The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 05-19 CITY OF MERIDIAN REVISED ~-18-05 RIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-~~call Attendance: `~~ X Keith Borup _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~~~~' X David Moe _X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba +~~ I~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve ~V ~ '~ J ` 3. Content Agenda: I ti ~ A. Approve Minutes of April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning ~_~~ ~I Commission Meeting: Approve 'T{°° "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be `"' ~~, truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." `;~ 4. Presentation by Ada County Highway District: Presented ~'~ - 5. Con~inued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for ta~ an annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve ~~h ~'_ Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Application Withdrawn - 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: PP 05-006 Request for ':``_' Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots and 7 <a' - common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subldivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Application Withdrawn = -~ ! 'tinued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for Con 7 r '`~ , . Ann«/xation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato division by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Continue Subs -y= , Public Hearing to August 4, 2005 8. Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-014 Request for ~~ ~~ Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 - ' ~ ~ I~,eridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 Page 1 of 3 < All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. An~one desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please icontact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~'E'T,i A'~" 3~.if' ~ ~ ;" tc. ~ J ~ ' p ~ t ~ ~; 1 t -~ Y~~ \. A~ ~ ~ I i ~ ,3K~~k E ._ y ~r ' z ~ ~, ~ ~ I ~ f s t ; ~ti t l F t~ 0.k si'.¢{"i"lF:t.,..~. ~ .. ~ • q ~~ 3 ~~i ~~ ~N ~ Y _ t i - y ~ \~; t1, ft y~' ~ N 4 .~ i' - d,~'G. _ ti ~'~~~ ,. x~ ~, r4`„~" . Y^ ~, °' ,~ r-- ~'' ;, . I~ REVISED 5-18-05 ~~~ acre in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to ~;~ August 4, 2005 ~~ 9. Public Hearing: AZ 05-014 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of Y=~ t 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark `~~< Engineering and Planning -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council - 10. Public Hearing: PP 05-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74 .~ building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East ~1~ Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Public Hearing: CUP 05-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition for a gymnasium and commons area to existing junior /senior ''~` high school for Cole Valley Christian School Gymnasium by CTA rt., Architects Engineers - 200 East Carlton: Recommend Approval to City Council ``~ 12. Public Hearing: PP 05-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for ,~. -~~' Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East "~ Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council ~_,~ 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to y-; ~ allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned Development fora 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council `• 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 16, 2005 15. Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~~ Planned Development for multi-family /clubhouse /office /daycare ~.~~ development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks '~. Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to June 16, >~'" 2005 ,: ~,;~ ~' ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 Page 2 of 3 r~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. REVISED 5-18-05 16. Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development to include changes to building elevations, parking area and amenities for Troy Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 1236 East 2 '/2 Street: Recommend Approval to City Council 17. Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 21, 2005 18. Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare .& 1 pool /locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 21, 2005 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 21, 2005 20. Discuss Request for Continuance for Bellingham Park Subdivision: Leave on June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Meeting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 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 hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~D-u ~s-F &na Pd~l+~ l~~ly ~jln+~t~~~. ~~~~ ~ ~~Rr®t PLANI~tN~ AN®ZeaNtN~ R~~uLAR ~ABETiNG AG~Nt~A Thursday, Niay 18, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chatters 1. Rott-cast Alt®ndance: Keith Borup W®ndy IVevrton-Huckabay ___._,_r. ®avid Moe Michael Rohm ,~___,_,Chairman David Zaremba 2. Adoption of th® Agenda: 3. Cons®nt Ag®rtda: A. Approve Minutes of April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: sAlthough the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all ,aresentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 4. Presentation by Ada County Highway C~istrict: 5. Continued Public Hearing from April ?, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserv® Subdivision by C5 Dev®lopment, LLC -crest of North Loaast Grove Road and south of Chinden Boul®vard: 6. Continued Public Hearing from April 7, ZOOS: PP O-0Of- Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.09 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Devetapment, LLC -west of North Loc~ist Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: ?. Continu®d Public Roaring front April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Raquest for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R~4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Deveiopm®nt, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: 8. ConOnued Public Hearing from Apri121, 2005: PP OS-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Ag®nda -May 18, 2Q05 Page 1 of 3 All matertats presented at public meetings shah betrome properly of ttte Ciiy of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities rsla'ted to documents and/or hearings please contact th® City Clerk's Office at 884438 at least 48 hours prior to the publk meeting. ~~ °:a r , ;. ,~ maw; w;:,x; :«, acres in a proposed R-4 zone for ~1 Gato Subdivision by C2B ®evelopment, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: g. Public Hearing: //Q-ZZ 05-014 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: 1®. Public Hearing: PP OS-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots 5 other tots on 19.72 ear®s in a proposed R-8 zon® for Siciiy Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: 11. Public Hearing: CUP 08021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition for a gymnasium and commons area to existing junior /senior high school for Cole Valley Christian School gymnasium by CTA Architects Engineers ~- 200 East Carlton: 12. Public Hearing: PP OS-018 Requ®st for Pr®liminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 1 other tot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for laevon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Av®nue: 13. Public Hearing: GUP OS--023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned Dev®lopmerrt fora 16 lot office complex for pevon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC -824 East Fairview Avenu®: 14. Public Hearing: 14~Z 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 acres from RUT to R-15 and L-L1 zon®s far Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -- north of West Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: 15. Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for mufti-family /clubhouse /office /daycare development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -- north of Wes# Franklin Road and west of North Ten Mile Road: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request to m~ify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development to include changes to building elevations, parking ar®a and amenities for Trgy Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -1236 East 2'~ Street: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 79, 24m5 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shad become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accarrunodal3on for disabiti~es related to documents and/or hearings pl~se contact the City Clerk's flfflce at 8813-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ r 9 T. i~ublic H~lring: OS-015 Request for an Annexation and honing of 59.3® acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cross#ieid Subdivision by Packard Estates ®evelopment, Ll~C - 2820 West Pine Avenue: 1 ~. Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Ptat approval of 246 building 1244 residential units, 1 daycare & 9 pool I Lock®r fiacility restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC ~ 262® West Pine Avenue: 19. Public Hearing: Ct1P 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for single-family r®sid®ntial units with a requ®st to aNow #or reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of ~ ,OOQ fleet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfieid Subdiivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC 2820 West Pine Avenue: Meridian PUanning and Zoning Commission Agenda -~ May 98, 2Q05 Page 3 of 3 Ail materials presented at public meetings shall become property ofthe C~yy of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodatlon for disabilitles related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~::,, ;5:: ~ ` 3 Y ; ' ~~`" ;k ~;; ; -,f. ~.y~r.'. r~~: ~':, ,; ._ ,' +' i ~ h~ ~ , .g ;> ,, ,,, .. ' ~„ ?'~ C . ~~ ^ ~.,,_ ,: ,,at~S ~' ` . .:~,:: ~ ;~ :~: "-t? ~~ H Y ~ . ~- ' , ' K F ~ ~Sl - .r am; F~., r. .. . `-_~y. ~ _, _ _ ~~ '~ TX ORMRTION REPORT ~ DATE TIME TO/FROM 04 05/16 17:03 3810160 05 05/16 17:05 PUBLIC WDRKS 06 05/16 17:07 1208466440$ 07 05/16 17:09 8841159 ~ 05/16 17:10 2088840744 09 05/16 17:12 POLICE DEPT 10 05/16 17:13 8985501 11 05/16 1?: 15 LIBRARY 12 05/16 17:17 IDAHO STRTESMAtJ 13 05/16 17:18 3886924 14 05/16 17:20 P-AND-Z 15 05/16 1?:21 ALL RMERICAN INS 16 05/16 1?:23 208 895 0390 17 05/16 17:25 128300040 18 05/16 17:26 208 387 6393 19 05/16 17:28 RDR CTY DEUELMT 20 05/16 1?:29 8885052 21 05/16 17:31 CHERRY LANE 22 05/16 17:34 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 23 05/16 17:35 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 24 05/16 17:37 2088886701 O~ ~~~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thuraday~ May 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll.call Attendance: iCeith SAP Wendy Nearton-Hudcabay David Moe Michael Rohm .~Chairtnan David Zaremba 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3• Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: °athough rile City of Marfdian no bnp!er requires sworn testimony, aN Presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected in be trtvthfu! and honest to best of the ab;rity bf the preasenter. 4. Presentation by Ada County Highway Dls~lct: 5• Corttpinued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivieion by C5 Development, U.C - wit of North Locust Grove Road and south aF Chinden Boulevard: 6. Continued PubUc Hearing from April 7, 2005: PP 0.006 Retest for Preliminary Plat approval tor?2 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots an 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 torte for The Reserve Subdivision by CS Development, LLC -west of North tocwst Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: 7• Continued Public Hearing from April Z1, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acxes from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato Sttbdivisloq by C213 Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road; 8. Corrdnued Public Heating from Apr1121.2008; PP 05-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 Meridian P~mring and Zoning Cofllitliegion Agenda -May 1®~ 20Dfi Page 1 of 3 ~ e preserrted at pub~o rtreetlngs shall become property or the City or Meriden. Anyone desiring aaeommodetion fordieabpltlee related to doalmerds ~/or please ~brdact the Oily Clerks otike at ee8.4433 at left 48 home priorto tare p 'rrg. RS OF MRY 16 '05 ~ PROE.01 CITY OF MERIDIRN MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STRTUS EC-S 01' 47" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'04" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'05" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'22" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK G3-S 01'21" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-5 01'02" 003 104 OK G3-S 02'04" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'03" 003 104 OK EC-S 01'02" 003 104 OK ~,_ ~. ~,a.y- _... ?_, ~", 4,~;, -' a -. , x;. ~~ ;;;;; :F ~. Y ~~ .-,~.f . «, Y ;"~ 1 ;" ;;;,~ ,.$,, -~> t= -- ~;, .. ~.,'' \. ** TX CONFIRM~N REPORT ** DATE TIME TO/FROM 10 05/20 14 07 P-AND-Z 11 05/20 1409 CHERRY LANE AS OF MAY 20 '05 14 11 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN MODE MIWSEC PGS CMD# STATUS EC--S 01'04" 003 130 OK G3--S 02'01" 003 130 OK REVISED 5-18-05 CYT'Y OF MEDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZpNING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm ~_Chairman David remba 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of ~pril 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~llQ~ "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, al! presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. " 4. Presentation by Ada Couniy Highway District: Pf~, 3~v~-~eo~ 5. Continued Public Bearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chindppen Boulevard: 6. Continued Public H' ®~~i 1 g fr~Apnl`7, O(5 PP 05-OOG Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of(~Chinden B,yo,ulevard: ,y ~~~ 11 t:u1, 0 v` 'tlJ'I 1 t~ OWJ ~ 7. Continued Public a ring from Apri121, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by~2B~,~D, evelopment, LLC - 701 BlackLCat Road: 8. Continued Publi ®H t I ~v~ '~ / ~} ~ ~~J~J7 ~ ~~ c eanng frorh Apr1121, 2005: PP 05-d14 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities relatetl to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clark's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~, ~~~. 0 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF MAY 20 '05 00 01 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtt STATUS 05 05/19 23 14 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01' 05" 003 130 OK 06 05/19 23 15 12084664405 EC--S 01' 05" 003 130 OK 07 05/19 231? 8841159 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 08 05/19 23 18 2088840744 EC--S 01' 06" 003 130 OK 09 05/19 23 20 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 10 05/19 23 22 8985501 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 11 05/19 23 23 LIBRARY EC--S 01' 23" 003 130 OK 12 05/19 23 25 92083?76449 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 13 05/19 23 26 3886924 EC--S 01' 04" 003 130 OK 14 05/19 23 29 208 895 0390 EC--S 01' 04" 003 130 OK 15 05/19 23 31 128300040 G3--S 01' 21" 003 130 OK 16 05/19 23 33 208 387 6393 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 1? 05/19 23 34 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01' 04" 003 130 OK 18 05/19 23 36 8885052 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 19 05/19 233? CHERRY LANE G3--S 00' 35" 000 130 INC 20 05/19 23 38 CHERRY LANE G3--S 00' 35" 000 130 INC 21 05/19 23 41 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01' 03 " 003 130 OK 22 05/19 23 42 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 23 05/19 23 44 2088886?01 EC--S 01' 03" 003 130 OK 24 05/19 23 49 3810160 EC--S 01' 48" 003 130 OK 25 05/19 23 52 CHERRY LANE G3--S 00' 35" 000 130 INC 26 05/20 00 01 P-AND-Z ----S 00' 00" 000 130 BUSY -------- ------- ------ THIS DOCUMENT ---------------------- IS STILL IN ----------- MEMORY ----------- ------ --------------------- REVISED 5-18-05 CITY' OF MEDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: n CITY OF MERIDIAN REVISED 5-18-05 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm Chairman David aremba 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of pril 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~,(~~®~~ `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Planning and Zoning Commission are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 4. Presentation by Ada County Highway District: P(~Q,-SQiVt~'~(~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: ~~~ I r ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 6. Continued Public He ng from April , 2005: PP 05-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: ~ l i la,~°~ o ~ UJ'I °~ ~ ~ ~- 7. Continued Public~e~rin from A ril 21 2005: AZ 05-012 Re uest for 9 P ~ q Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by 2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: 8. Continued Pub is Hearing fro pril 21, 00 ~ : P 05-~14 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 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 hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. t !!-'s ~' S •,C. .t?: , f F~ ~ `: F 4, ;' :~ ~ ~ REVISED 5-18-05 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C26 , ` Y{~~ k ~ Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: 9. Public Hearing. AZ 05-014 Re~ues -for an An exation and Zoning of ~~ 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark ' En Ineerin and Plannin g' g g -south of East Victory Road and west of South >r~ Locust Grove Ro P bli 10 H i PP li i Pl t l f 74 }' . u c ear ng: m nary a approva o 05-016 Request for a Pre ~' : building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily ` Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East ~ " E ` Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: ~C ®WI i~'~tiV1 ~l. ~ f ~ al ~ ~j ~~~ " , 11. Public Heanng: CUP 05-021 Request fior a Conditional Use Permit for an 5 -" addition for a gymnasium and commons area to existing junior /senior °~~~' high school for Cole Valley Christian School Gymnasium by CTA Architects Engin rs - 200 East Carlton: ~4u; 12. Public Hearing: PP 05-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 ~.~ - building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for ° `~' t Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: ~®~ ,.~ ~, ~.: - 13. Public Hearing: CUP 05-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to :,x allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned ~" ;~ ~' Development fora 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lak ,LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: ~ 'v 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05 16 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 ~~' '~~~`= f acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by - `'f ~ Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and west of North { ~-~ ~ Ten Mile Road: ~ ®a~1~~ ~~ P~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~®~ • ~; 15. Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora ,.~'`~~ : ~ ,/ Planned Development for multi-family /clubhouse /office /daycare _ - development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks -~~' Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and west of North Te Mile Road: \ [ ~ `~"'' 16. Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved /,P'~ Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development to include changes to 4 building elevations, parking area and amenities for Troy el~Pl~a~ce ~~ ' Subdivision by Pinnacle ngineers, Inc. -1236 East 2 h Street: «-1~~ ,'.F r®~4~i tC9 °~~ ~~J1.1~~ ~;~;.=:_ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 Page 2 of 3 F'= . All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents. and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. " s°~== 4 ~~, Y TMay~ ~-; ~ Y t ~ ~.~ ' ~ ~.,: ,` ~.~ k ~ __ 3~~+~C~ .. bh. Q {.. ~~~~ ~ M x~ l ~l M '~lt~ £ V{ '_ { ~..1'. ~, 'tiCt~-A 3~ 9 YYY ~t=~~ ,$ REVISED 5-18-05 `,~s~~ _ 17. Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of ~`~ 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by ~:~: ~~~ =~=' Packard Estate Development, LLC - 955 W st Ustick Road: - 18. Public Hearin . P~ 05-017 Re~uest for Prelimi a Plata royal of 246 rY Pp ~; ~ building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool /locker facility / ~~ restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for °~~ Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 ~ ~ West Ustick Road: 19. Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 equest for a C ditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 ~.> zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Roada ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~D~ ~'~ 20. Discuss Request for Continu ~ce for Bell~n ham Park Subdivision: 9 i ~~ m~> ;> ~~t x~. _ . ~~_: ~~ ;f .. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -May 19, 2005 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 hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. tiR-:~.• r Est .. "~ ~, . .~ ~.._ f ~_: r ' ~1 ti--. ,~ t ~~ i ~} Mr~rirlian Planninn and 7nninn Mpptinn YUlav 19. 2005_ F,~„ The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of ' f ~'°~~ May 19, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. ``~ Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner David Moe, and Commissioner Wendy ,~? Newton-Huckabay. 2 ~:,,µ~' a ~~ Others Present: Ted Baird, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, `' ;~ ~ Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, Josh Wilson, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. ,_ '~ ~~~::_~~~ Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: ~.~. ~~~`~ `~ Roll-call X Keith Borup X David Moe ~~ X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm ~~ X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody, and welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting .°~~;x of the Planning and Zoning Commission for May 19th, 2005. We will begin with a roll call of attendance. -` Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: `=`' Zaremba: Next is the adoption of the agenda and we will take these items in order, but -:~ let me let anybody in the audience know of a couple of things that will happen. Items 5 '~~ and 6 that refer to the Reserve Subdivision, the applicant has withdrawn that. So, we ~.. rr_~ ' will not discuss that this evening. Nothing's happening there. Item 14 and 15, which ''~~ ' refer to Silver Oaks Subdivision, the ACHD has not met on that and our staff has not ~ been able to prepare their report yet, so we will not discuss that one tonight. We will continue it until June 16th. And Items 17, 18, and 19 that refer to Crossfield Subdivision, there has been a request from the applicant to continue that one to July 21, °~~= 2005. So, Items 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 will have no discussion. If you're hear for those, we invited you to come back at another time, please. Unless there is any other ,_ changes, we will consider the agenda adopted as stated. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 21, 2005 Planning and Zoning ~~~~ ; Commission Meeting: ~.: _: ~ ' Zaremba: Okay. Next is the Consent Agenda, consisting of the minutes for our regular :'~ meeting of April 21st, 2005. Any comments? Rohm: No comment. ~~ ~, ~~ ~j3r~. ~~ ~. ~ ~ , ~x ;.a~, ~` Y t4 ~r`~ (, 1~~ - I t ~l ' I, y'~'3~,~~ 1~' ' a."v. y •r:'~. ` k ~:~, 7~ ' ~ ,~ r s~ t ~T~~/N yy~" ~ ~ - ~ ~.: F~', ~_ r f ,. 3' T~LiL ~c * ~. ~y -Z ~'.N4r ~ A;i - h'M~~~ ; d.R ~. ~` ~ ~.~~ ~ f- X54. -# ~~~ ~~~~. ~~ ~ ~~ !s ~ 7cyy 1 ~~° ? ' cY ~ 'ir ~h~~1 ... } `'y{ F ~~~~~ ~ ~ _ =' Y. y~~ 1' N'T~ &f ~:~ r~ 'l •. .~i1 ~ .~.. ~~ Y ~ ~U9 ~:,: J ~, ~ ° #' :n V^ ,,. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 2 of 67 Zaremba: A motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda. Moe: Second. - Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. -~, .o Item 4: Presentation by Ada County Highway District: Zaremba: All right. Tonight we are pleased to have a presentation from the Ada ~~~~ ~ County Highway District. This is another in a series of our educational presentations. . 's Tonight we are very pleased to have Mr. Errol Morgan, who is the manager of ~~: maintenance and operations for ACHD, and he is going to tell us a little bit about a, ~, maintenance and operations. Morgan: Chairman Zaremba, Commissioners, Erroll Morgan, Manager of Maintenance `~= and Operations for the Ada County Highway District. This is the season -- this year the ~` . 't downtown Meridian area -- core area gets chip sealed. This is our -- on a regular nine r-~:. . . year cycle, this is the season for Mendlan downtown. The area from Overland Road to ~~`{ Cherry Lane, from Ten Mile to Locust Grove, as mainly for the local streets. The main ` `' routes are on -- major routes maintenance plan, they are a little different schedule. But ~~{~ in the nine-year plan, Meridian -- this is the first -- this is the first year and the second go L... around on this plan. We started with Meridian nine years ago -- ten years ago and we ~F, are now starting over again on the cycle. We have aDVD -- or we have a presentation ~.' ` on DVD that explains a little bit about our chip seal process. I grabbed a DVD to come over here tonight and I grabbed a laptop that plays CD's. So, this old logger kind of got ~;~- j my electronics mixed up. I don't know if we have had any luck. The guys were going to ~~ try to burn a DVD to a CD and I don't know if they have got that done yet or not. ~" .~ Zaremba: Do we have a way to play the videotape on this equipment over here? ~Y:F ' Morgan: I do have atape -- ~' ' Zaremba: The DVD directly on that? Morgan: We do and I think he has the DVD in the other room trying to burn us a CD. Zaremba: If there is a delay, I might ask aquestion -- Morgan: Please do. ~,~ _; w i r s.h ? zE ~ ~ k{ ~ ~J'y, r.. ~. ~- T x f ~ y f ~ t ' +' ~ ~ «* ~~ ~;~ ~ s -:~' ~Y t ~'` ~ r ~. ~q ~. ~ ~" ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~.s ' ~ r~ o-~= r ~ ~,~ ~~~~ r ~~`. ~` Elka" r~r ~1.: ti t 4 ~ k '~J ~ ~ ,~; ~#x~.~_ ~ ~ ~~ #~ ~+ •z~. ~. ~~ 2r s ~ -~;~ r:• r,~ .~ ~~~ '~,,'~: ,~ . :c••K ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning j` `;.r May 19, 2005 '``~ ' Page 3 of 67 ~, ~~ Zaremba: This might be putting you on the spot, but I have read statistics about how ~}~~ many miles of roadway ACHD has to maintain. Can you, off the top of your head, give us a comparison of ten years and today, what the difference and how many miles ACHD is responsible for? Morgan: We have 1,950 miles -- in the neighborhood of 1,950 miles today and we have = been adding in the neighborhood of the 40 miles a year. I would say over the ten year ~~' neri~d an average of maybe 35 miles a year for the last ten years in subdivisions alone. ~~"~ Zaremba: So, the job is just getting bigger and bigger. ~~. ~ Morgan: Last year we added 53 miles, I believe, to our system. Three hundred and fifty ~~~~~ miles -- 1,950 is about where we was ten years ago. The seal coating processing costs about 12,000 dollars a mile. We, through a lot of research done in Minnesota and other "~~ parts of the country through the Strategic Highway Research Program, they are - ~ determined that preventive maintenance is by far the cheapest way to go to keep the ';: roads -- keep -- to preserve the roads in the condition that they are in, to further y%~~ deteriorate, it's much more effective than letting them go and trying to rebuild and that's the whole idea behind this program. We have found we get more miles and more wear and tear out of the chip sealing than any other kind of a seal coat program and so that's '''~;~ primarily what we do. Will it work? We had a lot of questions and concerns about the chip seal program, so last year we commissioned a little short 15-minute video that kind }'Y of explains the process. It's not real professional, but it's done with our -- when I get back to the office, I'm going to burn some of them DVD's onto CD's, so I can play them ;= alone. Zaremba: Have more choices. Is there a baseball game on or anything? Let's give him one more minute to see if he can engineer the solution and -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~``+~ Newton-Huckabay: While we are waiting can we -- can we open and continue 5 and 6 or do we have to simply withdraw those? Zaremba: Oh, we got it to run. That was a good idea, but we are on. Thank you. ~'`~~~ (Videotape played.) Morgan: That's the presentation. ;. Zaremba: All right. Thank you very much. I think we understand that much better. `:' Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Morgan? ~~~. ~~x ~~: ~~r 4~ * T ~f~~~~ ~ ~ ,,,~'t ~~~ } ~~~ r k ~~~ ~~ ., ~~' ~ }' .~~.LhNy ~" . ~'-..: t t y ~.~ ~ n ~ ~. , k: ~.~:,, ~~q- rt ~+'~s ~ v.l ~ F g ~ ~:. 4r: b~.~ ~~'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 4 of 67 Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious when we start this season -- you're already started? ~ Morgan: Well, the preparation -- in answer to the question -- the preparation work has -~ already begun. You have probably seen our crews around town repairing curbs and =.x r, ~~ sidewalks and doing some of the things. The actual chip seal work will start right -_;_ around the 1st of July. July and August, the hot weather, that's our chip sealing season. ,..y Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. Can we accept questions from the audience? .:~, Baird: In the discretion of the chair. ":~ ` ® Zaremba: Sir, you had a question. ""~ Audience Member: It appears that you spend about four million dollars a year to do this. Is that labor and materials and does that include depreciation of equipment and overhead when you quoted 12,000 dollars per mile? I mean does that include a portion to overhead? Morgan: That includes overhead and all. The equipment is not all depreciated out just on the chip sealing process. It's depreciated out through -- a lot of the equipment is ~'= used for removing snow and all of the work that we do, so -- ~;, Zaremba: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. Glad it got working. Thank you, '~",,~ ~ Mr. Morgan. Okay. Now, we come to the Public Hearing portion of our meeting and let ~~= ~= me just discuss the process a little bit. On each of these items our professional staff Yi r`-'1 ~'~-~"; has already spent some time with the applicants and they have gone through a lot of ~~ `~'.,~, issues and details and ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. We will begin each 'R hearing with a report from our professional staff on where the project is, what the project ';~~~~ is, and any issues that are remaining to be discussed and considered as far as they ~., ~" `` know. Following that, the applicant will have up to 15 minutes to answer any concerns ~F .; ~~ that are remaining from the staff, tell us anything more that they think we all ought to ~`~~~ know. Within the applicant's 15 minutes are included any tag team, other engineers or ~' ~::.,.~~ architects, or anybody that they need to have fits in there. After that it's time for the ~' ~'~ general public to give us your comments and, as with everybody, if it's important enough e~ ,.'~~ ~ r:~ , ~~ ~ for you to come down, we want to make sure we hear you, so, please, only speak when °:~~: you're at the microphone. We do ask that everybody, including applicants and ~~' everybody else, begin by giving their name and address, so that that can be on record ~~ - as well. But since we want to make sure you're heard, please, do come to the microphone and speak up even when you're on the microphone, to make sure that we =~, h::.~ can hear you. After the public testimony -- I'm sorry. Let me back up a minute. We do ~~~ ask that you limit your comments to three minutes, each person that we call. There is a ~``':~ variation to that. If you have a spokesman, for instance, the president of a homeowners association or something equivalent to that that many of you have chosen and you are ~~ ~x ' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~: ~ May 19, 2005 °~; Page 5 of 67 '~' giving up your time to that person, we allow the spokesman to have ten full minutes to __. ~~~F speak. After everybody has spoken, then, the applicant has a final opportunity to come ~~' ~~~'~~ back. They will have taken notes while everybody was talking and respond to questions _'~ that were raised or resolve anything that can be resolved. Then, after that we will close ,; ~~`~ the public hearing and the Commission will deliberate on it and we will hopefully v= conclude with a recommendation to the City Council where there will be another Public ~~#. Hearing and, in theory, that's the way the process goes. We have a handy lighting system over here. When the green light is on you have time to talk. When the yellow ~~;,~ light comes on, I believe you have got 15 or 30 seconds left, you should begin to conclude. And when the red one comes on, we ask that you conclude or stop, if you would, please. This helps us not have our meetings go until 1:00 o'clock in the morning, ~`'~` which they sometimes do. So, we appreciate brevity. We also appreciate anybody that ~;~~ £~ cares to come to the microphone and say I agree with what Sam said and we know what you mean. On many of these items we also have received written letters from ~,.. fi; people who have mailed in on the items. We have all read those and you may tell us you're the person that wrote the letter and hit the high points, but you don't necessarily ='g~ need to read us a whole letter that's been sent to the City Clerk, because we do have ~_.:.. ".: those, so -- we appreciate that. r.t: a -, Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: AZ 05-004 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve ~~' Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove '~~~`~ Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: }~''` Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: PP 0-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve `Y5 ~ Subdivision by C5 Development, LLC -west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: '''~~' Zaremba: And with that we will begin with Items 5 and 6. We will reopen the continued ~ Public Hearing for AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006. These relate to the Reserve Subdivision r;;: and the chair would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing and accept the applicant's request for withdrawal. ^fl; =; Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: -- move we close the Public Hearing on Items AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006. ~:'~.~ Zaremba: Is there a second? Moe: Second. ~`~=~~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. -F t'y~•' 3yT1~ r. ,.n ~. - f ~ } i:` Y_ \ :. 4. ' X_ ~, y ~5+, - ,~ <~ :. ta' Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 .~~ Page 6 of 67 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion carries. .~_~~ , ~~{i~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 5'q. -3 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Do we need to have a motion to -- =~~~ Zaremba: Technically probably not, but we have been doing that in the past, just "d~~ closing the loop. ~; >t Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the applicant's request for _~~' withdrawal of AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006. ~' ~' s,=I ~~~ Borup: Second. ~.s Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? '~` Motion carries. .~~. ' '"~" MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ' Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: AZ 05-012 Request for "'"'~` Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato ~~`~~ Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: .:fix. "~= ~ ~~,~ Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-014 Request for ~'~~~ Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B =`=~ Development, LLC - 701 Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for Items 7 and 8. We will open both hearings simultaneously. This is AZ 05-012, request for annexation and zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone and PP 05-014, request for preliminary plat approval of 17 ''~'~~~ building lots and two common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these _..~a ',µ~ for EI Gato Subdivision by C2B Development, LLC, 701 Black Cat Road, and we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a request for an annexation and rezone to an R-4 district for EI Gato. There is 17 lots that the applicant is proposing. The location is immediately north of the Union Pacific Railroad and off of Black Cat Road, south of Pine Lane. This subdivision in this area is Castlebrook and that is an R-4 subdivision as well. The Comp Plan designation for all of the area in this vicinity west of Black Cat is low density residential. Low density being less than three dwelling units to the acre, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue with this one is there is several -; } 3~ .s { s } :~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 7 of 67 natural features to be identified in the area. The first is right north of the Union Pacific Railroad, it is a large drainage ditch called the Purdom drain and it has been indicated `` that on your staff -- I mean on the packet submitted by the applicant that this would be a ~~F -#~' portion of the open space of Lot 1, Block 1, that is incorrect. It has been redefined that this is not a part of the subdivision, it is either owned or maintained -- or owned by Boise Project Control Board or Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and needs to be removed from the calculation. The second feature is that there is a dual roadway system on Pine ' ~~~~ Lane right in this location immediately north of the site, which is a 50-foot wide roadway r ~~ and, then, there is EI Gato Lane, which is immediately adjacent to Pine Lane, which 4 puts together an entirety of 110 feet of right of way north of the site. The reason why >;Y this application was tabled from the previous meeting was to allow ACHD more time to Y~~ try and address this issue. With the ACHD recommendation, their recommendation was ~~~~ to vacate Pine Lane in this location and it was their determination that this was ACRD ~~~~~ }ti~~ . ' ri ht of wa There was some -- if ou read the letter that was submitted on the 11th 9 Y• Y ~ and 12th, there was some confusion as to who owned that property. Staff is going by ~~ ~. ,.:.~ ~ ACHD's recommendation that their staff knows what they are talking about and that it is °~r~~~~ ~ ACHD right of way. Regardless of the designation of Pine Lane, we can still annex and `. subdivide this property, because we are not looking at subdividing that property for k~~ti ~ houses. It is a portion of the annexation which would be brought into the city and as per t ~ ACHD's recommendation, would be mitigated, so that it is landscaped through a license -r ~` ~ agreement with ACHD in order to move the traffic from what is existing Pine Lane and - `~~; which is an unimproved surface, gravel surface, to EI Gato Lane, which, actually, lines up with Pine Street across the -- across the way, which is great in this location and that ~YX is the preferred option for ACHD and staff. Meridian city staff is supportive of that and has conditioned this application accordingly. The next -- well, I guess I should have shown this before. This shows where the Purdom drain is on here. This is a very deep, ~~' wide canal. Actually, I'm not sure if it's a canal or if it's just a drainage ditch. With that, the applicant is -- without that, the applicant only shows the landscape buffer to the ~~~ Black Cat Road and, then, internal parkway buffers, which are going to provide eight feet of off-street landscaping that will be for internal open space calculations. Again, Pine Lane is shown on here, but the actual access for this internal street system, which ~''~ . is defined as Ligar Street, would take access to EI Gato Lane, which is, again, 50 feet north of this site and that's where ACHD requires the connection for a light or court to be -- to take access. This is a picture I took on Tuesday. I was sitting approximately in this ~~'~ location, which is right at the intersection of Pine and -- this is Pine. This is EI Gato. And this is the right of way from Pine, which ACHD claims, and is requiring to be ~ landscaped and, then, bollarded, so that it moves traffic from Pine onto EI Gato, which i .r:,, . is the improved surface. This is a picture of the Purdom drain. As you can see, it is a fairly deep, wide drainage ditch and approximately the location of the property line is on that fence line. This mud in the front is the new sewer trunk that is going in on the Black Cat Road system and it's normally not that muddy, it was just raining when I took the _ ~ pictures. This is a picture from Pine Lane facing south. This is the EI Gato Subdivision `''`' fence line. Again, approximate. The existing house that's on EI Gato would be n removed and EI Gato goes approximately down to this location, which is -- would be the gi . `r~' Purdom drain. The topography is fairly flat there and we don't see any problems with ;~ ~ = anything. This is the property immediately to the west of EI Gato -- or the proposed :~ ~~ a. r5:= _ ~; i. -, _. } _,G ~ ~ ` f ~ _ ~: q, Ih,. ~p ~~ ~ -G Meridian Planning & Zoning ' ` May 19, 2005 ~.