>- ` : zone for Gene & Freda Babbitt - 2570 S. Locust Grove Road
-
AGENCY COMMENTS
ar`
~~
.
r:~> CITY CLERK:
~u` CITY ENGINEER:
~` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AfFached Staff Report
`
~,:
'
CITY ATTORNEY
~.
CITY POLICE DEPT:
~1.
CITY FIRE DEPT:
;~
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
~~ . '
"'~ ~
s;. CITY WATER DEPT:
k j
~' ~
CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
.' CITY PARKS DEPT:
f MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
F'
~i:.'-
~,
SANITARY SERVICES:
~-
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
~'
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
No Comment
:rc
'`' ``
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
:~;
~~' IDAHO POWER:
r
~>+.
;' INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
;.
Y=
r
. OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting /Neighborhood Meeting Letter
, Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
~;~ . .
~-
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Ctiy of Meridian.
• ,
. ..a .
' ,
J
{ ~
.. • . . 'i:;r~:a~~.; q f _S ~
' _' ~Fa, :t,~,:,.-.~•~qr• ~I ~ ~ 3 }~.. ~ . ~ ~ `~ , 7 ~ J
,
. ~3' ~. le:~:i~
~'~:. a ~i 1 ~ ~Ax
y.
.. ;. ...
~
.
Y
L
~ Y
~
`~
t ,~
I
{
' r ':: t ., r
I s {
~ ~
{ .{ K
y
f e, 1 1 ~ I 1a I
:'+;
~ ,
'
~
~}
J
.!+ '
~
-~
n
'
1
~
'
?~^
yr.
I
e
11 ~ , '
'
~
•
L
I
:
'
~
`
1.:.~ 'A _
•
~
..
!
~,. 1
wp
i
f
!:
` i ~
•sc !$ G ~ a i .gytxy '91k`fiY" t' vk'
t'i'9{-:
7 .y.;y.
+~
~•?~ t
~a
±
i
uq
`~
%
~
'
. :~'
~ ~ .
.1
X
~'' t ~ y ;'~; "r,, 'S'
.
.i F i 1
-.
~.
w~ ~' ~ ., L its ~ c .: ~:
~•
f'
R~
.. va
~ Y x.
•
~ i
'
.R 1 A'
.. , ^.
~
I 1
s3":
~ ~
n
, ~t .
r C
lit -+ l
I 1
i L~
,
. i
t !
t ~ k ?~ ~ . .
if''tW.'r
S
~ d r} S I ~ S ~
`:
~ a ~ "1
:t ~
~
s
N~
~ n~sy
~ ~1 f P
..
:~ w ~y", ~.' t ~ I ! ! 4 ~ 1 yy 3'14
_ `~ ~ t~ ~ r i I F`
"s
~• h
I :~
J •li : ~? A
,
~~ ~`~ I 5 3
I I
p S
. .
i
c,
~. ,a
3 ~ . _r ..
d-
u
,. .
, ., f : ; iy,~"` 111 ,.1
~,. :.r~, 1 ;,~~;..,, g ~ .;~ I rtv
f 7 ~ ~` ~.n
1
r
~.• :~,' ~. lI7 ~/ ~ 1 - I r 4 ~ ~'~ ~ 4 ~ 4 A 'e
IL
i ,'a3~
} -
1
' ;
~~
=,
,..
~~
~f
~'~
' •~
~'
~~
~ F
t~
3
S' ~~
h}
+ `i
~ ~.~
4 k,q
)i
+ry~j i~
4Ck
~F
~M~~
~ 'i.
.'~J
~,~ ;
'~
T~}
kl c,;#
1 '_,~
•
December 7, 2006 AZ 06-053
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. S
REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 2.0 acres from RUT to a L-O
zone for ACRD Locust Grove Road Pond - 1280 N. Locust Grove Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~ No Comment
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~~,~
' ~ ;,
~.
If ~ c ~ ~ i~~ ~t~
~
~
, ~
~i
M1
~
t
'`,
~~~q
z
~
~ ~ 4, ~z
,
~l'~ , x .'9 I~
,
~~,~. ~, a 1 ~ ~, . ~ ,
s~~
_ .~
:
~
~
!
~rer~j~~
i
t S c+
N ~ -. ~t ~~
.:
4 E
.