~ Page 8 of 67 `~a subdivision. Currently it is being farmed as pasture. One point of clarification. In one of the letters that was submitted, the -- it was claimed that there was a project going on. There is currently aproject -- I did get the wrong parcel here. It's not this parcel, it is , ~4 one of these two parcels further to the west off of EI Gato. This is an Idaho Fish and ~ x, Game project, habitat improvement project, which is done at the owner's expense with '. `~ the expertise of the Fish and Game staff and it is a program for developing and ~<<T maintaining natural habitat for fish and game in the area. And that would lead into the ,. '-'"-~ discussion for the density for the site. Currently, the applicant has shown 17 lots, which ~~:~ . -~~ gives an approximate density of -- as they have calculated it, 3.08 dwelling units to the acre. As far as I could calculate, the applicant has indicated in his notes that there was -- in the letter submitted yesterday there was 6.35 acre parcels -- I'm -- staff is very confused as to what the actual survey parcel size would be. When I calculated it I came `;Lv '' up with a 5.13 acre parcel and 17 homes, that would give a density of 3.31dwelling units to the acre. And that assumes that all of the right of ways, all of the landscaping, all of atAs: 'h~~ the lots, and all of the roadways are incorporated into that density calculation, which they would end up changing that slightly. With that, staff -- or the applicant has $~'` recommended -- or requested a density bump up, which is a Comprehensive Plan note, that indicates that in low-density areas or medium density areas that are residential to `~hr residential uses, the applicant can make the request. It's not a guaranteed bump up, it's .~~~ ~~~~ ,~,.~ . a request to this board for a consideration for higher density. This is not a -- something t"~~_ that is given to a developer just because they are requesting it and staff has made the ,'~~ recommendation that you do not increase the density higher than three dwelling units to "~'v=: the acre. And, even so, would recommend that the portion to the west be reduced in r= r density further to accommodate larger lot uses. Similar subdivisions that this has happened on -- we heard less than a month ago for Kingsbridge, which has one -- y`~ - . which had one -- one acre, three acre, and five acre parcels that surrounded their site + 'xLL' and their smallest lot in that subdivision was 12,000 square feet, which is approximately a quarter of an acre and that is what staff is recommending for the western portion here, is a minimum of 12,000 square feet. That is not a condition of approval at this time. If this board so sees fit, in order to make that a condition, then, you can take that into • .<~ consideration, but that is stafFs recommendation fora redesign, as well as to :: ~~ incorporate additional open space into this subdivision, because as currently -- with the ~~~ -- losing the Purdom drain and a lot of the other calculations in there, they are not ~~ allowed to take into any consideration that they are required to landscape Pine Lane. ~~~~ That is an ACHD issue. That cannot be calculated into the open space calculations. As :~ ,~ ```"' for our -- as to the City of Meridian's landscape plan, Chapter 13 indicates -- or says that - -~= dedicated landscaping has to be within a subdivision and it also has to be exclusive of '~R~ Q right of way, which means that you cannot include the right of way for EI Gato or -- I'm ~' sorry -- Black Cat Road or what will be EI Gato in this location. It has to be internal ;' landscaping for open space. And there is currently no lots designated for open space '='~ within this proposal. Staff has indicated condition number five, site specific condition number five, and three -- or the minimum residential density and the open space being ¢~`~ ~~ those two concerns. The last concern, before I uit talkin is that due to maintenance q 9' issues with the Purdom drain, a lot of times the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will .;.-,~:' burn those ditches and staff has requested anon-combustible fence be put in the `-~~`~€. southern portion of that as to not impede any maintenance issues with the Purdom mil:,.... ... ~ t ~ ^µ { f_ -~jr 1` . 1 TC . t ' .~., b 1 ~1 '~ ,..:+~Y - Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 9 of 67 y ~' drainage system. At this time I most likely have -- oh, one more thing. On page ten, condition number two, there was a typo in there. It says Locust Grove Road. That :~r~:a~ should be changed to Black Cat Road. And that the staff is recommending approval of ;:.{~. ~~_~:~, this subdivision, as outlined by the conditions of approval listed in the staff report, and I'll `~ stand for questions. `''~ ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Where on the -- ~~ Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have a question on the -- Zaremba: It's the second paragraph of paragraph two. It starts open space and it's in the very last -- <;'}~~ Newton-Huckabay Oh. Okay. .~~ '~, Zaremba: -- on the last line, not quite the last short sentence. ~`'~ Newton-Huckabay: Joe, on the Kingsbridge development, didn't we, as a Commission, ~~ _ recommend half-acre lots around the perimeter and the City Council reversed that? ~~!~ Guenther: Craig Hood was the planner on that and I'll defer to him, if you will. a; Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, what they did at Kingsbridge was 12,000 square foot ~~ lots along Zaldia Lane. There were some other parameters. The eastern and -;`h~ somewhat the north that did have some half acre lots, that the developer agreed to put °~ in there at your recommendation, that the Council did require them to do, but there were some on the perimeter that went down to 12,000 square feet. ,.:; Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. -~:T ~~ Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? ~ ~ S ~~ ~` ``~ McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. It's good to be back in front of you again. It's been a few ~.r. ~. weeks or months, maybe. Joe did a pretty good job of explaining the subdivision. *~ There was a lot of really interesting issues and we will jump into those pretty quick, but ~~ just to point out, we have read the staff report. The conditions of approval we agree -„ ~ '' with. There is some points of clarification that we'd like to make. You have all received ~, .W~ a letter from me. I hope you have had a chance to read it. I won't be reading it to you ==~~ tonight. I think Joe hit on the main issues and I'd like to stick with those issues tonight. ` ""~ I have prepared a DVD as well, a CD, and I don't think they are working for that tonight, ~:, -; ~- ~k so I went ahead and made some copies for Joe. We have got some color copies and ~~ .~ , he's going to put those on the overhead. Joe, if you could turn the overhead on, we will }~~ just go with those -- the first issue. We'd like to jump just directly right into a discussion f r 4~ ~ .~ a ~~~ . j ~ ~ ~ ,z ~ fir. ~ - ~~ ,_~ Y ~• - `` - ,: R '.<" _.-.f rA~~ M :Y ~l' 7r;ir.~ BY~'~ (~~` ~ ~ 2;:.- <r `~t, w ~ ~~ Y rf ~'W4 Y. r ~YC f Jr5'^ 4~1 i L ~ ~ ~~' ~~ ~ }` 7 Gf ~ ~ Y {+'~3"'~ ~5 M ~~x~ ; r .~s•. *t. , .. .~x ~~~ _ ... ~~~ ~, ..;L :' _~' ~;. -w>>~~ 'f: tX `~ ~, r x;`°;~~_ ;~ ~,. .,. ~.~ ~, f, ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 10 of 67 on the density issue. Kind of where Joe ended that discussion was with the 12,000 square lots and in the first three pages, basically, the staff report deals with issues related to density. As Joe pointed out, in the Comprehensive Plan this property -- as you will see the Comprehensive Plan sitting over here -- the audience can't see it. I know we have got a crowd tonight. Sort of light green to the light density, up to three units per acre. No matter how you slice this piece of property up with the density -- with the number of lots we have requested, it's either right under three acres, depending on which legal description you use, or it's just over three acres, depending on the legal description that you use. We have got a number of legal descriptions and I will explain some of the confusion that goes on with that. If you can go to that first slide, Joe, and give us that, there is a number of pieces of property that Joe mentioned. There is Pine Street that is 110 feet wide and so, obviously, it would be a lot easier to explain once it's on the -- the overhead for you. If you could put it so that it's right side up, it would be awesome. Just for orientation, up is north. With this subdivision -- no, it's not north. North is that direction. Thank you very much. It's -- okay. This is west. The Purdom drain -- this is the Purdom drain. The railroad track. As Joe pointed out, the Purdom drain is not part of our subdivision. That was an error in survey and we have corrected that. There is, however, a 20-foot right of way that's called out in this back -- on the back -- south side of this piece of property. A 20-foot right of way. ACHD claims ownership of that as well and that was discussed at the ACRD hearing. At the ACHD hearing it was determined in their staff report that we were to vacate that piece of property. Regardless of whether we vacate it -- and at that hearing they also said if you don't vacate it, we would understand that as well. Twenty feet wide. ACRD has no use for it. Twenty feet wide you can't drive two lanes of traffic up and down. It was tied to the deed and so the deed included a 20-foot wide right of way and, in addition to that, they included this right of way over here, Pine Street, which is the privately signed Pine Street. This is the gravel road that you saw that Joe took those pictures of where it jogs funny. Then we would have EI Gato, which is on the north side. So, the legal description included this 20-foot right of way, this right of way, this 50-foot right of way. In addition to that, it showed a prescriptive dedication of right of way on Black Cat to the center line of the road 25 feet. So, one legal description, we had to provide all of this in the legal descriptions for an annexation and, then, after talking with Joe initially, because this initial drawing didn't go to the center line of EI Gato, you had to provide another legal description to get to the center line of EI Gato to be contiguous with the city. The contiguity for this project is with Castlebrook caddy-corner, since we had to provide it all the way to the center-line, instead of just to the very edge of our property. So, we had to provide a number of different legal descriptions. The first legal description, which is based off of the deed, came up with 6.35 acres. So, we took the density based off of that, because this was all one parcel. None of these were dedicated easements as far as we were initially. And so if you take 6.35, multiply that by three, you end up with 19 units, plus change. We asked for 17 units. Now, we can start paring down all the rights of way. ACHD claims ownership of this right of way. They said we can vacate it. So, we add that to our property, in addition to this area. Can't count the 25 feet down here. It's already improved as right of way for ACHD. But this portion right here, ACRD claims ownership, but they say either we own it, we don't own it, we are not exactly sure. Their best judgment at the hearing was we do own it, !f.. . _~ L ~. a.', .~,f:: '.. ~ f 7: S , l ~ q 1 ~.~ .t.-~~) h . ` ~ ` '' Meridian Planning & Zoning b ~ May 19, 2005 "`,'3` ' •?.` Page 11 of 67 `:`~~~ it's not yours, we want you to do a license agreement. They give us the option of .~~~~ vacating it -- if we vacate it because part of our property is part of a subdivision. ,,,.,;_ ;; Regardless, the homeowners association is going to have to own and maintain that ~~~ piece of property. The deed says this is for aroad --aright of way for this road. It ~~ r doesn't say it's the county. It's doesn't say it's ACRD. This was done in 1976 for this '-'"~ right of way right here. ACRD wasn't organized at that time. ACHD has since been "' organized and claims ownership of all rights of way. If you go to your Ada County ` ~ r' ma and ou o to the GIS s stem that the Ci of Meridian uses this 20 assesso s p y g y ty , ,a~~ foot wide right of way and this right of way right here are shown as ownership under '~'~~ ACHD. And that's on the official records that we use from the City of Meridian and Ada T ' County uses as well. We will talk a little bit more about that. As far as density, if you ' s part of Black Cat and leave the rest of take out this 25 feet wide section of road that aRS, ~~~ this property in and this property in, you end up with roughly 5.89 acres, multiply that by ... Yx three, it gives you over 17 units. 5.67 acres would equal exactly 17 units. So, we are ;: right around that 17 unit ballpark number. So, it keeps us around the density for the Comprehensive Plan. Now, we start talking about the Comprehensive Plan. We had a lot of discussions; we have had a lot of discussions with you about the Comprehensive ' Plan, about how it's a guide. The Comprehensive Plan is just that, it's a guide, it's a '7y goal, it sets a threshold for what they'd like to see developed. 3.08 dwelling units per '~ acre, the number that Joe threw out, the number that's in your staff report, is 800ths of a y~° dwelling unit more than what would be allowed. So, we are right there at the goal. We ~~'~ are either right under it or right above it. The density is just at what the goal was set for. We don't have so many units in this site that they are asking for a large bump up. Joe `+~ mentioned that we requested a density increase. There was no request for a density k ;:, ' increase by us. When we looked at this, we said there is enough room on here for 17 - rr ``s~--,~ lots, it meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. We weren't asking for a density increase. If we need a density increase to get to 3.08, I guess we are r°~~ requesting it at this time. But there is a lot of legal descriptions that are out there for this ' "~` and we will try to clarify that. And the legal description, Joe and I talked a little bit about °~~~ how we don't go all the way to the railroad property and so the properties to the south ~~~ may not be able to annex, unless we annexed all the railroad properties adjacent to it as well. So, there may need to be another legal description for this piece of property. So, >,~., ^`' sorry for the confusion. It is somewhat confusing, but we are right at the three mark, no _~~4 matter how you cut it, you're just under or just over, so we are trying to meet that goal of ~~ the Comprehensive Plan of three units to the acre. The 12,000 square foot that Joe broached on, up on the north side, these lots are all above the standard 8,000 square s~ ~ foot. These average 9,500 square feet in size. As Joe pointed out to you, we would be '~ buffering cows right now. It is agricultural use. If you have seven across here or six, ^:~~ you're still buffering cows and right now it's an agricultural use. The Comprehensive ~' ~ Plan anticipated this type of development when they came through. These lots are all ~~~f broken up into lots larger than five acres in size. The reason for that is that they are zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition. That zone is a transitional zone for future '~ development. They are not broken down into something smaller. We require larger lots :~' back there. Whatever happens in the future on the next piece of property that develops ~f~~ ~ is going to have to buffer for those larger lots and so it becomes larger and larger lots as : ~<< you go back. We need to set a standard now for what those -- those uses are. We feel i ~ '{ ~~~~.. t ,z . , , '~ I . . ,, t~~ f- + ~'' ,, ~. .~ ~. ~. .~t~ar ~ i~ =!~ 1 h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~. ~_ ~ ~SR~ ~ ]r '~~ f r fib) ~ lY y ~ ~~ ~~ j ~ ~' ~ ~ ±± f ~ i~i~ ' . f)* 1 ~' ~-1~'- ~~~~ ~ ` , 3 ~ x g `- 71. }~ y ~`'~ kt ~~~~1~~ y i C, ~: ,c i. ~ ~ ~'t1 a ** ~~~~y'4 .,y~.- ~~ 4n~~`~ r'?!"' ; ~; ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~E $` ~ fi, ~- ~...t, x _ ~ ~ ~. .C~~. ~ .. F `ru' f l~E" ?~i- ,.c3 ~~~~ ~' J ~7,.3~Ya ~ Ip f~ .rt~E'.C~~ ,~ .' .pw ~~}~gr k~ t ~ ~ ~- . yy~ ;:, Meridian Planning & Zoning ' ~ ~ May 19, 2005 Page 12 of 67 ., ;.~. that lot size of 9,500 is bigger than the minimum for that zone. We feel it's appropriate ;;;~,~,~ at this time. There is some things we can do and we will talk about those a little bit later r- for maybe making this a little bit bigger. Joe had some pictures for you. Joe, can you } ~ >~' go to the next slide -- the next overhead? Joe had some pictures and we talked a little -~fi :«~ bit now the Black Cat trunk was recently constructed in this area. Black Cat trunk is a ~~~~`~-~~ multi-million dollar sewer trunk project. The City of Meridian installed this sewer trunk in F:° ~_ order to provide sewer for development that's happening. This runs right in front of this that it's been broken u t tif h b hi d All th i hb th t t ati:;_ ~ p es y me can ere e n e ne g ors a are projec . ~;::F:~ for a number of months now and it's going to be nice to have it all asphalted again and ~~~ ~: have this large sewer trunk several -- 20 to 30 feet deep in this area. We have got a lot ~`~ of sewer capacity in that area. The City of Meridian is planning on this area for >`t; a ; development. It's turned sideways for you, but what this map illustrates -- you can see . .:fr "~~~~ ~ where our project is, it's this green spot right here. I believe this is -- this is Black Cat ~~, Road running right to the left here. This is Black Cat. The Black Cat sewer trunk area ~~ ` only includes this area that's in brown. The city has drawn a line in the sand with their ~_ Black Cat trunk. They said nothing further west than that area. All that yellow area, '~~ , r nothing further west can be developed right now until the McDermott trunk is ~v ~y ~.r: constructed and recently at -- as recently as last Monday night there was discussion ,'~`~°'`~ about what's happening in north Meridian and discussion about the -- when that -- when _~ ~ that would be able to be constructed and we are two or three years out. I have had ~`~" ' ,~, discussions with City Council, they said they don't want to see the McDermott lift -- y ' McDermott lift station and the McDermott trunk be built until the Ten Mile interchange is ~~' '-' ~.,. constructed. They want to limit development in this area and they have drawn a line in ` ~ the sand saying you can go no further west than this boundary that you see in front of y~t }~ <~, you. And so all the properties to the west of this area will have to wait several years ~:~,;- before they can be developed. So, we are, basically, one lot in from being able to go as ~;r' far west as this sewer trunk will provide sewer to. So, there is a -- there is a boundary r Y~. set right now in the City of Meridian for where development can reach and we are just °~{~~~4 ?, ~ inside that bounds Onto the next slide, Joe, if ou could. This is where it's oin to rY• Y 9 9 get really interesting. We had a few neighborhood meetings with the neighborhood and ~ both neighborhood meetings focused generally -- and specifically there was a lot of s' =~~_~. ~ discussion at both those meetings and at ACRD about what's going on with the 110-foot ~~<~~~'' wide access to these properties. Joe did a very good job explaining that to you. On the s " ~ north side there is a public road that's improved with asphalt. It's not improved to =`~ today's standards, but there is asphalt. And that would be this side. We had our ~~ engineer go ahead and do a rendering as to what it would look like with curb, gutter, .~'Y~.-~ and sidewalk. Across the road with Castlebrook -- you recently approved this >~~ subdivision. They improved this roadway for 24 feet of asphalt and curb, gutter, and ~_' ~ sidewalk on this side and this piece of property right here isn't where the 110 feet wide `~'` ~`~ right of way is right now. This is a schematic, I don't know if it's to scale, I'm sure it's not `4f'~T~ something we can scale off right now, so we went ahead and put a number right here. `~ From centerline of the road to the ten-foot buffer, this is over 68 and a half feet from S~fw~ where the new center line will be. The rest of this roadway, outside of 36 feet of right of :.:~ ~, '' ~~ way -- outside of 36 feet of curb, gutter, sidewalk and roadway, has to be landscaped ,'~~y'" with a license agreement to ACRD. So, you have approximately 50 feet of landscaping '~* entering into the subdivision. That's a lot of landscaping and in doing our open space r r~l y~ > ~~' ~ 41 ~~ ~ ~ 2: a +a'~^5 sn~ } ~~ a,.r. ~ ~ ~~ i 0. Y~ 7yYa- ~~ ~rY~ Ty t"~~ ~' Wit; Y $~~ ~ws x,: i t /kM1~i~z4~N .tS~a '~~~ ~., j., +J 1 ~ v~' - ~~" 'x~t `P~' ~r r ~ . ~"- $~r{.Tr ~ k~r` ~ i ~. 44 ~~ ~ 5 ~^'.e Fes}, ... R 2 "_ r ~ ~!~' 3d 4 . a~ r~ ~. k „E I -~}~ ~b~,N iy r~~~ ~ ~- , ~; ~~r ti "~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ' y: ~ lac 1 fiCS~' ~ ks, S y j,. ~ q~~ D F~gg~ ~' - °Utti ~ t -r ~. _ '7J. ' :; Meridian Planning & Zoning ;~ :?~ May 19, 2005 Page 13 of 67 -~~, calculation, we took only half of that dimension, because the code says you can only ~~ count half of your dimension -- if you do above and beyond your -- above and beyond the ten foot minimum, you can only count half of your open -- you can only count half of your open -- you can only count half of your improvements towards your open space ' requirements. We only counted half of this area towards that open space. At the ACHD ~~ ~~ ~, - . hearing, Joe put in his staff report, the perfect comment is on page five from ACHD ~ ~ explaining what this area -- and it's actually a paragraph long and this might be ~~~~~ ~ something we could look at if you want to. And I'm trying to move through this pretty '~`~~- quick. ACRD came in and said you either vacate it, make it part of your project, or go ,~% ahead and landscape it with a license agreement and we have chosen to landscape it #~~ F with a license agreement and we will have almost a 50-foot wide entry into a subdivision for landscaping to be maintained by the homeowners association. As Joe pointed out, ~ %~ this will align with EI Gato. ACHD is in support of this aligning with EI Gato. We are in ;,; support of an alignment with EI Gato, it makes it safer than having 110 feet wide where ~~ you can access this property. From the picture that Joe showed you, you could see that ~~ people further down are, actually, coming off of this road and coming onto the improved r j;~~ ~~~ road section and driving it right now. Recently construction for the Black Cat trunk <~° extension was parking in this area, they are using this as a staging area, and everybody that lives in this area is unable to use the gravel road, but they are still able to get out onto Black Cat. And so by eliminating the private road that ACRD claims ownership to, {-~ everybody can still get out to Black Cat. It's better to have one controlled intersection `''~ than a very large intersection without control and two different accesses. And if we get rid of the gravel road it will probably save on car wash expense as well. Into open '?sF~~ space -- Joe, can you go to the next drawing? This is how we calculated open space '~ and Joe and I may have a different interpretation of your code, but in open space you iii count this area. This is an eight foot wide detached sidewalk. It's eight feet wide. Typical in subdivisions you will see at five-foot parkways. This is an eight-foot parkway. _ We are providing open space. In addition to that, because ACHD is requiring that either we vacate it and buy this property from them and make it ours or landscape it and the homeowners association is maintaining and -- maintaining and landscaping, we counted _ half of this area towards our open space. We did some calculations down below. In - addition to this open space and this open space section, we actually come up with just - ~ over five percent open space for the area. We had some neighborhood meetings and ~:~ we tried to get through all these issues. As you can see, there is a lot of people -- ;n~~.~ Zaremba: Your time is up. Can you conclude quickly? k McKinnon: I'm going to conclude right now. We couldn't come to an agreement with the neighbors. They don't want -- they won't want to see this happen. We think it's, actually, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. We would ask for your support tonight. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval with those clarifications ''~~ that have been made tonight and I'll stand for questions at this time. ~i ;: .,. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Not at this time. .-., r k -~,-~"3 ~Qt 4 . t ~J~ ~ ~C J t'ry YF < i ~a twf ~l p `~FIJ4~{ ik'`: Far: ~ ~ t ~ f~: '~ y r.' ~ ~ r~~~ ~ ' ~' 14 iii t ~~~ ~~ .,~ ,~~ r ; o- ~ ; Y~. 5 ~ ~' .4 ~ ~ ~ r s`'-.:.'Gat I~ --- ~.. }~. ~?,,. . +l .x~~ _ - i~`~c.~a {. o~ F. n .~ y~~r ~i ~?~~t ~f ~t 4',~' ~ -_,~~' - t ~s;- ~ i€ -} i ~: 'x.,3[3+ rx~ :y#:. - ~».,.-, v . G- , ,, k c 1~ ~ ~_ +.r ~~6 ` a,~, , ~~~r~~ i. , s :'a a ~ ~' ~ s ~ ~' a ~ r ~a :" ~ . w, _; ~~ ~. f, =~ ~; =: y~' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~:~' ~ May 19, 2005 ;,~ ~ Page 14 of 67 Zaremba: I suspect we will defer until we find out what other questions are raised. McKinnon: And there probably will be a couple. Zaremba: Thank you very much. ',~ ~ McKinnon: Thank you. °~ Zaremba: Okay. We have asign-up sheet that I will begin calling names off of and, {9 again, if you would, please, come to the microphone and state your name and address ~<,~ and, then, make your remarks. Let's begin with Paul Sharratt. ~' : Sharratt: Thank you very much, Chairman. My name is Paul Sharratt. I live at 5556 EI Gato Lane. I am speaking for the majority of the homeowners on EI Gato Lane, as well ~x,~ as West Pine Lane. So, I hope you afford me the ten minutes that you will. ~,~ _ y, Zaremba: Let me do it this way. Are there people here for who he is speaking, if you -~,~ would raise your hand a minute. You have ten minutes, sir. „~F Sharratt: Thank you very much. Our residence is approximately a half a mile west of ~~ the subject property on EI Gato Lane. I have lived in this residence since 1990. Some people in the neighborhood have lived there since the mid 1970s when this Skyview =~~" Ranchettes was originally platted. As I said, I am representing the majority of the `' ~~ homeowners who live on EI Gato Lane. These homes are on approximately three to five acres lots. We object to the subdivision as platted and want to review some of the N~ pertinent points that were addressed in letters sent to the P&Z Commission, dated April ' ;~;~~ <-~~~~ 14th and May 12th, 2005. We don't believe that this subdivision meets the expectations _ ~~. of the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. As stated on page three of the staff report w -- let me go ahead and read that. The Comprehensive Plan states on page 104, '~'~ Objective D, would require new urban density subdivision, which abuts there in f-~~ proximity to existing low density residential land uses to provide landscape screening to transitional densities with larger, more compatible lot sizes to buffer the interface ~` -~' between urban level densities and rural residential densities. This is the main reason ~~ that we object -- one of the main reasons we object to this subdivision is we are one of '"~ those larger acre rural residential areas and believe that we need to have that transitional area. As stated in our letter dated April 14th, there is a housing -- about the ~:~,~, house philosophy, that a vibrant community needs a good cross-section of housing and, ~~_:;~ therefore, must guard against an abundance of subdivisions in like density and price ~'~'°' range. We believe that this is very similar to the Castlebrook Subdivision and other ~'-"-3 ~ ,~ subdivisions that continue up both Cherry Lane, as well as Black Cat. We believe that ,L . w we have -- that we have a transitional area in between the higher density subdivisions `~ 'S and the much larger lot acreages that we have. We believe that this proposed ~:; development is contrary to Meridian's goal for future development. One of those goals , ~ is to maintain a small town agricultural heritage. Many areas around this proposed , .;~~ development are actively pursuing this goal of agricultural heritage. There are animals -,,;~: u _ .~, ;;. ~s~ _ ~ ~ _ - f; ', .~ ,. r f x "!t~ ~ y~~ y • L ` .P .~~ ~ i i ~~ ~ ~ , ~t +~r ` ~ , ~tlu4 t. ~'~ 4 ~._ ..i <. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 E~ Page 15 of 67 `~ being raised, plots of ground actively being farmed by row crops, as well as pasture and hay fields, large gardens, as well as game habitats have been developed. The point that we want to make here is that there is one chance to make the right choice for the r:~ west side of Black Cat between Cherry Lane and Franklin. We believe that the largest possible lot sizes are needed as a transition to the existing homes in this area. There is no small lots along the west side of Black Cat at this point in time and we urge this Commission to use their discretion and their judgment, as best as possible, to grant that large as possible lot size in this development if it's approved. I would now like to ~ address concerns of our neighborhood that are addressed in Article E and F of the staff ~ report. We agree with the staff report that the developer has not met the open space -~ ~ requirements as equal to or exceeding five percent. It looks like they have addressed °-~ some of those issues and I will bring up another issue in a little while as well that will probably cloud the picture even further. We also believe that as proposed this development will change the essential character of this area. The staff report is correct ;~:; ~ that this area is changing. We realize that and -- we recognize that. Many of the `~~ residents in this area would like it to stay the same. In other words, we didn't want to {~ see the Castlebrook Subdivision go in. But knowing that it's changing, we wanted to ~~~' stay as close to the way it is as possible. By bringing small lot sizes to the west side of Black Cat, it is our belief that this will be a significant change. Article F. Will the "' proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. '~' We believe that this development will be hazardous and disturbing to the current ~~~_' neighbors. As stated, there are a variety of uses currently occurring in this area from `' ~ animals being raised to ground being farmed. As more families are added to the area on smaller lots, the larger agricultural lots become attractive hazards. Animals can be ~~~ fed inappropriate food, gates and fences can be damaged or left open, equipment a source of curiosity and a hazard, all causing problems for us the existing homeowners. f<4 Most of this area is also irrigated from -- irrigated ground with the source being open `~ ~ ditch -- open ditches, excuse me, which also become attractive hazards. The point that I was going to -- one of the points that we want to bring up is the easements and right of ways on both the north in dealing with the Pine Lane -- the Pine Road issue, as well as '~~'~4 ~ on the south with the Purdom Gulch drain, are complex and need to be understood. As the staff report says in special considerations number four, staff is unaware of the `~ f~ official status of the Purdom Gulch drain. So, even the staff is not fully aware of all of the details and/or possible ramifications that the easements and setbacks on the ~~=~ Purdom Gulch drain may have. As well, residents of Pine Lane are contesting ACHD's decision on the status of West Pine Lane as referenced to in a letter from J.C. Brown, ~. dated May 11th, 2005. We do not believe that any development on this site should be F{,~ approved until all easements, right of ways, and all of the over issues are understood ~~~'~~~ ~ and resolved. As stated, the developer has gone in and done several different legal descriptions of this property, which, there again, continue to cloud the issue of the rights "`~ of ways and easements on both the north and the south ends of this property. We believe that it should be once and for all finalized with the proper easements and the Y: directions that those need to go, before any development is done on this property. As declared in the letters to Planning and Zoning, there are 24 homeowners who objected to this development as -- excuse me -- as proposed. I would now like to ask those in °=a support of my comments and opposing this development to please stand up. As you h s S h.•• ;h r^ ~ N ~, ~5'R 4~ YY i ~ K ''' utF `r~.. 1. ~ Y~ a- i4 ~-' a ~ ~~ e. ~~,~ k. ;~_~ 22 Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 16 of 67 can see, the majority of the property owners that signed the original letters had enough T concern and interest to show up tonight to support hopefully the Planning and Zoning ~~^~ Commission's either changing of this proposed subdivision or denial of this proposed `'~, subdivision. That's all. I would now entertain questions. ;?`~ '`` Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: In your statement you didn't define what you folks feel is appropriate density. Sharratt: We would recommend or like the Commission to approve the largest lot size density as possible. It's our understanding from talking with the staff that half acre lots would be the maximum lot size allowed, being that it would be annexed into the city. So, we would encourage the Commission to go with half acre lots, if possible. If the Commission chooses to make those changes, what we are really looking for is the transition from smaller density lots to larger density lots which we currently own. And, like I said and like I stated, we believe that we have one chance at this, that whatever is decided on this subdivision will detail what is done on the rest of the west side of Black Cat Road, being that the rest of it has not been annexed into the city and so we urge -- and encourage you to go with the largest lot size possible. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And that's -- where is the middle ground? Sharratt: Where is the -- Newton-Huckabay: The compromise. I mean in your -- Sharratt: In my opinion -- and I will not speak for the rest of the homeowners in the subdivision, because this is my opinion. We would like to see at least -- we would, actually, like to see one acre lots, if possible, but knowing that one acre lots are probably not acceptable to the city, half acre lots would be acceptable, in my opinion, because that decreases the density of the homes in that area, it turns them, then, into more agricultural type or large lot homes, rather than the smaller lot homes, which, then, blends better with our neighborhood. And as I stated, that is my opinion, not the opinion of the people that, you know, I'm representing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then I have one other question Castlebrook like eight units per acre? Zaremba: It's an R-8. I don't know if it's -- Rohm: Yeah. I would say it's probably about five and a half. Isn't the density of ~- ~ ~ :r ~; Y -`: Y y _ ~:~ ~' f ~= ~ ., S . ~ .; 4 ... S ~ ?: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 17 of 67 Zaremba: I don't think they achieved an eight density. Rohm: Yeah. I'm sure it's not eight. It's an R-8, but not eight lots -- not eight lots per acre. Newton-Huckabay: On the one south of that -- wasn't there one of them that had eight - - they had like patio homes and -- Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, you're correct. The subdivision that is on the south side of Pine on the east side of Black Cat did have the R-8, but Castlebrook was R-4. Recognize that the Comprehensive Plan designation is different over there. It's medium density. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Black Cat is the -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Sharratt: And I believe with that the developer decreased the density on the south end of that property to accommodate the larger lot sizes that are approaching on the opposite side of Pine Lane. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Yes. You're correct. I have no more questions. ~ Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. ~.:-r `~~ Borup: A couple questions. You made a statement that there is still a cloud as far as a ;~~; right of way and easements. I didn't know if you had some information that -- that Mr. ,; };~~~ McKinnon didn't have, because in his presentation I thought he made it clear that there was an understanding between ACRD and what -- what was their claim and what the E';~~~ options were. So, I don't know if you had some other information that we did not have. -~~~ Sharratt: As I stated, in reference to J.C. Brown's letter dated May 11th, the homeowners along Pine Lane are contesting the finding that that is an ACHD right of way and that there is an ingress and egress right of way to the associated properties '~~, down West Pine Lane and, there again -- Borup: So, do they have any documentation for that? Sharratt: Yes. If you refer to his letter, he has talked to the Ada County commissioners, as well as -- ~' Borup: No. I mean as far as that easement. Have they got a recorded easement or -- ,~ ~ i ~_ ~~ I <~. a' . ~.~ ~': ~ s~F.;~r t~ ~~ a .y; ` ~ ~ ~ }~ i 4 ~ ~;~ r ~ Y v' ~ _ t- t , e1~~tR SOil~ ti'~ iq ak:~ q yap t a '~ n l~~'r ;x ~i, } ~~ u.V ~-'' _ _ tSTn~ft ~~=t~ 1~~~ ~` W 7 r~ .;._r~~, I ~. i l ' .: •. p'31'-kK K.} i ~, :~_. rat ~. ~'~~ .:a iY~: Y ~.V id ~ Y I - v ~~ ~~ rl' -vt • ~ o-yy~ ~ Rya' ~+R P y :, L ~+ u °/ v iee!. ~;: ,~w Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 - Page 18 of 67 ~`°''~ Sharratt: It is recorded with each of the properties that are on West Pine Lane and it's -_ not an easement per se, it is an ingress and egress across that property and that's the ~_'~ issue that's clouded, in our opinion. ~:f j!'{ r Borup: Okay. In lieu of at least presently, if that sewer boundary was accurate, it looks ~j_ like it's not going to affect too many properties, at least in the near future, but do you have any information on the immediately adjoining property, the one that the stub street would go into is -- Sharratt: Is to Mr. Wilder's property? I believe Mr. Wilder is here, so -- "~~ Borup: He was the one that raised his hand. Okay. ~€ Sharratt: So, the issue -- if you'd like to address the question directly to him, you're '-~ ~ ~ more than welcome to. ® ~ Borup: Okay. Well, I just so -- so many times over the years we have seen similar things and on -- on these larger lots that some day they get redeveloped and I have ';x;, never seen anybody that was willing to -- to guarantee that that would never happen. ~~ Sharratt: Currently there are protective covenants on Skyview Ranchettes No. 1 and No. 2, which is the entire length of EI Gato Lane, which prevents any further subdividing of any of the properties along those lines. This property is not in Skyview Ranchettes No. 1 and/or No. 2. ~ ~> Borup: Thank you. ti, -~: {qr. ~~ {' Zaremba: Thank you. ~~- ~T Sharratt: Thank you very much. fi-;~;. Rohm: Back to this compromise, if we would for just a moment. There is -- currently there are seven lots that are along the west line of this property and I believe staff had made a comment about maybe recommending that these lots be at a minimum of ~_ _ 12,000 square feet and if, in fact, you were to go to 12,000, I think that you would end ~~_=_~ up having to drop a lot or maybe two lots off of that west line and, then, leave the ~.~~ balance of it as platted. Is that any kind of compromise that even comes close to -- '~~~. ¢~~~`~~ Sharratt: There again, stating my opinion, we would like to see, really, both sides ,:F,.,_ - increase lot size due to the fact that as you get larger lot sizes, you're going to attract people that are more like minded to the people that are in the three to five acre lots. ~`~ You're going to attract people that want to have large gardens, that want to have ``_'~'~ animals, that -- and that's what we are fearful of and we have already seen -- as I ;;,,~F stated, we are already seeing changes occur. We are seeing more and more people ~r'-~ from subdivisions across the street being -- walking up and down our road. We are ~` ` seeing people on the backs of our properties -- which concerns us, being the fact that r~~-.s h ',~, ~ ~~ r ~ ~r4 Y~ ~~. ~u~ :nT.; t, m .. ~ ~,~ rake y~ k ~ . ~ ~: r T ~r~ ~~ G; ~~ ~~ ~' -,~ i#-k rw y~` _' _ 3~i in r: j •~. ~~ i ,'i r ~. .