~j ~'~r z
.~
~
~
i
i~
~
' ~i
r ~ I y
,,
~& i ,.
d+
~ i} ~~ i
~~ ! ~' ~ ~
~
i
~
a
{~~~
~
3~'
ry
,~
~
E T x •3.
, r
~ ~
~ ~ ~) ~ ~ Q
~~
1¢ }..~~i ~ 1 1
5 '~'
y7 { ~ ~d, ~
t'
~
_
~~ S
1
P
, 1
1 i
~...3~ ~ ~.
~
(~` ~~` a ~ i'
r
~~~€F
t
- -
k
y~
,
t a i4#,
~
~
TA
_'K Vk '
~';
i
- i~
L
v l~'.
c ' !gip ~~~ ~,,,'
r
~
' ,z ~ „~,~
}fir ,, :. 1~5 e~: ry7i.. .
4
~.i
A.
7 L ~'~i
h r~~ '~ f
r S~ t k~ t
~- ~
y~ Y >_~~'- ryY 7 M1
IEd a.
~
t
, ~~
+} ~ ~ ~7
i~~ z~"
fv iR d ~ !
r ~
'° December 4, 2006 CUP 06-038
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Babichenko, LLC ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Public Hearing -Detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for ofiace uses
in an L-O zone per requirement of the Development Agreement for Troutner Park
Subdivision Buildings A & B - 503 S.W. 5th Avenue
AGENCY COMMENTS
~;:
CITY CLERK:
~" CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
"' ~ CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
Y'. .
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
k, CITY WATER DEPT:
' CITY SEWER DEPT:
: 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:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
t,
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~ ?e
3~
4~
.Y
~~
c.~
t./
~~
,,:,?,~
~,
b
1 _~~
g
~~~
i
.N
k
~ J
~~ ~ 1 T~ i
~ ;=6a1,
i,
' 8 ~ ~ a 4.
a , 6 ~~ ~
~ 7 ~;,
~~ ~'{ ~ fi~
l.v „1~-a.2.
t':, ~ ~~
' C }y~ ~-,~
r
t , ~ i;x ~3
~ t:~ ~'~ ~
'tS 5
S
r ~ !,~
~~ w r , ~~
~ .~-
~` ~ f,
~~. F
.u«
t 5 ~• ft1 .. - ,~
~.~Pi ~ ~ C ~ ~ `
~x ~'~~~ ~
!;' '~ _ ~
<. ~ . ,
Vii;
~; ~
~4 i~ 71}, L1
z w..~.H = k~~
r {
~~ ~ I ~` `
Y
~' i
F ? ~ '~ ~
j.» ~ s
ti ~ ~ ~ r
~~i'.
~`
4
~" ` December 4, 2006 CUP 06-037
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
,~ APPLICANT Pamela Minshew ITEM NO. 7
.
~'
REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare for up to
~~, -,
12 children in an R-8 zone for Pammy Cakes Childcare - 672 E. Baldwin St.
AGENCY COMMENTS
F.. .
CITY CLERK:
~'` ~'. CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
~
~~ CITY FIRE DEPT:
~kr
4
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
ri.
CITY PARKS DEPT:
.: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
~, _-_
SANITARY SERVICES:
t.., ;
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments
~~: ; _
'
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment
~
~,:'; SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
r
x~ IDAHO POWER:
:
t
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting /Attached Letters from Concerned Citizens
Contacted: Date: Phone:
~~; '~ Emailed: Staff Initials:
~': Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
n.,..
~f {
.
y.
1 ~
~ ~,. CS a ';xL ~ t ~ .,I 1 ~:i
1 ~ .Y. ~.., fwT
~ ~ ~~
4 ~
~
z.- ~ ~,~,~.s
f t
a:
l
i
i~
.
)
t
.
M
'
.
p
;s7: I ~ ~i it{: ~'~..~., _~;~.q:. I ~ E~ b.` ~~ >}- ~.';~ ~ tt. .,u~Y .£,c ~ il:; '~e'i{S. ti r`,: •sw.~'
~^ 3W i
} ~ .
~
'w
'
~
~ s 1 iY I _ s< s'
I~
t ~~
I
.
Y
~
i
,t -
I
r ~~
~~+-
e I
F
+
Y
r
+'S :'.f
. _~~ r.;:
~:
+144
~
+ .
_. <
i
'~' .1'
~: , y
I
yy
..!
. I
~
I I
I ::
.
„
~...
.r
r'
1.
I s
+
'
<
~~
,
I
.1
C,
I.
a I
j
n
.
I
1
>
<
..
~:
'~ .
P.
~
i
e
,
~
J: f.
i
4~
_
R
'i''
I ;r r: :t`, 1 ~ .r r.
r s
J .Z .
t'
I .:.
d
1. ~ f
.. '}
{ f 5*' Y'F '4.
II Sw. i ..„, ~'< •~a.y1
r
t{ ~ II ( i '~ r+3
i
Y
~
'
sn I' 're.
J >a ~ I i
1
1.,~ -
I .1~ ~;:iF,r
.
. , ~ '
~
_
..
;i4 Sfi .. }'
f ~'
{
1 (a s{ 5
1
'
~
~
1
,
k ~
~
~
'~
.
r4
{ 'i . •r. ~
ya ~...~ ,~ P
.~
F §.:r .fy
.r
i .{
~
~+
I:
.7f
. 9
Y
4
i .
.. .. ...
:a~ ~ ..~,:
~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~:i ~ ° ~ F
4 'sr
i ,~
C i
r; ~^ _ ~~ 'Yd kg's' e
~
. ,
.~!~
'
!
. }
r
~
;
`
~
y . d'
~
•
j
s .~
':
~
~
YZ ;
~
"
'.~
~
'
Y
" 5
'
~
?
~
~~
%~
., '.,
.~
. ~ .
d3 s^~ t -'. ffi:.k>.., .
,. ~ i' ..,
.
.i i'.;
.'
..' ~
.. ±'
~
°.
,..:Y ~~
~
w r_
.
r
n..
..
3~. ,
'•;
• •
December 4, 2006 MCU 06-004 ;~
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006 `"
.
APPLICANT Carl & Bonnie Reiterman ITEM NO. 8 ,
"
~~
~~ REQUEST Public Hearing: Modification of the existing CUP to remove the F;`
t
,; requirement for detailed CUP approval for all structures within the L-O zone for
~ _
,
t Razzberry Crossing Sub - 1434, 1463, 1492, 1565 E. Star Dr.
~
b t
t
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: ~
_ ,
~
,t
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See sitached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
* ~ = CITY FIRE DEPT: `~.
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
~
'
~_
~` CITY WATER DEPT: ~ '
CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
~,
CITY PARKS DEPT: .!
~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~'
SANITARY SERVICES:
.~ .
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comrrnent ~ . , ~ ~ ~~
,,'
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment rs
u.
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: '`
.
OTHER: ref" A
~, s,;
Contacted: Date: Phone: ~
k.
1
Emailed: Staff Initials: .
T
YY
Y' ,
Materials pres®nted at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
.~ * '; i
s _:. ~ .
t
~ ~ S
~
t. Fig F.
_..
~..r ~
f~ ~ ~ ..
- `
2
~~! I tt
}
F ~ 'C~r 1 k
.j
_I 1
`. 'rf {
'
E
r ,~
:~
1 I
I +
~ 1
I a 1 ^
t r. ~~~
~ ~ r ~ ~
sr ? x ~
~ 1eP
~
~ 1
,
-
y
-~~
~ ~r~~,
..
~'
~
I 3
~
E.i ^
I {
y
'-/
~
I
. ~ ~g{
) ~
~'?'
~
~
~ ±
'd
~
~
'
e
y
4 .
R i
.
~
1 q l
~ ~a r ~ ~
C
~ i
tl`
S .I ~F
~
~` ~~i ~~~~~~
1 J
t
~a,@ i~ I
( ~ ` + ` ,y `
w
t
{
1
g
6 ~'~ ~
r
~~ ~
u;
I .~ v
A
~ ~'
,
f L-
`a
~~a
h~
i '~ ~ ~ ~ ~i.
~'
i'.
...
~ ~ ~~
~
:1~ I
i li ~ S~ ~ ~ ~
! ,( R ;
I ~
~ .:i~ II ~! 4 ~'r~ i S 4! ~ ~~
~
_r..a
y.. '.~ '~
~ ~ I'
l I 1' ~F:
` '
~
~ S l
b~ ~~
,
o-' ~
'~y~~~~ t
~~
f~
~:?'
¢F '
f
f~
i
I s
H{ 3
e" 'f
..
t
I
! S
i
1
oa
3,
.~
,
°
.,
r
.