~ .;~' ! - ~, `~' ix j ~ h S f lu '~`f 4~ ~~i~.~ ! - ~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ( ,- ~i} 3 ~~ ar~~. F. 1 F 7h i "t. L~~ bk f.;3g I~l N iX _ l` ~[,t e,y~~ °Gk, ~~il l 3~ ~ryl i c~"f~x y 1 ~'~ - Y. s4 ;.k ( a ; 7ff C, .{ K~ .f. , f a I _-~ ~~, lt~~~ ~~i s i ~~~~~~~h~ ;~" ti ..~:f ,, '~ . x' ~'' Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 •~! ` Page 19 of 67 `!.; many of us have animals and many of us have, you know, livestock -- not only livestock, %4~ but also, you know, habitat -- there is two different habitat properties, one that they registered with Fish and Game, the other one hasn't, as well as large garden lots. And ~'~ so that's a real concern is as -- you know, as the development continues to encroach, it `~.V,` , makes us nervous and is going to cause us grief and hardship in the fact that we are -~ ~ going to have to continue to either protect our properly more, continue to monitor our fl~ ' fences, you know, it is -- it is not an everyday occurrence, but it's not abnormal for ~{"~ horses to get out or -- you know, we had the occurrence the other day where a -- one of ~~~ our young ladies was riding her horse down the road and one of the trucks from the '.~ ~ construction zone came by and spooked the horse. It probably took her 15 minutes to get the horse to calm down and neighbors came out and helped her -- you know, and _ those are the concerns that we have, is you get increased traffic, you know, and they say there is not going to be that much increased traffic on EI Gato Lane, we believe there will be and that it will pose a hazard for a hardship, as well as hazards to the '~~~ ~ people currently living in that area. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I will continue down the list as you signed up, but if I call a name and Mr. Sharratt spoke for you, would you, please, just indicate that. Tom Noll. Noll: My name is Tom Noll. I live at 5947 EI Gato Lane. My wife and I submitted a letter to you. Paul spoke largely -- and I support and concur with Paul's comments. I just wanted to add a couple of points of clarification. One is on -- as far as the compromise, our compromise, the way we see it, is that this is identified as low density in the Comprehensive Plan and we -- we proposed, you know, one acre lots and we are compromising to half acre. We think that's a reasonable solution. And I'm speaking for myself. I believe I'm speaking for some others. I want to also address the easement issue. The existing easements and ingress and egress rights are held as deeds by some of these property owners to the west. As was pointed out, the property title here has -- I couldn't follow what the developer has proposed. I could not follow the arithmetic and I couldn't follow all the legal descriptions, you know, this one, and, then, we changed it to this and we changed it back to this and, then, we had five percent here, but now it's 3.0 and this -- so I found it -- well, I just couldn't follow it, so -- but, anyway, the point is that easements are very complex and I believe the developer needs to do his homework, he needs to get his locker in order, as my dad used to say. Get your locker in order. And he needs to work with the existing landowners, he needs to work with the title companies, he needs to work with the county recorder, and he needs to work and get all those easements vacated prior to development, or else there are going to be landowner issues down the road and you're going to be hearing about them. And so I think it's -- he's premature in his development. He hasn't done his homework. And I think he can do better. That's another thing that we have all heard a few times and we don't like to hear it, but sometimes it just needs to be said. That's the conclusion of my comments and I will stand for questions. ,~ 2 . k,w _ ~ ~.$ ~~r °~~ . '~i _ r`~a~'v'~ ~f'`a~''~ Iii" i` _~ r _ C ~ Yf ~~ ~Fay~. ~ ~+II 9 d1 ~E~ 2, p 1' ~ ~. CIA' ~ ~f.: ,l ~--. •. r fi} ;~ ;~. _ ~- _ ti> ~, y rl`.. ,~ S~ ~K , Yf f ~~ ~ ~ j 'j a il~ ~;~ ' ;~; -~'~. `~~ #~~~.. ~,- ~~~ .,~ ~ t,a ~.~ ~i , ,,. ;~~ ,. ~ ~x~ " ._ ~~' r k~; =: ,.:~ ~r °,~ =~~ ~:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 20 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Kathy Farerra. We had a letter from you with a lot of other names. Are you speaking for a group as well? Farerra: I think so. I'm sure that they will let you know if I'm not. Zaremba: Okay. Let me just see a show of hands if she's speaking for people. Thank you. Okay. We will give you ten minutes. Farerra: My name is Kathy Farerra. My husband and I have lived at our home at 4950 EI Gato Lane for 18 years. Zaremba: We are discussing whether the same people that gave their time to Mr. Sharratt are -- Farerra: I think we are probably almost done. Zaremba: I think we did see some overlap, but I think there was others that weren't. So, please go ahead. Farerra: I have something I want to read. I know some of it's already been said, but I want to read it. The City of Meridian's leaders, having the power to make policies for areas outside the city limits, also have an obligation to make development transitions into long established rural neighborhoods in a fashion that is least intrusive to the residents of those neighborhoods. We believe that the best reasonable way to transition from a new subdivision from the east side of Black Cat Road into the multi- acre properties to the west is by limiting these subdivisions bordering Black Cat on the west, to the largest possible lot sizes allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. We understand that would be half-acre lots. Homes situated on half acre lots,within what amounts to only the length of a football field in distance from Black Cat to the adjoining acreage residential properties, is the most reasonable and responsible manner in which to accomplish this transition, creating the least intrusion to the long time rural residents, while still accomplishing the city's goal for future development and establishing a standard that can be followed along the rest of Black Cat Road to the west between Cherry Lane and the railroad line. And I would like to comment -- and I'm -- if any of you agree with this back here, maybe you can raise your hand -- if half acre lots are not feasible for that entire piece of property, then, I believe that they should be half acre lots bordering the western boundary and a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the east side. I don't think we should get into 9,000 square foot out there. It's just not the right place to do it. Black Cat Road is a natural -- well, it's not natural, but it's there. It's a border. It's a boundary between the city as it exists in the small unit subdivisions to the farm ground that most of us plan to stay on. We don't plan to leave. That's all I have to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Apparently not. Borup: I had a question, Mr. Chairman. ' - _e: `;fit ~' • 4 rrs„ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 21 of 67 ~': Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just your last comment. I'm trying to understand -- it sounds like you're saying that we should ignore the Comprehensive Plan as far as future land use designation. Farerra: No. It was easy for the developer to say that the Comprehensive Plan is ~=5' simply a guide. .~s ;~~ Borup: No, that -- ~~. ,.., ~x~~ Farerra: What I would like to say -- that's not ignoring the Comprehensive Plan. That is allowing, I believe, reasonable transition into these acreage properties and as was '° `~~ shown on the map, you have like, what, 600 feet that you can go into the existing -- ~° ,~ . ~~~ Borup: Well, the Comprehensive Plan calls for medium density rural there, if I { `' ``°$ understood that -- ~. Farerra: That may be what the plan calls for, but I believe that -- _,~=; ~-~~ Borup: Low density? Zaremba: Low density. Borup: So,then, it is a bump up in density. Zaremba: Yes, it is. p-.Y Borup: Okay. I needed that clarification. Thank you. ,, .~~. ~~,a~ Farerra: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. David Farerra. Okay. Has been spoken for. I believe it's Rebecca ~~' ~ Sharratt. Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. Carol Bishop. You need to come to the ~: microphone, if you would, please. Bishop: My name is Carol Bishop and I live at 5751 West EI Gato and I agree with Paul }"~ Sharratt and Kathy Farerra and, basically, if I wanted to live in a subdivision, I would `~ `~ have moved to a subdivision. And that's it. Any questions? -~ `+y. ~ Zaremba: Thank you. Ron Jackson. Oh, you spoke first. Okay. Ron Jackson's ;. {_, `''~~~- opinion has been given. J.C. and L. Sue Brown. It's been covered. Okay. Thank ~.' ~~~ "~: you. Amy Dierr and Mike -- I'm sorry. Seward. Spoken for. Thank you both. Let's see. ~" I need to interpret this one. It's a short name. Something like H.J. Brower? Brown? "~~ -r Okay. Spoken for. Thank you. H.J. Brown that was. Ed Wilder. ~~ s ~,,Y (:r 'i ~`<+: .~-` 5~r'" ~; , ~: ;;: ~~~:: ,; r~ ~, r `~, Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 22 of 67 Wilder: My name is Ed Wilder. I live at 4961 Pine Lane. I have adjacent properties to the west. Lived out there -- first person to move on the lane in 1972. As far as I know on the -- my main question is -- is on the ownership of that ground. We have never once had a highway department road grader, maintenance, oil. Now that they want to do a subdivision -- I think I could fax you a copy of my grounds paper that shows nothing about ACHD owning the front part of my property. If they do that -- that legal description doesn't quite show the way EI Gato curves off to the north. That would force all 17 of our property owners, of which over the years has got quite a bit of traffic, everybody's got kids, grand kids -- they would be pulling out onto EI Gato at -- some of the cars 60, 70 miles an hour. I was the one that forced the double road there to begin with. A guy wanted to use my property -- he was a land down when he subdivided that and Isaid -- and I said no. So, that's how the -- that's how we got the double road to begin with. That was about 1974 when they -- when they subdivided the north side of EI Gato. It blows me that they can say they own in front of my house. Looks like a little bit of a land grab to me. And the back -- the back easement -- now they are saying they own that. Last year the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company was in there and got their big tractor stuck on the end of my place about this time of year. I don't think they own that either. That's all I have got to say. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? Borup: Mr. Wilder, your comment on the easement or whatever it is on the front of your property, you said you don't think ACHD owns it, but what is your understanding, then? Wilder: I think it's on my property that -- our property line goes to the -- what used to be down between the separation of the road. Borup: So, your understand that is a right of way or an egress-ingress -- Wilder: It's a right of way and everybody has got an egress -- Borup: So, it's a legal right of way? Wilder: Legal right of way. Yes. Borup: Okay. Wilder: For all the years before -- before that the property line -- not the line, but right down between the two roads. The fence line was there. The original property. Now -- and over the years I have never had no communication from ACHD that they own it or that they are willing to maintain it. Never once. Borup: All right. Thank you. ~; t ~:~ ~' r,,h' ~~ r 's.~-~ ~i ~. ~. t ' k ..,:~,;~.u { -) ~~~t its, ", Fie ~`: ~ e~ r h~;=k I E ~ ~ t> ~^ ~' ! ^' +.'±t? fa~.t v'q? i~~`,-, x. r ~ ~~,, ~`_ ~1~~~ F !'tf~tiT Til ~' I ~ E ..y a~ ~ a~ j )~ '~ 'we. My '~' d,~` ~ ~„i ":'~~ a ~ " `;~ ~ - 'bx=~ 4e~ ii, - ~.. ~ ~ s fir k } <.h id C _y a r _S I~ ~ 1.; ~ 1 .~ W"1 ~ a'^~i . ~... 'l~-r.,'.k~~ }~~ ..,mot: -~~ ~y. ..._ f ~r ~~~; c ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~* f ~'7}~Y ~ ~p L ~, ~ I , 1 y ~YY I _ ' -~ 4~ ;~. - . Meridian Planning & Zoning ` 4 .r r 4 ,{ May 19, 2005 Page 23 of 67 . ,r ,,N ~ -,: Rohm: I have a question for you, too, then. You're saying that this 20-foot right of way ~ ~ ~~~? that is in question between Ada County Highway District and the proposed , ' 3 development, which would continue west along your south line -- ~ ' - y ..~ Wilder: Yes. That continues -- that continues three lots. d ~~' ~' ~ Rohm: And it's your contention that it's not Ada County Highway District's property, that ~~ is it'$-- fiE ~ r~ ti, Wilder: That's right. - -z ~s Rohm: Okay. Thank you. .. N_ `: Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Marilyn, I think it is, Pettingill. Bettingill? Okay. Thank -TA ~. ~"~= you. Gene Bray. Mr. Bray. ~ ; Bray: Thank you. Yes. I'm Gene Bray and I live at 5654 EI Gato and I'm the one that - ~ - } •. has the habitat improvement program with the Idaho Fish and Game, which I have got , 20 years invested in. But my main comment is going to be on -- I have been doing `~ c ~° some work on the traffic going down our lane and even though the subdivisions to the ~ . ~ east -- those traffic surveys indicated that there would be no traffic increase on EI Gato t' {. as a result of the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat and that is just not the case. ~ r ~ 1 We are finding that now probably two-thirds of the traffic that now zoom up and down our residential lane are people that are not associated with the lane and they are just y ~~ trying to escape and, boy, when they get on that 60 foot residential lane, they put the ' ~ pedal to the metal and going westbound, even though it -- the speed was 30 miles an m~ g ~- hour, the average speed going westbound is 40 miles an hour. Going eastbound it's -- ~. they slow down a little bit, because as you get passed my vantage point and the ranges ~.: ~+ I have set up there are about a thousand feet of length and I do a timing with a ' ~~ F ~,,., hundredth of a second stopwatch and as they pass those ranges, so I can get the ~ - speeds very accurately. Going eastbound, the turn -- as the road veers to the south ' toward the confluence with Pine Lane and the traffic going eastbound, that is 35 miles ~~ an hour and, again, that's routine day after day, just picking an hour at random to go up ~- . and spot just the speed of cars and going west with a straight shot all the way down to ,x-~ ~ ~ McDermott. The cars go down there some of them as fast as 50 miles an hour. And r ~ ''~°~ those are people that are not tuned into the agricultural and the pastoral pursuits of the ~= '~ `~ `~ b ~ people that have invested over the 20 and 30 years that -- I have lived there myself for ; ~.~;. ~ >;fi 18 years, just like Kathy -- just like the Farerras have and there is a lot of children, there ` ~' '. is a child care facility there, animals, and people who are outside of that area, they just _ -' '~ ~r don't have any sensitivity to the fact that that is a residential lane, they just go as fast as , ~~ they can. And I have got the facts and figures to prove it. "" ~;' ~~~, ~~7 ~;~ Zaremba: Thank you. Questions? -s rj , q,~ Rohm: I have just a quick question. Do you think that some of the increased traffic that ~ Fy; you're seeing on EI Gato is related to the road construction on Black Cat? e ; " ~~ ;; , ,~. ~ ` ~~~ s~ ~ i ~..z- ,'~' ~:, ~- ~~.. < ~~~ ~ J~j-¢ l#7 A<t .i ~ ~{ . k F~ - r ~ ~ ~dJ l~ si ~1.~ , ~'4+ ,~~ - .. 1 ? - .cat ~ y 4 i ~ ~ . , o ~."Sr\~ ~ f, ,.. fi n ~ n ` , r ``y,~~ ~y ~ ~ :, ~ ,`~{4 - ~rr.~~~"r.~"" l ~~ .~4 ~;i.~i~ ~. { ny1~~Zji$3j ~ 'f~ r yh .~ 2~ ..~° JI ~- - ~~ ~ rt ~-' t7 'j s . i y~J y ~~ t i ~ ; u .~r ~+ 1 ?? ~~~~ ~ , ' ~ ~` t .x, i ~~ i A, ' ' ~ ~ i. -- IA . ~ ~+ h~k '~ - `~ ~. flu' r Ju9 @,, ~-~`~ t t..~ ~.!M1: ~. ~ ~ Sf ~ ~ ~v't,~+x ~1 i - e `SY Z ~ .-. y ., f ~ ~ y{~q`}ti I :i i ~ ~ _. 'i - yc1 4 + r ~ 4 1~.; I~~ ~ '~', F ,, -.uy.~. ats ~ ~~ a~l a{T/' F '~1 -~~ - J S-' ~ Yri~`.w ,r s. la~i Y~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ''~ May 19, 2005 ~~' Page 24 of 67 Bray: I would say that the -- it's a lot of construction tradesmen and I have noted, even particularly, a City of Meridian maintenance -- I wrote it down -- maintenance ,.~ department truck. It was barreling through there, just like the best of them, and so we have -- you know, we have agency people and -- as well as private individuals bogeying down through there and I'm afraid it's going to be much more frequent once this -- once EI Gato gets opened up and gets black topped, because the traffic down at the end there has been pretty impeded, because for the last about three or four months the ~.;, passage through there is restricted. So, once they cleared the way through there, boy, \~' ~ they get on that paved road there going west and 60 feet wide and they let her -- they ~~,~ let her rip. Rohm: Make up for lost time. Bray: Yes. Make up for lost time, I'm afraid. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So, EI Gato doesn't go through clear to McDermott, then? Bray: Yes. It's just one mile long. Section line to section line. <:~ Borup: So, the subdivision goes that far also? Bray: Yes, it does. Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. ~ri ~~~ Zaremba: Thank you. Bob Ewing. Okay. Thank you. That goes for Maurene Ewing '~ as well? Okay. Thank you. Fran -- I believe it's Jorgensen. Come to the microphone, ''~~~ if you would, please. '~`~"~~ Newton-Huckabay: She said she agrees. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. If all you're saying is you agree -- okay. But not yet, let's go through the rest of the list and then -- ' ``' Borup: Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be faster if you just asked if there is anybody else that "~ wanted to testi I don't know. Since so man of them have alread °i6 Zaremba: It might be, except that the list is the public record and I want to make sure ~'~4 it's accounted for. Sorry. Let's see. That was Fran Jorgensen. L. Jorgensen. Okay. `~`~ ' Going to be covered. It looks like John Anson, maybe, or there may be a few more ~~~~ letters in there. Spoken for? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, some of these people are on both lists. One moment while I do paperwork here. Okay. Jan Husky. All right. _;~.~ Thank you. Rick Venteck, Possibly. ;~: ?; ~ , ~. t~`,: . _ . ~. - .4 ' Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 ~;~ Page 25 of 67 Vincha: Rick Vincha, 5442 EI Gato and I just had one clarification, is a compromise on density for me would not be half-acre size lots, but I would like to have a lot less density, minimum of one house per acre. ,yK; Zaremba: Any questions? Phil Jeppesen. Spoken for as well. Okay. And -- oh, probably Jo Vincha. Okay. She's covered as well. Okay. That concludes our list. The ~~ `! first thing I'll ask if there is anybody who didn't sign up that cares to add anything. And, :~ then, we have had a couple people ask for Mrs. Farerra to add a few words in their behalf and we will give you another three minutes. Farerra: Thank you. I will make this very quick. And it goes to the question of Pine y~. ~ Lane. We did not have the foresight tonight to bring with us a deed that had all the "~;~ ~~ attachments with it and there has not been anything that has been filed with the city, to K~-° my knowledge, with you people, or with ACRD, that contained everything that was recorded with those deeds. The deed for this particular piece of property -- I'm going to read you something very short out of it. It says this tract of land is subject to a right of -s way for a county road along the east 25 feet, semi-colon, a right of way for a road along '~~: the south 20 feet, comma, a right of way fora 50-foot road as now located and ~:_~ ' constructed along the north boundary, which would be Pine Lane, and to all other ~ easements and rights of way. The only reference to the county road for the deeds for that piece of property is along the east side, which is Black Cat Road. Now, attached to ~~ every one of the deeds -- and there are -- how many of them? Eight? Seven? Seven 's~ `~ ~ deeds from when this property was split. There is a written --there is an agreement that is signed by every one of the property owners that is serviced by Pine Lane, saying I "~" can get from Wilder's house to Mr. Jorgensen's house, to here, to here, to here until get home and I can get back out. Us and our family and our friends. ACRD has ~ addressed this issue by not providing any deeds to say they have -- that they own '``";P ~ . anything there. They have -- they said that they have shown through the assessor's },,~ office records that they own that. However, every one of these people is still paying the taxes on Pine Lane. Every one of them. And when aperson -- a senior supervisor type person was contacted by Mr. Brown, who could not be here tonight, because he had a ~ ~~ ~ death in the family and he had to travel, that guy did some independent research at the }~ ~ assessor's office and he said I don't know where they are coming up with that from. I - can't find anything that says they own any of that. So, I think there has been some Tf ~ material that has been left out and I agree with Mr. Noll, I think this is going to turn into a stink down the road if it's not cleared up. Thank you. ```V:~r Borup: Question. ~:+._. '~~~ Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. ,, ~~ Borup: What was the date of that deed you just read from? `~Ar, Farerra: The deed I'm looking at now is the deed for this particular piece of property. ~. i k. ~_~y' . .. 'L7~4` 1 ~ .. {: ~r Y +, hi Meridian Planning & Zoning `,;K; May 19, 2005 _~ Page 26 of 67 .:.~. ''`~~ Borup: Have you got the date? Farerra: 1976. September 1976. A warranty deed. Borup: Okay. Is that what most of them are on there? I was just going by -- Farerra: Some of them are, actually, a little earlier and, then, they figured out, as Mr. Wilder said -- it kind of started with Mr. Wilder saying that he wasn't going to give access to what is now the EI Gato Lane Subdivision by the use of the road that the people on Pine Lane had already started to construct. Borup: No. I understand. And I'm going back to Mr. McKinnon's statement that ACHD wasn't formed until 1976, so they couldn't have -- ~~~;_~ Farerra: I'm sorry? '-;~ Borup: ACHD was not formed prior to '76, so they could not have had that -- a claim prior to that time, because they weren't in existence. ''';~! Farerra: They also have been able to show no claim since then, except that they say that they own it. And the people on Pine Lane say, wait a minute, I don't think so. And ~r so that is the official position and that was how the case came to be. Borup: Okay. I understand. I just wanted to clarify the date. Farerra: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: I'm not sure -- remembering now whether it was your letter or somebody's else letter, but -- ".";'~ Farerra: There was -- I think Mr. Brown wrote a letter. Zaremba: Okay. Well, there, actually, were several. Just to clarify, ACRD throughout this entire period has provided no maintenance to it. How has the maintenance been handled? ~~~M x • Farerra: Mr. Brown has done some. I believe Mr. Wilder has done some. But ACHD has never spent five minutes on that road. They have ever graveled it, they have never w; ,, ~ graded it, they have never done anything. And the neighbors just went in and put in ., ~ ~'r some speed bumps, because they were having problems with some teenage drivers ,:~' who live on Pine Lane. So, they got a little bit of black top and they put it over in these ~,: ~ strips across the gravel road. ;.>~ ~' Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I: ~~~ ~, {, s y ~' ~ _~ ` y ,a,x 1 i ~1 ~°~ i I ! "i~ iY++~, ' ~ ' ~:5: e~ : ~~.. r.; :~ ~7. ! 4 ~i t '' ~ I y . ,.?.mac . +'~'J{j ~ r k ~ g W . ~~:T ~~1;ix'^~ :}ti ~ `r• , .~, s l i ~ 3. 4 f4~ -x•~ i F ~~7. k ;v~ Y T ~ _ s; t ~..1~ R A, ~ ,•., ~, • 5 ,,p~• •Y : S`AOJ •. ;' ~ a A' ~ ~ 1T.."" j `:. ~ ..~I!':~ ` ~ r tt.},' ~ yT. t ~~'~y E ' a ~ c ^~ ' 'fn `i'" l ~' (ate: ~ ..I 4 :Z , . r . ;~ ., ,I.4? ~ , - ~~ ~~«~ . s~.-. ~ all i ~:. `i .: ., ~,~i.+..%Karv;a r-::Iwq-,.L * ' - i~».~ I 1 t 3 i~: ;~ . +L ~! s ,c' l a ,x ~aa.1Y, y ~ a,': y', ~,~ • ~ ~ M ,i t^~,~=;. 3,.:. ~>F.'~%?('' ~ ''Y i~:~~3,..:.a~. ..: ~ 3 A ~ r ;v 6 mY~R~''F.ev#; 4 ~. :~ {Z.'t a ^~ S? . ` ~ :R ` *ai .I .7 4`1 ~S ~ ~ er 1 ~, I ^ i = v' T' S f..tfi `~` ^ ~. :tx, r '. x° ~~ x`~~ . ,_ 1 'r . '~ ; ~~.5' ~•1. I'. ~ yet%<} ¢ y~ i~~~ T F '' ~k. r. .. m ,yy .. 5. I - ~3-. r wy ' s < .fir: i• ~ 1 ^ '. .:~,% r ^v~'~'Nr~a} `l yr ). r . r.. ;:~:._.~ :' ,:t.• • ,.~.(,1 ~'. ~ ~{^~ i {, .:~ {~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ 8.. b ~ ~ E e~^i'`~5~~ xv~23t~)p'~i~ { y ~ ~ '} g . l y ', .~1 4 y Y~ F t1 ,~$}y.{7:'YJl' ' 7 I k:, ~ ~ A )) . F ~ 1' .n' R : { ; :.~. •. • f .~.(a ~.~:"H .: !~ < y~.., q g t ~ P F . ' ~ ,' :.+rvT ~~ twin'.; % Y . ' I L~%% ~ }' 1 .. ~i ;. y '~ ~ r - ~~.~ ' P~ i ' .. . t , ` _ fib,; ' ~ 1 _ ' , .:~ 4 i ~k ~ .¢ ,.. • ~~ Via. n.. J ~ t ' ,.~. is, ,7: ~, t ~4: '.7 :s k' af-' :.W'.~Ti".: .k:' z: ~ fs t k r ,~r.. .~, ~ '~:a:-'4",sa ::: ~: *f~* z . + '~#,i ~ t .~.: ~a. •Y^•:~ N :~~.5; "_ ~,,~Ie ,..a,. ~~ ~ ~ T•k' ~ I .. ~ , "y~ n.~ ~?' . r.t. er. x i.. ~• , I :t ~. • v • ~- ..I I 'k Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 27 of 67 Farerra: You're welcome. ~~'~~~_ Zaremba: I believe everybody has had an opportunity that cares to. At least their "` viewpoint has been expressed and we appreciate that and we have heard it. Does staff a; ~.5. have anything to add at this point? Guenther: In discussions with Mr. Hawkins-Clark, our principal planner here, I guess a little history on the Comp Plan. Mr. McKinnon keeps referring to it as a guide, but in certain areas -- and this being one of them, it was set up more along the lines of being more of a detailed layout of how the neighborhood wanted to have their neighborhood exist and this neighborhood, according to Brad, was very active in the Comprehensive Plan enactment and was very adamant in that this was a designation that they wanted and wished to maintain for their very rural lifestyles. The other issue is that Mr. McKinnon says that on his deed it indicates that there is a right of way. The open space calculations, even if you wanted to take half of that, still says, according to our Chapter 13, that exclusive of right of way, are not to be incorporated into open space calculations and, again, if you did choose to go with the neighborhood recommendation for a compromise to go with large lot sizes, then, I would recommend that the board draft a condition of approval to -- to the report in order to accommodate that type of an issue. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant has been taking notes and we will give you ten minutes, sir. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Let me just start with where Joe left off. I said we would probably have a disagreement early in the way we define open space and the way he just defined it, let me read it to you, how it says, and you've got your attorney here tonight, he can maybe help us out with this. It says open space shall mean land area exclusive of streetlights and street buffers, except for right of way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. It says you can't count street lights -- it says you can't count street lights and street buffers, except for those -- excepting those saying you can count these, except for right of way specifically dedicated for landscaping within a subdivision. I need to get a clarification from you, but the way I read that when I see it -- Baird: I'll stand with staffs interpretation. We just got that this afternoon. McKinnon: Did you? Baird: And we will stand by that. ~~;~ McKinnon: And the reason why I bring that up is in the past you have counted right of ways, which are parkways. Parkways between sidewalks and asphalt, so you guys ~~ have a precedence for this. Halfway -- the parkway is between sidewalks and asphalt ~-~ ~', ~. k tse skN,.. >~:;~ I YJ ~ l C Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 28 of 67 and the roadway, curb and gutter, has been counted as open space in the past under this exception. Those parkways are located in the right of way, typically, with the sidewalk being outside of the right of way in an easement, which has been counted towards open space. I don't know if we are going to argue about that tonight, but is this accepting that, those are the ones you can count. You can't count the ones that aren't landscaped, but the ones that are specifically landscaped you can count. And I have had discussions with staff about that in the past and in the past they deal with parkways, they said, yes, you can count parkways towards open space. So, there is some precedent that's been set by that -- by staff and by the city. And I said there is a disagreement on that. Regardless of what it is, we have a 50-foot buffer at the entrance to the subdivision that needs to be maintained by the homeowners association. It is open space, it's maintained by a specific person and a specific group, and if it's owned by a specific group, maintained by a specific group, you can't say that that landscaped area is not open space and, in fact, it is open space, it's being paid for and maintained by a specific party. Just because the ordinance says that you can't count it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and we would suggest that it does exist and should be counted towards open space. We are onto something kind of fun. Joe, could -- oh, you've got it up right there. Awesome. Commissioner Rohm touched on something -- touched a little bit about compromise and it's been touched on by a couple of Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay -- about compromise. And while there was some discussion going on, I leaned over and met with one of my -- one of my coworkers, talked about compromise on this site and if we went to 12,000 square feet, what would that do to this area. We have got, basically, seven units to back up to this one -- one site. These are all approximately 9,500, 9,000 square foot lots. Some of these are over 10,000, some of them are a little bit smaller. Regardless, you pick out on the north side, if would you take -- if you took this lot out and shifted the road up and, then, took the land that's separated between this, added it to these three, and to these three, shift it this way over to the north. There is a pie-shapped lot down here, it's a little bit difficult, we are not going to be able to fit anymore or less in this area if we went to 12,000 square feet. We still have six that would be backing up to the subdivision. If we were to take out one lot, it actually does a couple of other things. It's kind of neat and it makes for a good compromise. It gets our density down. We will lose one lot. It gets us down below three units to the acre, so it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of how you take your legal description. We are below three units to the acre. It provides a larger buffer, as far as transitional use, if we get rid of one. There is fixed use requirements for the distance from the roadway down to the south, so this is an additional stub street. We'd end up with one less lot, so we meet our density requirements, we would be able to continue to meet our open space requirements. Some of the major issues with this plat concerning density, conceming the buffers, go away and, then, we'd just have to deal with the open space issue that we have already addressed a little bit. And, Joe, if you can go back a couple more slides that you guys have. One -- there we go. Perfect. That works. Let's talk a little bit more about Pine Street. Pine Street is the private road that's signed as a private road. At the ACHD -- that's this road right here. Commissioner Borup, I think there was some confusion as to whether or not this road goes all the way through. Pine Road itself goes and dead ends at this location. EI Gato continues. EI Gato is a public road. It's not a private road. It .,~ ~, r~: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 29 of 67 ,~ goes up -- it comes up and -- I don't see that it continues all the way through. Okay. It right turns and, then, comes down -- okay. EI Gato goes through. That I know. Not that it was discussed tonight. Again, we have 110 feet of right of way there. Staff is supportive of reducing that down to one road that lines up with EI Gato. ACHD has a policy in place that says you line up with the adjacent roadways. When you have tried to put 110 feet to line up with a 50-foot roadway and a 50-foot right of way, it doesn't line up. Especially when you have two roads that are coming out at the exact same point onto the same road. The point that ACHD made -- and this was discussed with their legal counsel, Mr. Price was at this hearing and Mr. Price's legal opinion was that these right of ways -- and there is a number of them throughout the county that are signed as private roads, are owned by ACHD, but not maintained. The right of way maintenance supervisor got up and said at that public hearing that there is a number of private roads that are not being maintained with signs on them and those signs that are private as an indication to ACHD not to maintain those. And the reason why is ACHD will not take over maintenance of a roadway until it meets their standards. ACHD doesn't build the roads, developers build the roads. ACHD will not take over maintenance of Pine -- maintenance of EI Gato in this area, or Pine, until it meets their policy. So, that's the reason why they haven't done any maintenance. It was a surprise to me to hear that there is a lot of private roads that are actually owned by ACRD. But ACHD claims ownership of all rights of ways in Ada County from the time that they are organized. There wasn't a massive process -- go over deeds and saying this is now all ACHD. It would have been too cumbersome. But ACHD claims ownership of all the rights of ways. Mrs. Farerra -- the report, I guess the deed, for our piece of property, talking about a 20-foot right of way, a 50-foot right of way, and, then, a right of way 25 feet to center line for a county road. The reason why it says county, instead of ACHD, is because at that time the county maintains those roadways, not ACRD, because ACHD wasn't in existence. We have ACRD for better or for worse. They maintain the roadways and they take ownership of the rights of way and that was their determination. I think that the compromise -- if we can -- if we can go back to that, Joe. It's in my head now and there is -- I guess it's something that would be able to work for -- for us, at least. You know, if we were to reduce this back here, that pushes all of these lots towards the 12,000 square foot. It may not meet the specific 12,000 square feet, but if we take one lot out and spread it equal distance around there, if we push those all to 11 thousand plus square feet, maybe just under 12,000 square feet. If we can add a condition that says we could make this six units on the western edge, rather than seven, with space of one of these going through or added as a compromise, we create the transitional densities, we allow this area to develop within the Comprehensive Plan. It reduces our density, makes larger lots, which is what the neighborhood has requested and I think we have a project that is a viable project. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan and, again, staff is recommending approval of this and we would ask that you recommend approval as well to the City Council. With that I will end testimony. Ask if you have any questions on that. I know there is a lot of issues that were brought up, but I think those cover the majority of the issues. Zaremba: Commissioners? t~::_ ._. ti .., ,:r 5 : i k k n < {, '. ' ~~ ~ 1 x ~ ~,y ~f ~t ~, c s~ o- ~ r,, n~ 'i~- ~ ~ i ~ $~~~ ~ ti~ 3 ~ `: ~'^ill~ tk. i ){ ~, .-. :I: # t ~T ~% ~ ~. ~r. trn .t .. ~ i- T;, ~ Is~j ~ ,k r:; .?;~ ~t ~ ~ ' ~ S ~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 `~_~'=~. Page 30 of 67 ti, k Borup: I do have a few questions. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, please. ~: Borup: I guess I have got to agree, these are nice size lots. Anywhere else in the city they would be 300,000 plus homes that would normally go on this size lot. But I do &~' have a couple of -- you had -- I'm sure your client understood from the beginning what > ,-. ~K the Comp Plan said for this area. '~~;~ McKinnon: Three units or less. Borup: Pardon? ~~ `_ ~~;' A t.-z.~, ', ~" ;~ .q tlti~, f ~ s r S -~:; `: . a~:°. >! ~~° S ~ i McKinnon: Three units or less. Less than three. Borup: Well -- I thought we were at low density? McKinnon: Commissioner Borup, this is low density. Low density on the Comprehensive Plan is three units or less. Borup: On the Comp Plan. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. I'm -- McKinnon: This is not already zoned. This is an annexation request. Borup: Okay. Yeah. There is a difference in the definition between low density on the Comp Plan -- I mean on the Comp Plan low density and the -- on the ordinance. So, there wasn't any -- you had made a statement that you did not request a bump up in density. That was when you were assuming that you maybe had more acreage than it may appear that you do. So, you're -- what you're saying by your last comment is that by reducing one lot that you would be well under the three units acre, is that what you're getting, too? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, if you reduce one lot -- Borup: And I agree with your calculation. That had 11,000 plus square foot -- McKinnon: It would get it down underneath the three, depending on where you take those measurements from, but, yes, it would put you down below three. If you take one out, that's how close you are on the threshold of three units. Borup: It appears you still may have some trouble on your -- I mean on your open space. Earlier you had stated that ACHD gave you the option of vacating that property? l~ M i Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 31 of 67 r~ ~` McKinnon: ACHD says with right of ways you either improvement it or you vacate it. s.~ Borup: Okay. And vacate it, it would pass to your ownership, then? ,r; E ^~ McKinnon: It would pass to our ownership and, then, all of a sudden we have -- Borup: And that would be on the open space at that point. ^;~ McKinnon: Then, it could be open space. That's correct. `} Borup: And why are you --why are you not pursuing that option, or was that too early? McKinnon: It's a process that's both cumbersome to the owner and to ACRD. It takes "_`z several months to go through the process. It requires public hearings to vacate right of way and through the ACHD process there is an exchange of money or property that takes place as well, because they can't just vacate it for no money, because it's ~:x_~° privately -- it's not privately, but publicly owned land, because it's right of way. There ~~ has to be an exchange of money. They felt that it would be easiest to leave it as ACRD right of way, with a license agreement. Same thing happens. It's either owned by .':.f ` ACHD with the homeowners association maintaining it or it's owned by the owners of -`'~ the homeowners association maintaining it. Rather than go through a cumbersome, ,,, 'f1~-fit you know, monthly -- a several month long process, why not just landscape it. ~{. `~`=~ Borup: Thank you. ',' f '`~" ~ Zaremba: Other questions? ~; ~~ Moe: Yeah. I'm still kind of hung up in regards to the open space as well. What I'm ~"'~ hearing staff and legal tell us already is that they pretty much do not believe the right of '°~~. - way area can be noted as open space in your calculations. So, I guess having said ~;o that, do you have any second plan of attack on this? Because I'm not anticipating that ,; ,. ~ changing. "` McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, just like Commissioner Zaremba just mentioned, if we were to take that right of way area, vacate it, purchased it from ACHD =~ or land swap it with ACHD, then, it becomes owned by the subdivision, the homeowners ~'~ ~ association, then, you can count it, according to staff -- all it is is a matter of process. If it were owned by ACHD, and maintained by us, or it's owned by us and maintained by ~~' us -- does that make sense? Commissioner Zaremba -- Commissioner Borup said if ~:~aif~ you vacate it, you purchase the right of way, and, then, all of a sudden it's part of our f'`~~ subdivision, it's right of way that can be included. You can only count 50 percent .. f, beyond the ten feet that's required. In a local road the ordinance requires ten feet of ~,:;~~ landscaping for the local road. We can count half of whatever is extra to it. -:~ ~~ :s=k F;=~ t~~w;ri, ,~... ~;:r r:, .... , __ 3~~ ;: ~~= ~t~-~ ,, _ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 ~:~~~' Page 32 of 67 :~. Moe: Okay. Having said that, you already -- you also mentioned that to vacate you got J ~-, a time frame to deal with in order for that to happen. __~`~ McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, that time frame typically takes place during the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place through the final plat construction drawings. That's something that takes place with -- :':z Moe: Okay. We are getting somewhere now. I understand. I want to thank you. Zaremba: If you have people who have a deeded right to cross this and what today '::; would probably be called across-access agreement among -- it sounds like seven or y~` eight property owners here. Isn't that something of value that you would also have to purchase from them by agreement? :~.