I
~ i
_
~
.
gg
~. ~
}•
F ' I
r
I p~, ++
1 Y ~~ A
5
J''
-/.
~
II A
Y
Yb y
I p`~
- IT.
~~ X
.
~
>;.
t
I
~
~ ~
,s~{ ~ i ,i,~,
~
~
1q
II I~
[[[ - •~.
r +~
~~ ~J~
777
,~;
-
>t
:i
I
::1 a~
5
I 1
w
•r`
~
~'
k
v
..
:fi
_
i .
i
~' f ]
i~
F.
,rt:,
~}
,
~
~ _
5. ~
'cn
f~
~;
'!~
~~
N
~ ~
~ . ~'
a~
ti
I iS~ r . S:-` ~3hYt
'.
~~
~t
`t '
.ass
~, ,g
Cry 2 ~ ~ s
~'
_
'
~ i
~~ 3 ~r ,:~ 3~,
i~
~'~
~'+F. a
~ ~;
w_,
~~~ ,•
s ~ ~ ~
_ ~ -
~ • _ ~&
~'~' December 4, 2006 AZ 06-031
~~
~f~~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING $~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
~,
.'
APPLICANT James L. Jewett ITEM NO. 9
r
.
~`
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/19/06 -Annexation 8i Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to R-8 (115.91 acres), R-4
(62.92 acres), TN-R (51.36 acres), TN-C (34.65 acres) & R-2 (26.02 acres) zones for South Ridge
;` Subdivision -south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road
~~ AGENCY COMMENTS
".
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes
:
~° CITY ENGINEER:
e ;
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
.k . CITY POLICE DEPT:
,
~~ ~
~
CITY FIRE DEPT:
s
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
~,,' "' CITY WATER DEPT:
~
~' CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
~..
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
~:A,
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
"`
.
: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
.
_
,,
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
~, SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
r~ 7 IDAHO POWER:
~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
:~:
~~~`
OTHER: See Attached @.etFer from Majestic View Estates Homeowners
=~`"
~.-,
.
~:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
, Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
ire'
y ~
~I
"
1 t 1
{ .''k'~; k:
11, ~1
Y~~
! i 1 j
i
'i
,
.
1 ~ I p
~~ q~
..e"
t ~. i
v`
~,,t'xu ~'
`
~ ?"
:4 !.
+~,
L
~ .~
M 4 5~
__~
f
,
i
1
I ~
} ~ ~
; fi
J II, ~
v.c.~~.~;
~
`'~~'~
11
'
~
;
`~
n r 1`,a
,W.
. ~, _
9
'
xi• ~
•
;
-}
I: ~
,~.
,~
I ' f ~ ~'
: '4.,
~ ~
~ F
f
~ ~ I' ~
..d ° t I~ ,
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ .I.i~ ~ ~3 .a' s} d ~~'y
i ~ I iii - e,~ . ~lJ
Isl.
~
k ~ , a ' ~
., •~;,IN
h~l:: :.
I ~ - t ti
:
?'
'
1 ' ~
~
' (
.
1 a ~
>
~
F ~
:~-
'
y
~s a
3 ~~
d
~
:
i ~
al .r+. ~ x 4
~: ,.(,•n: ~~3
~+ F ~ .
r
•:~s~ ^~=,;,
,
e
~
z
~
'
3~ 4
I;~ ^: . ~.~~,"fit , a°:
~h
~
'ti' `'I' S ~ Ij s.Y~•
.
I
it . . ~^ f .~
~
j 1 \N~~
I as ` < t :,~_.~~~ ~ ~ ~ik~'„~,~' a
~. :.t. '; :I .rte,
~:I ;: i .
:
~ :
:
S
.,
~ ,
p~ ~
~ `s:'' Y~t~ Y+. ;
yip, I i ..~'~ v
I "' y * T i
/ ~M
+I• :.y~ . 'i .
my ce
I! I ~V+t
~
F
r
i
~ (
.
i^i AY. 1 R
. ~ K.C ati fa3_jpti•
$ I-: S 'I~ ~ r1.,, rr.,
~ ` 1
. ~ ~ f
~ A ~
i
:i ,
I '
~
-
I i+= t h„ .~ I , ~
•.:, F;'
5'A S ,
1
Y
~ ~ .
~
xx
~Y.
t\ ~ i:'
.I,' ' ~` I
+I
i
~
4
.1
=
i I II
. 5:
''~ .~
~:,
,;
~ ~
~~
;t_- .