~ "`f' McKinnon: Well, that would depend if -- from what we have been told by public ~~ agencies, ACHD, is that ACHD owns it and if ACHD owns it, these people can still get out to Black Cat, there is no harm to these people, because you have a roadway that <~ will be improved that run parallel to each other. You can get out on one and there is access to both of them all the way throughout, you're still getting out to Black Cat, everybody can get through on those roads -- all the way through. It's all getting to the same point, Commissioner Zaremba -- Mr. Chairman. ACHD says they own it. In fact, ,,,, r;;, we wish we could have stayed out of this. Our initial plan for this was let's take access ~` off of Black Cat, we don't have to worry about Pine Street and EI Gato, we don't have to worry about coming across any sort of easement. We went and sat down with ACRD, ACHD said, boy, we'd really rather not have another access to Black Cat. We -tip understand what you're doing, I understand why you don't want to do that. We can live ~r =_~ ~ with that. We met with the city. The city said, you know what, we'd rather you take access off the side and Joe -- we got to pre-app and said, you know what, why don't you look into it a little bit more, maybe there is something else going on here. We went back ~~'=s~ to ACRD and said what's going on here and ACHD looked at the map and said, you `~~~~ know what, we own that and it would be best to come in off of that, you know, and even if you want to come in off of Black Cat and don't come in over here, you're still stuck at ACHD to either improve or vacate right of way. ACHD would still even make us improve '' or vacate that right of way, regardless of where we took access, because they claim ~: ownership adjacent to this. Zaremba: Thank you. McKinnon: So, we are stuck having to appease ACHD, regardless of where our access was, because they claim ownership. So, we are kind of -- we are stuck between a rock ~. ~~. and a hard place and ACHD said -- their attorney said we own it and so that's what we ~y~r have to go with. ~:.~ Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you. ;. ~" McKinnon: Thank you. R ~:..: - .. M ~~ ~ ~c~s I ix. F I •,ry ~,~~~ ~r~ ~ q 1 4~ ^t ~~ :~C: "E` t~~ fi~ ,, ~~~ ~ , ~~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ •••w.~e. F~ I~y.p• S~ t. ~~~~ ~• 3 ar ~~s~~ ~ ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ,i~, d Meridian Planning & Zoning • wl~ May 19, 2005 Page 33 of 67 ~,' Zaremba: Discussion? Newton-Huckabay: You want to close the Public Hearing first? "_~ Zaremba: That's fine if you'd like to. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. -~ , Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close this Public Hearing on AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014. ~-^ Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close these public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ,,, MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ,% `rig; Zaremba: Discussion? ~'~ Newton-Huckabay: I think they need to lose three lots. ~~ ~~~ fl;:c;~ Zaremba: Okay. _ Newton-Huckabay: That's -- by my calculation that's about 2.39 per acre. ,n ~~~~~: ~~' '' Rohm: Three lots in the whole subdivision? ::.. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. - Borup: How many acres are you calculating on the -- Newton-Huckabay: 5.98 --okay. Borup: 5.89? Newton-Huckabay: That's what the staff report says. _ Guenther: Commissioner Zaremba, we are not sure what the survey says. They have indicated -- there is one survey in our application that says 5.51 acres. There is one survey that says 6.35 acres and there is another survey that says 5.89 acres, which is ~~f' the preliminary plat that is in your sub that -- your application. Newton-Huckabay: That's the one I'm using to make my calculation. ~: ' '~ Borup: The smallest one. ~~~_' x d'~ 7: ~;. r r-~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~. May 19, 2005 4 Page 34 of 67 Newton-Huckabay: I got to pick -- you know, we got to -- you know, I got to pick a number in our scale. Guenther: That's why there is a condition of approval in the conditions that says that ->~~ they have to come back with a proper survey and proper calculations for the overall ~,Y density. _ Rohm: And to follow Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's thought, if they dropped it by three lots, does the open space, then -- that issue, does that go away or are we -- are they clear with that recommended change? ,_ ,. ~= Guenther: Well, with the open space calculations, I did my own calculations today ;, ~~ based on what was presented and what was interpreted by the subdivision. I came up `~` with -- that they have 7,865 square feet of open space on -- according to the 5.51 acre subdivision, which means -- or survey that was submitted. That would mean that they have 3.2 percent of open space. They only have to come up with another roughly three thousand, thirty-eight hundred square feet in order to get to where they need to be. Zaremba: Then, I will express a couple of opinions that I think may surprise a few people. In the subdivisions on the east side of Black Cat, we received similar testimony `:_ ~ and in that area I admit that I was not convinced and still am not convinced that it has _ that much impact on EI Gato. On the west side of Black Cat I feel entirely differently about it. The Comprehensive Plan envisions in aloes-density area a maximum of three ' ' dwelling units per acre and the discussion we are having noodles that limit. I mean { ` '° ~~` .p,. .~ whether we get to 2.99 or 2.98, I don't think is the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. In . f. addition to that, as staff has pointed out and others have, there are areas where the Comprehensive Plan envisions that even that's too much density and the subject is the transition to the neighbors. I have no problems supporting the idea that half-acre lots '~fi'' are as small as these ought to be. In addition to that -- and I deliberately didn't put Mr. Wilder on the spot, but I personally feel that development of this small acreage is premature. If the two lots combined, if Mr. Wilder some day was thinking of developing -- and I'm not going to ask him to answer that question. But if you could combine those ~- to pieces of property, you could do far more with this that would be much more ~"~~ advantageous, not only to the City of Meridian, but to the neighbors, have larger lots that would that be a much better transition to their area and what I'm admitting is I feel ~~}~~ ~ much differently about the west side of Black Cat than I do about the east side of Black Cat. I still feel eventually when Pine goes east, all of those people are going to go east and stop being a problem. I can admit that they are being a problem now, but I don't think they have a reason to go that direction once the sewer is done, once Pine goes east, which could be years, unfortunately. This is different. This is the entryway to this ~'~ group. It's part of the existing properties and the Comprehensive Plan envisions taking into account the existing properties and I will have to say I feel it's premature at this ` ~ point even to annex this small piece, which could be made much better for both the city >~` and for the neighbors by having a discussion with Mr. Wilder as well. That's my ''>3 personal opinion. ~ r i. r _ ~ F aayy ~~~ ~ y ~ ~jW ~~{ ~f t`' ~ ~~-~ ~ ~ i_ yy1., ipC ~~ y w 7~`'p 1 i ~ t k ~ ~ ~~~' h~~s ~ t,. ~itr. y ~ n ': ~LUt ~, w s '~ ~ . ; ~ :wit: ~yc~ ~ y - ~ ~ ~ ~ '~~ rY., r v~ i.-ed1'. .~ r`,a`-~e~i ~ ~ - i~__ - i i is y~ :~ s br"r ~ ~ .~.t - s xr ~pp~ - ~~~ ~~A y i~r~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 9;:_ n~ ,~~ Ys~~~~~: ~;; a p~rpz~ y l ~ k~ "~"" ~ ~;. - -~" ~ ~-r rc ~.' ~r i, . ,t ~ "~ : ~- ,~~ ~ t s~ ~,r ~~_ ! •f f Meridian Planning & Zoning "'~°~'~ May 19, 2005 ~~ Page 35 of 67 '. J ` Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~~~`'~ Zaremba: Mr. Moe. ,,, ~. '*t Moe: I will weigh in, okay? Quite frankly, I have got a couple different issues on this `~~ project. In regards the Comprehensive Plan in regards to the three dwelling units and to ~.. ~y~-~ anticipate it to be as per the Comprehensive Plan, which, in my view as a ej: Commissioner here, we are somewhat under a duty to somewhat follow the ~: w Y-*'"` Comprehensive Plan. So, therefore, I would anticipate that by what the developer is "~~' t;~. anticipating, reduction of one lot and whatnot, to somewhat get into -- under the three •. dwelling units, I happen to like that very much. My biggest problem on this -- and I'm ~~ ~ going to kind of point at staff a little. I'm a little bit concerned that -- we have a lot of '~ open issues on this project and in my opinion I do not think that I can vote for this '4~ development when I have to vote for it to go to City Council with all these open issues ~` ` still out there. Ithink there is -- and it's been noted by a few people here tonight, there `'~ are issues I still think need to be resolved, i.e., legal descriptions and whatnot, as well as what we are doing with the open space, realizing that they may take and get the right `~'> of way from the county. I just think there is too many issues in here that I just can't support an approval tonight of this project. I'm not so sure I want to really deny it, but I ~~ ~` don't think I can support it tonight. Thank you. -: Borup: Mr. Chairman? r~~. ~~` Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Just a couple notes on calculations. If we take the lowest number, the 5.51 acres --Ithink that was Commissioner Huckabay was -- was that the number you were using? Newton-Huckabay: I used the 5.89. ~ Borup: Okay. Well, I used the lower one, so it can't go any lower than that. Sixteen ~~ lots would be 2.9 per acre. Fifteen would be 2.72. So, eliminating one lot would meet ~~`'` the three per acre. It doesn't address the open space. That's more for information. My comment would be that Ithink -- I believe -- I believe there should be an implied ,hj expectation when someone looks at the Comp Plan that that's what would be expected that you can develop in that area. I also feel, you know, that some transition is appropriate and because of -- because of this location, feeling the neighbors, I don't feel ~'`~-, that there is an need to ive an variance or an extra. I mean I -- the staff has Y 9 Y Y =~ already stated what their interpretation of the open space and right of way is and -- you ~: '~~ know, and everything else is pretty black and white already in our codes and ordinances. So, I think I'm agreeing with what Commissioner Moe said, I mean these :.4~~ are larger lots from what we normally see. Ithink there is still a market for larger lots. ~~ ~~~ At what point you reach where it's not practical to bring sewer and water services in, '`'~`'° don't know. Staff has commented on that in the past, but, you know, I think the ~~~ developer can still -- still has a market for larger lots, but I think there still is an implied ;~. ;x tiT f f i ~ C5 rSi E y ~~~ ~ t ,,~. ~„'~~ i' ~ s ~~ r s x r t t~y ~itC - x ~ . , y~gj'&"~!C ,~ , ice. s-~~ a ; r 1 F,_ ~ ,`~~ ~~ - ~Y' y tF - u~ ~~ - ~f ;, ~ ' s ' ~ ~ ~~- id e . ~~4.,N `~ y h" y. 1, • S `, ~ ',' - fs n ~ ; 4 r1,~1~ 4 a_ . ~~+ .. .. -k~' 1p 1.._:~~`. ~ '~~h ~ hf J NL t ky A. kl¢ d ' ~ 4 H r Y ~!' Y ~` ~ i ~.~ ~l- ~ ~~~' V Y ". hw! i~~ 'r~ ,'" I kYya,~~ ' fi'' tips, ['^ii~i'' v T' ,~ ~~i ~ ~ ~`~ ` ~' iN4 ~ ? ~ ~ i ~ ~ t I' y ~~ n~ i - M ~~.:~~~ ++ ,I~` ~,; ,~ ~~t~ t . ~ L~ ~ i ' ~~ ' ' * _ ., ; ~; s~ ,,,,.sa ,~ a ;,~f ~'~',,~ i <,'~B Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ • May 19, 2005 Page 36 of 67 expectation to be able to develop it as the Comp Plan says and how that's being already approved and run through the process, but I think maybe they need to work at complying with all aspects of that. And so I'm agreeing with Commissioner Moe that I'm not ready to deny it. Whether approving it tonight is -- it sounds like it could be a long laundry list of things that they would need to do and I'd feel much more comfortable maybe having that worked out before it goes to City Council also. Zaremba: Let me ask what you're thinking we should do as a process. In order to get some of these resolved, we would probably want to continue the hearing, which we have closed at the moment, but we have in the past reopened and continued. Are you thinking there are things that can be resolved? I have expressed my personal opinion that I think this is premature at this point and we have gotten burned other places where we annexed a piece of property that was too small to really do what needed to be done there. Borup: Well, I don't know. See, I guess I look at -- Zaremba: I'm just one person and we were looking for a consensus here. Borup: I'm in a -- somewhat of a rural subdivision, but -- and five acre lots surround it. ~,. One-acre lots with five-acre lots around it and in our area all the five-acre lots are developing. We never will. It's too small. I mean ours are too small to ever develop. You're not going to develop one acres into anything. So, at some point -- and it's not -~. ~ going to be next year, but maybe at some point something's going to happened here. 'f'' Maybe in someone else's lifetime. And a lot of times that's what it would be, but, you a~;'` know, that's part of planning is what's going to happen in 40 years. We have got the sewer line there. I mean the city has already got -- you know, that's saying something, too. Zaremba: Let me get the sense, though -- are we thinking that there are issues that could be resolved that would earn a recommendation to the City Council? I know all of my issues can be resolved. Borup: Right. Yeah. You're saying you want half-acre lots. ' ' Zaremba: And the more we talk about it, the more etched in stone is it, unfortunately, ='~' ~ but there is -- `,_ ' '^ Borup: Well, I feel like Icould -- I could support a redesign with something with fewer s lots. ~~' ~>: '`rig `'r Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. '~; Newton-Huckabay: That's my sense. By my calculation, reducing three lots would be ~_ ~ r;~, about an 18,000 -- provided I did the math right, on average, just about a half an acre. ' ~ .~~ mean I -- from a land planning standpoint, I don°t even know if that would work, but -- ~.~I ~.- ,: ,_s, : ;~ n !}1 r Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 37 of 67 Y3', Zaremba: Well, the applicant has expressed a willingness to do that. What about the open space and easement and -- ~<<'.r ' Newton-Huckabay: You know, I have to confess the open space issue is pretty ,:,:u ~~ convoluted and I'm having a little hard time following it, so I'm just going to defer to Joe ' on that, because with the people in the audience, I -- it's kind of a circus of points. But if -•` we could come back with that resolved, which it seems to be -- everybody agrees that ~~~~~' could happen and three -- you know, three or more or less lots -- it would only take s`~ three less lots, I think. I think it's not a bad design and I don't necessarily think it's ,. ~ ~ premature to develop -- what you're doing, then, in my opinion, is setting the standard ~~ ;" for how development is going to go to the west and basically you're getting, on average, half acre lots between Black Cat and McDermott, with a whole bunch of stub streets. Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~:~ Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. ~i j~ Moe: Just a clarification. Commissioner Huckabay, made the comment about losing `=~~ three lots and you made the statement that that was what the developer was saying, thought he was only losing the one lot. `~`~~ Zaremba: I'm sorry, I thought I heard her say one. ">~~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: No. I said three. Moe: Three. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. ~~: Moe: Thank you. ;.~ x.~_, Zaremba: No. I agree. The developer has agreed to lose one lot. ;' Newton-Huckabay: How many were you thinking? Borup: Two. Newton-Huckabay: Two? Borup: Well, I mean it would need to be at least that to get the open space. r °'~f: Moe: Yeah. Borup: Three would be a nice size, though. ~~,} s #41 ~~~4 ~ r ~~ ~ r ~ VI~ _ - ~ •~ ~ ~ ~~ - ni X a ' ~7 N _r' tlti a ,, _ ~ =S~~ t 41 Y.~:c .~ j:Z:... , I~` .. ~ # `~ `" `~ ~ < ~„ i a s i ° ~k. ~ ~~r2 t #,r e. , - G~ '4 ~ ~ arF~r'~ ~~ - 7~~E~i 1y ~ E t I y ~ -~_ ~~~ ~R.i J y.V- 4 ` 7h~ ~`~ t' _ ' T :ti, r }'Y ~ ~~ ~? f y~~7'?1ik] yy~eyv~` 'W 1 yi(~J Y1 ~~ I _ Y ~`~ V ,. •l4F a-r t+ C g3y ~ -+.i, ~~;~ ~ ~ t ~ ! R - ~,k~t ~ t ~~~~~~`~ ~'~ yy ~ 14 S' ~ . p +` x ~l:. ~~~:Jr~.~ r' f ~, ~. e ~1 Xry f:i jG; it i~% ne,.aa:_.. o:___:_,. o ~.._:__ --,:,,r~~ rv:cnwan r:an `=;w: May 19, 2005 •;="~~ Page 38 of 67 t- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, do you have an opinion to weigh in here? :'-_ r~~ i; q F;~ Rohm: Well, yeah, I have to voice my two cents worth here. To start off with, the ~;"~ Comprehensive Plan is something that we use as our guide as we move forward with development in this area, as well as the entire area of impact and I believe staff has _.;; {:~ commented that the people from EI Gato had weighed in and expressed significant ;_;,µ .. concern about larger developments or dense developments adiacent to their rural ;~"~ lifestyle and I think that the lowest development that could be assigned was assigned to ~~ this property. The low density, which is up to -- is up to three dwelling units per acre. ';`_a_ Up to does not mean that you have to develop up to three. You don't have to go to ~~~~>°~ three dwelling units per acre. I think that it would behoove the developer to reconsider and move to some compromise to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. The issue of the open space, I really think that at the end of the day the open space, `~T whether they purchase that from Ada County or have it vacated, it's all going to be the `~` same open space at the end of the process and so, quite honestly, even if we should ;.a~ not consider it as open space as part of this hearing, if, in fact, it was vacated, you '`' would end up with the exact same open space at the end of the day and so I personally don't think that the open space is as significant of an issue as what has been ;, a expressed, simply because through time that would be resolved and would end up with the same open space. So, anyway, that's as I see it. So, in conclusion, my thoughts °~~ are that the developer should go back and reconsider reconfiguration with a reduced `'`; number of lots that is in line with what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay had suggested, with at least a three lot reduction and that would get them down below the three -- I ~~ would imagine that would get it to 2.7 or something like that. Newton-Huckabay: 2.3. Rohm: 2.3. And I think that that's working as a compromise to the concerns of the t~` public and giving credence to the fact that the developer has a Comprehensive Plan b~ ~; that he's also tried to adhere to and once those issues have been addressed, then, that's something that we all, hopefully, could live with. End of statement. Zaremba: Thank you. I would ask a clarification from staff. We often in our discussion #c'~ are talking about usable open space and to me I envision a place where people could actually have a picnic or the kids could play ball. Is usable part of the code or is that . just an interpretation that we make? ~~~' Guenther: That is an interpretation that we have kind of defined, as there are no ~~ amenities associated with any type of open space. Typically, with open space we get a ~- - gazebo, a park bench, or a bus stop or something along that line and there is nothing "~ presented with this. That's what usable is as we interpret it as when we drafted the staff ' '' ~' report. <d I ~y~l Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: As a suggestion -- ;., .. ~; <. ~' ~- < <~ d~ 1 ,; ~ ~~ ~~ ~b ~ s i~ ~ .,: } >.,.1 `n.. ~ , ~y ~~ :4.515 k n~-SySd ~i1~^~ z~r. ~ ~ ~ ~i: .y pd~:,~n`L'~' ~ k, :;~ `~, ~ ~~ .