~.' :i
r
5 :8
s
I
,~
~I
yr
_ ~~'
"S
:s
,~ ;,~ ~
a; . ~ a
Y,.
~:,Q
u.
_~y
1.. ~~
~-~S1
~ to 4
E-
r.
^n
~,~~a#
December 4, 2006 PP 06-031
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT James L. Jewett ITEM NO. ~ O
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/19/06 -Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11
commercial/other lots 8~ 16 common/open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN-C, TN-R,
R-8, R-4 8, R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision -south side of Overland Rd between Linder Rd ~ Ten Mile RD :j
AGENCY COMMENTS
----
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~~, t
ajp 2 ~~i,
~L " ZF fY~
,r
~~.
~ ,: ~ 4 P~
•. 1 1
- ~7`l i~f/r/r'~~~
i ~u
I
~.; ~ ~ ~,~
,~ ~ ~~ I !~
.~
y '- ~~~ ~R
i y
T ~~ ~1 {
r~i
L ~ E F
Ew ~ >~ ~~
F 41~ 1 ~ !L~ 'ti~~
} E ~~
k~ R. i
t
,, ~y ~J
11 F Y~ F
S J ~
}',: k. i h
Y.
b' ~ sx, ~;
( ~ '4
~ T 2
~~ ~
~ ~~ + ~ , <~a ~~~F
~ +k n
,~.,~
' ,
~i
~ ~ ~ j ~i ~~ ~ ~~
~I ? ~ r jA;
:', i ~
'" r ;~ ~ i
See AZ Packet
t
"` December 4, 2006 AZ 06-056
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Mike Hill ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and zoning of 5.2 acres from RUT to R-4 zone
~:
for Clearsprings Subdivision - 1035 E. McMillan Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
~~::
u~
CITY CLERK:
x
~;,--:. CITY ENGINEER:
i~- CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Repoli
~, ,
CITY ATTORNEY
~ CITY POLICE DEPT:
.
~~
CITY FIRE DEPT:
e
F.,
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
~~>" CITY WATER DEPT:
;~
CITY SEWER DEPT:
No Comment
~R,
CITY PARKS DEPT:
~;
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
-- : ~.
f~; SANITARY SERVICES:
`'~` ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
:,
~_ : " NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment
" SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments
~~
IDAHO POWER:
tir INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
~:- OTHER:
~:.
~' Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
~!
~t Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
¢.:
f+:~'
„'
~
~
I
I 7 .~.
~ `~ f , ~
,. _
f s , ; P,
~'
ff
d
:
_ .;z e
o
,
~„
~_
I'
' ,. _~
I,
h' n
~
,
,~ "I
4
1
r
.. '
^ ~',
~P
~
.]
~
'iW
S
~.'a
d~ _+
p
,
r~FI
~
I
~ ~ ; ~,. ~~
3
i 1~:
i
~ ~_ ~j
~~ ~ .,
1
2 t ..
.~ ~
i
~
I
{ -- 1 I ~ ~I
'~
' ~4 <
'
/5~
1
~t
HI
~ l',
n`
rEf
r ^ 1~ p
I w~ ; ~ ~~#Y~~
1 ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~~ ~i
~~
fE{
~ ~ ¢ ~ ~
~ iti ~ '~~
l
~
~
t
0
~ „ ~.
f
..
E
~~
r~
z
+, "
f`#
~
~
_ ~ f
'i
~: ~'i~
~
~
,,,~
~F :_
1
q
~ ~ ~ I~
'
l f
.
r
~
.
i~ y
1
, L
~
~
i ~ 8
'
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~
I X~~ J i
,~~ i f ~ d?
:;
~
~s~ ~~~
.±; ~
ii ~
1 1 }~ <
1 T
~ '.
3
1
, ~i
;
~ ,
,
~ ~ ~,,~
`~ I ~ ~
~
' Ihi'l a
{F..
~ i
~
~ ~~
_~ 7
i
3
~
`
•. p7
~ ~
~
.
I. 1,,,{' ~ ~~yy~~
tN f~ ~ 4''W
,i~j
k 5
Sr' `a ~Z'
I i
9' i
a
J{ ~
~. ~; 1g-
.?.~.'
J
I~ i ~f
~
~ ~~ b 1~~:
~~ £ t 17 ~ -
~
'
tit
1 ~
r
. _ ;
1 S ~., ~
't
!
~I
rye!
i s
~~
~ ;,~~
r
,
..
~,1g;
~
'~
~a
~ I f
? ;~_ ;
~~
R,
.
f
'~:, . ,'*
~ ~ a ~+~
~ ~I ~
-~ ~
-
.
;~ ; i
~ ,..-.~
t r ~.
December 4, 2006 PP 06-054
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Mike Hill ITEM NO.
REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval of 11 residential lots and 2
common lots on 5.2 acres in the proposed R-4 zone for Clearsprings Subdivision
1035 E. McMillan Road.
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
-~ '.
~:;;.
E
~ t
rj
~ ~; ~~
~N
~~
. ,~.4¢
~y
.c
;?'y
c'.
;~
.~
~ ~_:y
a~
t
~i
f~
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 Cffy of Meridian.
~ ~w ] N ~ ~ ~~~ 6,
~+~~~ £ tit ~~~ 4 F
~~,~;_
i ~ ` i1'.
~ uu `55 '~~
f i
~ ~ ~ ~
i G ~ "~~ II
_ l
< ! R~ F
4 ~ ~ y c
V~
{~ M~ ~ ~ I.~ ! F
f
~S
!! ~ t i.~~ 51~ M
'~i
r ~ ~~W~
rye l ~ ~~-
N - '-~,;
5 ._ .
~ ~ s`,:~:
~' p ;:.
~F ~ ~:t 331 ¢~1~~;'..
,p
t~ ~ ''i # t';~-'
~ ' ~ 71f
~? ,_ t jplCt f
~ ~ ~ ~~~
1
`+ 7(4 9
,t ~ ~ t 3 ~ ~`_.
~ yt . ~~ r-a i~l ~ ~
Y ~} r 3~r e
~~:
~; r
S. }
~ ~~~ ~a~r
;o t s ~: PS;~'+;~;
o tr V¢f~~;'~
{': t ~ •
*`
December 4, 2006 PP 06-055
,4 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
f.~ '
~-
_ APPLICANT Ronald Van Auker ITEM NO. ~ 3
~.,
"'
REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plan approval of 8 lots on 39.28,acres in
existing I-L zone and C-G zones for Seyam Subdivision - 3660 E Lanark Street.
AGENCY COMMENTS
~;
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
~, ; ; CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
k'
7
CITY POLICE DEPT:
~.: CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments
~ SANITARY SERVICES:
:
z- ,
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
k ,-'~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached COmments
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
'. _'; OTHER: See Affidavit ®t Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
~~~ Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
~$
` '
a ,
:?~
'fi
~~ C
! fk
k:,~ 4
`~'
^3
.i'
c r.tit
:fit
.:
.~~ ,
~ ~~ ~ ._ts [.~
ra r ~ 3
y~<.
WZ r,~ fi i f ~ r
~~
~~ ss~ e I
~ s~ .~
i . y } !_ E ~ t:~ C
3~
1 c
L ~' `
Y ~ :^
a ~ ~ '~~~
r~~~ ~ ~ . ;
w~ r ~.
Y 1 ~ ~ ~ l
wt~~'~ a l ~ ;f~`~
~ '+ 'a~~y
:~
e
s~ `~
;~ •.:r;
s Y Y ;Kµ,1 ikX.
{ :r I~~'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,
~ ~
~~ ~,~~.
~ ,~~~
., , 3 ~+„
x
e ~?~
~' ~ ? ~~':~~~sj '1
Ih
N ~ * '4^~ ~i'. .
Y ~~
2 " ..
t~Yy~,,Gi ! i }~.Q 7i ~
4~ ~:~iYYmf~ ~ i 9~
;'1j 4 ,
~ ~ 7i
~ 4 cif ~(
1dt ~'4
~ 3
~;.
~:~
•
December 4, 2006 AZ 06-057 ~
, EETIN December 7, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING M G -
~
' F
:' ` APPLICANT Heron River Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 4 `~ .
REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation & Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 ;'
zone for Jericho Subdivision - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road ~a,~
F
,~
~~ ' AGENCY COMMENTS
~., ~~.
4
~~ ;~ ~
.
~ , ~~
CITY CLERK:
~; .
,
-~.
~~' ~'~ CITY ENGINEER:
}" ~ ~~ ~:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
~,~. F CITY ATTORNEY '
~z
CITY POLICE DEPT: ;~£
~
k CITY FIRE DEPT: ,` ~`
~ ""
.
~ ,~ CITY BUILDING DEPT:
n- a
°'~
CITY WATER DEPT:
<
'f -
"' CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment
., ~,
'
~
~ CITY PARKS DEPT:
nts
ee Attached Comme
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. S
~
,
' t,` SANITARY SERVICES: ~
`~ ~ ,
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ;~
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments rr -
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments
~`
a ~ IDAHO POWER: ~
,_
"
n
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
..
p
~"
OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting
~~ ~'
Con#acted: Date: Phone:
~ Emailed: Staff Initials:
~ ~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
~,
h ; #.,' 4
,
.l ~
a"~r "
~~ ~ .~ t,
4j 1~
~
S
~a i4 '
F' ~ YYY ~
{
'
~i t r tS f ~~ s'
K
Y if~ 'fin
.a.F i
l C.'. :-
r~` ,
..
RR
~ ~
~
, t
1
4 .
{
Z ~ ~
;
,r
x
'r.
!-~ ~ F
..
.£
a~.
~.
~: '>
I
~ ~
w }y
3,E J' ~:
T{. ~
':
~.
~
-
qq
y.
p
J
{ :
. ~,
a'
'
!
1
I
E'
li
1 ~i
I ~ ~
b
5'.
_ 6'
.~
'
1
.
.
.i-k
~ I
'~
~
~'. x
~'
E" n ~
~'
I
~"
~C~ ~ 4 ~
~ { ~`
9
,, ,
'~
~ r
- Ic
:q ~ ~
~~i " 1 ~'T ~ ~ 2
1
7 1
'.''rin Q
K ~. b"
~1
:i~
- Si
~.i
I
~ .:
",
A.~+
{
4
"
.
I .
i..,
..
, .fir ~...W
~
3]i..
~::t.
~ .-
3T 1. $.~
+. §,
~'- r.
~.~~
~-
.
~ ~ ~ k.
I .
;~ ~
~ ~7~sf
S
~i
i
~
I
j a
r i a,t
i.
,, 3:`
~ "'~
R`
r
..
i~
~ ~ 1
.
k
`-s
Y
y
~
(
I
~
s
3.
4'
a
g ar
~
~` ..
.
r
~
9
k'
i
~
~
i
i+
t
~ ~
~~
r
t
..,
I
lb
~i, i
I 'rJ
-
.
Yi7"{y
yy
l
A
~W
~
~ -
'9
~
~
a'
g
~N
~
~
1
~ ~
4- ii
3.:
~J
M
r
t
~~ r
. ~' , f 1 {
~~
~
..
,rQ7 I I
~ .
~
, q
a
.
. ~
r i ~` yy33
t "'~
`s 2 ~ r
}
a
;e;,~.' r
"
~:
`~ c { r
~
'
~~ t
I .
~F
~.
i 11
la
i
1
~
~
~
,." .l
5.
~, .~!,
t
t '~ W l
~~
-
~.
,
~x i!~
,
III
~ I ~
~ 1'"' !
1 z+ - r
}
1 ~'
~~ ~~ _
k ~~ ti ~ 1 -`~ ~~
`
r ~~, r
~, ~'~ : ~~~~~ ~ r~
~,_ f
~e~ .-r
.•o,.
r .
t~ S+ ~ iii ~ it ~ c~.~v x ~~i":~ ,
• i
~~
" ~ December 4, 2006 PP 06-056
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING December 7, 2006
APPLICANT Heron River Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 5
REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units & 10
common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision -
6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted:
Emailed:
L
c_,. ~~~
,.~
A
5~#
ri
4~~
Date: Phone:
Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
i~Jl:+~~ 1 3. 3 ~ ~`~ ~~
~
~ elf
I
.a ~x e ~
k'~
$ 1
y
~
{
w :' 13 f T N3 ~ ~ 7
~ K ;
~
~ 1
r
r
'
q,
'
i
~~ 5 J ) af.f ~a
ii
~~'
r'"`r~a~ ~,n
ya i ~ ~ F~ ~4~ 1 ~ f
..
j ,
~ ~ ~
+~ w 1 %
~
i
e~
H >
fl
. r~ ~
~ ; ~~ n
f ~~
~, ~ ~ a ~,
~~ a ~ ~~
~
~
~~
f
,~ ~ ,
Fa ~
6 r .? r a;~ y
~~ ~ ii 1~r ~r~
~
IY?
s,
.~,'j. ~ J ~
p
~ ~ S ~'
~
. ~ FBI
S~ i , .
° _ f
~
,y~
v
t
~ ~ _
r
;-~
~ .
~
`~ ~
~~ S :~y`
> E~ i y ~ ~F
~ <
y ~ ~
~!
1 ~ 1 4
~ ' r i'
b<
J
Ti
JF I ~ ~ ~
-
y
.~ r ~~ ~
Y ~
''
, d
; /^ i
f
~
C
..
~
r ~~ i
~
~ t
_
+L
F1
9sr F ', y
~
# ~ l~ i
S
1
If J R 1 ^ ~}~)y
t, ,
•
December 4, 2006
MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT
REQUEST Election of Officers for 2007:
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:
~1
fi
"'''~
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
' ~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
>; INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
I OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
I Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
_
~
~ x r~ t4 I
,! ~
', ~ 3r ~..'
` ~
I I
I
1~
I .: ~~: ~:
~~ :
,,
N l~ 'I .
~ i
,y U
`
.P
~ I ~ i'
~ '
C
1 ~ { I ~~
T ~' ~V ~I
4 ~ . '
~ ~
1
.
I I
' ~
~
R J
~
R
~
~ r
~ i J
you = r 4 ~ I
~
~t ~~
,~:?
} 3 ~ i ~.
,
1 .1N=°:J , F
. ,.
..
~ >,
,t, ~ • I ~ ~
II
. ~ • .,r.: t 4'" I .~
.
F
..
,
~
i
I
,
h
1
,
'
_
6.
r,
'
'
~
~'
'? .
.
~:
d
w ~
~t~ _
,~ x 'ai: wn,
'; cw
' ;.,{
t ~:il
~
~~ ~ p
~ .. .. _
~F~, )
,
,
a;:
•b. ~.,,..ix.. :
}
~ :R..
.
.k
'.xah.:c ,
Y}~, ia~~:'c R
•
~ J. .~
I. ~ i I. i I , f
• :~a.
.
?: t.~' ~; ,~
.`'~
gf ~k' `#':'~y'r#„ f ,:~ I ~,,. '7^, 3N .
;
,''~ 1 hi K ~' ~'yT ~ i I
1 I i S• ' ~ a
!' t
~ i ~'S~ ~A
'
s, 3v ~~, ~ t f I ..E .: . sx ~
~L .Y
r":
d ;
Y ii ~
P f ' I
i.
~
,
~
-.
ti.
,. :ca ~~
.'L'• . 4.
.r,.'
a
,.
:• .~ ,.
I
...
{ ..
.~7 ~ ..i ..
' ~' ~ i
p
'
~
. c
~
R'..
~j
I...
~ +a
,
•-
-
..
.,
5 ..1 ~
A.
i t.
•r~Vr
C
~,~~~'r x
p`
¢•
1
.. 1
u~
~S :x ^`~^ ^~~ ~ 9Y
:
',~.F/fl
,'.:
'
I,f ~ .
.I~
~1 ~' J
~
~
~
si
'f .,
. .i
:t; Af
r.
.
R
'1'
•
,•
,;, ai.. .P ~
] ~h i
J. ,. ~ f I : "~ . Z
6
1 *
~ I ,~
• fi
•
~~
_ .,:
ff
" ~ ~~ 1~. ~ I,
II
`
,l'
"
~~~
` ; I
:'-. "f."~'
t
.iii
,
~ .
• v
..qY
r I I 1 ,1
{ .
4~' ~""~rr~'~`A,`. :r. - I
J .L x I ~ ~
I I ~
I. . ..I ~ ~,`..
:t M~ tom
~ ~ i
Y
# ij i i i I~. .~ .4 } t
.
. ..
t• ~:, F a: h..` ,~i . >~'e :~ ti t"' I I y ~ 1 ff h; j ~ ~ a,~,s.~. ~~
csa#-n^,`r:~ , n~, y 't, ~s..;. ~ ~
F~
~ x~.r
~ 1 ~ I ~
;
.-..,;' I
I
~ i r I
1 I i~ ~ ~ '.
p
P
~
,
'
l
December 7, 2006
ITEM NO. ~ 6