~~ ~ ~sw _ _ ~,,.:. ,.:,~; . ti ~,~ ;ir ~ S `~ I ~" ~,~., y~sr%F- r e i i i .... - 1 Y.+ F d i~ X3~~1~ 7 ~~'~, JZ~ySF . ~I~~~ ~~..~t l ` 4 ~ .{ ~ n l~s ~{ f ~+~ ~ .~ S ~ l ~~. ~~, ,,, Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 39 of 67 Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: As a suggestion, I would say that we should reopen the Public Hearing and continue them to a later date and give the developer an opportunity to come back in with the -- with a response that addresses the concerns that have been expressed by this body and come up with a design that addresses the concerns of the public, as well as the comments made by the Commission here and we will continue it to a point where they feel comfortable that they can address all issues that have been brought up this evening. That would be my recommendation. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Would you care to make that a motion? Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is one other option and I would be interested in the applicant's feelings on this. I mean the other option is we could just vote on it tonight. And that may -- you know, that may be appropriate to have them express how they feel about that and if we are going to reopen the Public Hearing, we can go either way. Rohm: Well, I don't think we can ask the applicant for his desires without reopening the Public Hearing. Borup: Right. That's correct. Unless he wants to express it to staff. But we can find out if he would -- if he'd like that idea, to continue it or he'd just as soon that there was a vote tonight. Zaremba: I would express, again, regardless of my original opinion being uncomfortable with a vote to recommend anything that has this many loose ends to it. Borup: Well, it would be real easy to recommend -- Zaremba: -- has asked us to -- Borup: It would be real easy to make a recommendation for denial. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I think that's where we go with that is to recommend denial. That would be my vote. Zaremba: I'm not trying to brow beat anybody, but I was already there. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing AZ 05-012 and PP 05-014. Moe: Second. li~..C . .< - ~.-. YI. .. ..i.. _.. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 40 of 67 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. Sorry. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, I guess we just need to talk to -- Zaremba: Do you have any further questions for the applicant? Borup: I think we can get an answer just by a nod of their head if they would like it continued or a vote tonight. Rohm: I'd like a date certain for a requested continuance. Borup: Well, that's -- yeah, that would be helpful to have that, so we could put that in the -- Zaremba: We aren't looking for new testimony here. I'll need to ask Mr. McKinnon to answer this question. Beecham: I'm, actually, the owner. Borup: I think he can answer. Zaremba: Okay. Come forward. - Beecham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scott Beecham, 405 South 8th Street. I'm an owner of C2B Development. We would appreciate the opportunity to go back, tie up some of these loose ends. I think there was some misunderstanding we can work through pretty quickly and we can redesign and run a detailed pro forma, see if that's feasible, whether it be minus two lots, minus three lots, and let staff know whether that makes sense to us or not and we can be back before you or not. I think the direction of the Commission is clear. Rohm: Do you have a date certain? Moe: While we are waiting on that, I do want to make one statement that was -- as heard the Commission, it was more like three lots, not two. Beecham: Yes, sir. I got that very clearly in sign language. Rohm: It looks like June 2nd, June 16th, or -- Zaremba: Those are both pretty full. Rohm: Are they both? r1,,'.., ~ ~., 5 ~~~.IiY W ;. ~ ,, 4 ? i~ , t l ~ A } [ 4J~" ~ F .~ }' (' ~~~~i!~~ ~L~~ t 7 r ,.;~~* ,, w,;s ,~_ y: r xr ?~~VGS bdr, ~ F.- , ! ?N~~`h v ~.~>. _ ,~.i. x~ ~ ^~~~.'n fi y4 3 t :' ~`' ~~~ f ~ a~ ~ i- t ~ .E ~ y ~`.. ~ , 45 s , 4 ~~~ 'Z•' ~1-t pp}~,k ~ ~~ \ ~ 1~a1 ~ 'e:fi~°~~~4 ~„ f':. F N '^.~'~ 5 0 ~ F:.: `~. ~.~ pi ti ~f ` 1~ 1.' ~ L ~ ~ 4r ~~ . .. k ~c (at . .. / f F' y~ ~~Rp,p¢C4 9Sa3 h,~~JJY ~':" ~ ~aS+t~"d +~~ is ~ -~, S 3'-'t- ` F . l ~T S . h ra 5~~"A~7 s+ .. ? s.. ~~ '~ { ~' ~ L'S~f- ~ _' ~~ ~4 ' ~ a 3tn: r , ~~ ,i ?~. n ~" - P a'~r~i e: v~'F !Y"'a f #; 4=4''~ ~ f-r ~. ~~~ >;'z Meridian Planning & Zoning `~;'~ May 19, 2005 ,~ Page 41 of 67 -;~;~ Zaremba: It would be July before we could do anything. ~`" Moe: If I mi ht add, because we still have le al issues on this as well, I mean do ou ~; 9 9 Y ~; ; think it's -- I think the neighbors still have issues in regards to that right of way and I'm a ~~;' ~ little bit concerned that we are -- it's going to take a little longer than everybody thinks to ~:''u'~ get this thing resolved. Newton-Huckabay: How about August 4th? .~ ~.; ~~;;;: \Yt. kr ~` ~:: 1 Zaremba: I certainly would want to see something in writing from ACHD and from the property owners as well. Moe: Exactly. I mean at some point -- Zaremba: We aren't going to make the legal decision, but there needs to be supporting documentation. Moe: A hundred percent agreement. Beecham: Mr. Chairman, if I could, if we could do a July date, I will go to work on getting that in writing from ACHD. If we can't do that, I will notify staff in advance and make sure we are not wasting anyone's time. Rohm: Thank you. We have got the 21st. Zaremba: A suggestion has been the 21st of July. That would give staff adequate time, then -- if this is revised, staff needs everything ten days before the hearing in order to Y~} get agency comments and everything, so that -- ~. Moe: If at all possible, could we make it the 4th of August? I think there is members that may not be present on the 21st. Zaremba: That works for me. I'm not making the motion. Would that be a problem? _~ Beecham: That would work. Zaremba: Okay. All right. A motion to continue is in order. `Y Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue public hearings AZ 05-012 and PP 05- 014 to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of August 4th, 2005. := 4 Moe: Second. .ia Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ~~~ aw- w~ ~ :~ ;~' e . ,~ ~sr,~ r r f r r•-j.r a. f.. r, .~z , 1 ~ '~ ~'~ ~~~;..x . yj°. ~ r ,: ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ s •. a~ t y$ t ~ y^ i ~, 4 V - 1 -S _ ~~~ K ~ l ~,"'~ t 4 '„ R.. ~G.~rc.v S rr - - - ~? a> g a~' . ~ _t .~ T~' f r~ ~ ~f ~' % r .ate' c ~~ § "~. ~ r, t?r '-„~' ~ - - ~ ~? ~ r' ~54ta ~ ~, 1~, . .. . r .t!.. - r' P,,yy.x; o ~ ? Ho-P ~ Y ~' i ]ry~ !` ~~ri~~ 1 ~ _ C~Pji'Era~, - +~ J ''¢:.. _. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 42 of 67 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you all for coming in. Zaremba: Thank you all. We will see you again. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we take a short break. Zaremba: This is the appropriate time for us to take a break. We will reconvene in '~ about ten minutes. ;} (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 05-014 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark -~' Engineering and Planning -south of East Victory Road and west of South ~Y~. Locust Grove Road: -~- Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 05-016 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 74 ~~~ € building lots 5 other lots on 19.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning -south of East -_~ Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road: "~I Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the _i",~ record show that all Commissioners that were here before are here again with us and we will open the Public Hearing for Items 9 and 10 on our agenda. This is AZ 05-014, >_~ request for an annexation and zoning of 19.72 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone and also 'ss'' Public Hearing PP 05-016, request for a preliminary plat approval of 74 building lots and five other lots on 19.72 acres, in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, south of east Victory Road and west of South Via Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report. ~~<~: f: ~< Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is for Sicily Subdivision. It's proposed for 72 building lots, five common lots, in a proposed R-8 zone. Bordered on the east by the recently approved Roseleaf and Chatsworth Subdivisions and, then, South Locust Grove Road. On the southwest property line bordered by the Ridenbaugh Canal and undeveloped RUT properties and, then, also bordered by an undeveloped RUT property on the north. It is also nearby to Tuscany Village and, then, across Locust Grove portions of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designation of this property is medium density residential. The applicant has proposed 3.75 dwelling units per acre, which is in accordance with that medium density residential. Actually, on the low end. the Comprehensive Plan designates medium density residential as three to eight units per acre and this is much closer to the three than the eight. The staff doesn't have many issues for the Commission's resolution. I had spoke with the applicant and they are in agreement -- ,,~.:-~ ~ ~e ,_ . -, KN _~ I "y' : ~~ ~Tt y` r` ~ ~~ ~ c. °~ f tia'~~~ t u ~r ~'2 r "F 4- w 5 x r.~ Y 'j~~~ Ktt, ~. .4 E' ~ . u't'~'ya- y . - '+-3 _. ~ z (~ ~ Z Y 7 ~ : k r +~:` ~ Yut - 1+ I 111 ~ ~;' i ^ ~1 I ;~-: ~ ~ .F i ~ - F 3 ' ' ~ C cIr , ya.~ .. ,3 ' y.. `# ...x.~. ~.r ~.,. .- f ~: ~k ~~ ~r i - + ~ ~ .. ~~ -~+ e , . "; ~~ yy,M y44 ~ ,, ^ ~-01`` ~ t 'S'~ .~F .: 1 ' S L~~ 3: ~ i i7 ~ ~1 4 -V\ "T Y~ ~ t 1 - ? :~/_~~~ .. ~ ,~~_ _ r~„~._ r I i ~ .. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 43 of 67 my understanding is they are in agreement with the staff report and any conditions in it. A few things I will point out. The applicant was required to submit a block length variance, because of the Ridenbaugh Canal for this block, Block 1, exceeds the 1,000 foot block length variance, because of the limited opportunities to cross the Ridenbaugh Canal. This is a variance application that staff will support and has been submitted and would go to Council concurrently with these two applications. The applicant has proposed 6.7 percent open space in five open space lots. I will switch here. The landscape plan does show the large central common lot here with abasketball -- a proposed basketball court, walking paths, and landscaping. There is also a landscape lot in the northeast corner and, then, over here in the western portion of the property and, then, near the cul-de-sac here by the Ridenbaugh Canal. Those four lots, exclusive of the fifth lot along the Ridenbaugh Canal, do make up that 6.7 percent of landscaped open area. So, technically, by code, that's what can be included in that calculation is actual landscape, accessible open space to the residents. So, they do exceed the five percent by quite a ways with those four lots and if he did factor in the lot number five along the Ridenbaugh that's quite large -- I believe it's 74,000 square feet -- that's open space and along the Ridenbaugh it just, per code, isn't included in that calculation. So, it's just above and beyond. They did provide a stub street to the north. They take access from the east, from the Roseleaf. That road there does go into Roseleaf -- the approved Roseleaf Subdivision that is not constructed currently and, then, takes access to Locust Grove Road. The Chatsworth -- the road here goes into Chatsworth Subdivision and that is a second access to Locust Grove Road, meeting fire department requirements for two separate accesses to the property. Other than requiring the applicant to submit the variance application, which they have done, there was no conditions that were above and beyond what would be pretty standard with any pre-plat and annexation request. They have requested to not the the Ridenbaugh Canal. Staff -- the Public Works Department has not required tiling of waterways that would require a pipe larger than 48 inches and it's my understanding that that would require a pipe substantially larger than 48 inches. And with that I think I'll end staffs comments. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: I have none. Borup: Just one of curiosity. How did this property have access to -- to the other roadways? Is it landlocked? Wilson: Currently until Roseleaf and Chatsworth are constructed and, subsequently, that's also where this subdivision is getting its sewer and water service from, so -- Borup: Yeah. Assuming that. Wilson: -- it can't be constructed until those are. So, effectively, it -- Borup: So, it is landlocked. ~z~ wFr ~, ~~ ~~" "' ~, ~~~fi,{, _ ~,: ,`" Y .'.~. 9_». r 2 i ~l g. 'W +~~h'f ";uM4~ Y ~I . _..__. _ , , S. {. t. ~' ~'~ ~. ~- Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~ ~` ~' May 19, 2005 ~~ Page 44 of 67 Wilson: Currently, yes. Borup: Okay. ~``"'' Zaremba: I guess on that subject of the clarification, we often put in a requirement that °' they can't have more than 50 dwelling units until there are two accesses. You're saying '~~~ they can't even get in there to start building until the accesses are there, so we don't necessarily need to add that requirement? Wilson: That's my understanding and I believe that was Joe Silva's take, the fire department representative, as well. And he did not include that requirement on this subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Boyle: Commissioners, Clint Boyle with Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa, Idaho. And I will try to make this brief and not use up the entire ten minutes, unless you want to chat about any movies that are coming out or anything like that. But I would request that the Commissioners use the -- that the force be with them tonight as they consider this application and we have worked with staff on this, we have met with the parks department, and had discussions with the planning staff as well, and I believe we have worked out all the issues. We are in agreement with the requirements here. One of the things that I do just want to point out on the subdivision is we did try to design this subdivision with some usable, active open space. I know there was comments from the previous hearing requesting that. We have a large central area that is proposed with some basketball facilities, some walking paths, and, then, trying to leave space open as well for people to go out and throw a Frisbee or ball or et cetera. The way that we designed the open space coming into the project was so that with both of the connections -- street stubs, the one from Roseleaf and the one from Chatsworth, you would get a nice look at that open space coming into the subdivision from either of those directions. We also provided a stub street to the north for future connectivity to the north. The staff has indicated that this particular piece of property is landlocked and that is correct. The developer understands that Roseleaf and Chatsworth, those streets need to be improved and platted before they will be able to proceed with the development. Both of the projects are well on their way to accomplishing that. Construction drawings have been submitted, my understanding, on both of those and so they are definitely in the process of being -- being followed through and constructed. The Ridenbaugh Canal is, obviously, a significant water feature. I'm sure most of the Commissioners are familiar with the Ridenbaugh Canal and so we certainly are requesting that we not be required to the that facility. Staff has supported that request, because it would require significantly larger than a 48-inch pipe. And I'm sure staff can attest to that as well. With that said, I'll stand for any questions. And, again, we agree with the staff report and the conditions found therein. Thank you. ~:~1 > > ;y6 `~ .5 +1 '~,y 7 't 7' ~f~h y '-~4 ,f. y.qN ~ryn~~~~ ~ r :3 y~ c tt'.1j~ Fi_'.>' ~ ti k Y6 # 1 _$ ~ ~~~J~~k~ ar.~`~ ?i; X1.5.5"~' F.;g-s m u•~~=3 y' i [tk';~ f ~ ...~' .~:-.n `}; ,~ ;~ i ~~ ~x ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ;,~~,~s~ May 19, 2005 ;;~ _ Page 45 of 67 ,y ,`~ Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? No questions. All right. Thank you. We have the opportunity for public testimony at this point. One moment while we >. - get the sign-up sheet. Okay. There is nobody else signed up, although there is an F~ ~.~ F~~ opportunity, if anybody cares to speak on this subject, to come forward. I guess the ~. ;,- opportunity has been taken by all who wish it, in which case Mr. Boyle does not need to ~~5 provide a rebuttal on anything and, Commissioners, what's your pleasure? :~'~ Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question for staff and, actually, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay brought it up and I'm kind of curious as well. The road leading out through Roseleaf Subdivision, are we not longer than a thousand feet now by having ~~~~~ that access in like that? Is there any --anything planned going into that subdivision? :~ Zaremba: You're saying the Roseleaf part of it gets longer than a thousand feet? ''`' y ``°'~ Moe: Well, by the time you add up everything going into the -- into the new area here, ~4ti I'm sure you're over a thousand feet. And I'm just curious -- s~ ~ f.~. ~, ~~ ~ Borup: It already was. ~~ ~~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We are just making it longer. '~~~ Borup: Well, yeah, they only added a hundred feet. Moe: No. I understand with the new subdivision. Correct. I'm just kind of curious -- any type of -- my concern is that we are going to have a nice raceway all the way through there, then. Wilson: Yeah. Commissioner Moe, where this application is adding one lot depth, I -- ::~p , this is where you're speaking of? ".~S Moe: Yeah. ~;~ Wilson: To that roadway, you know, the length of that would have been considered in rat the previous application and where this one is only adding that little portion, we don't :. have any concerns with that and wouldn't require a variance or anything like that. -.r-' Moe: Thank you very much. That's all I want to know. Mr. Chairman, I move we close ~'T-~ the Public Hearing on AZ 05-014 and PP 05-016. Rohm: Second. ~~ Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. -~.. ~> ~f~. ~ ~, • ~; ~~~ ~z .~:_~ ~ ' ~. ~ ~;~ , ~`~ ....:~ '..._ _'.R5 1ys~'j1 _`y"~ }~: \ '..d 1 ,~. u ~'~ -_ r~`~ ~~ , ~~~t' ~u~~~ti~ ~` :_§ -z~! ~~ ~'%?`;-. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 ,i Page 46 of 67 ,.4, Moe: Mr. Chairman? .~ . . Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. I'm sorry, there appears to be a question before we - proceed. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ;; Newton-Huckabay: I'm trying to remember back. Did we do any traffic calming in the ~; Roseleaf Subdivision for that? y `~ ~ ' Zaremba: I see a wide spot in the road. There could be other -- x' Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. It looks like there might be -- I mean -- but I think I'm t.} digressing off the issue, but I just would like to know that we did. You can continue with "' your motion. °, -~=~, ~ Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-014 and PP 05-016, for the hearing date of May 19th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office on May 13th, 2005. Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~,~i~~a ~' ~~ Zaremba: You're referring to the staff comments? ~~~~ Moe: Staff comments. I'm sorry. `, Zaremba: Thank you. Did I hear a second from Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Zaremba: That's a yes? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. ~ Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Did you combine both of those in one or did you just do one? ~ Moe: I did them both. ~~;~ ~ Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 05-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for =; an addition for a gymnasium and commons area to existing junior /senior high school for Cole Valley Christian School Gymnasium by CTA ~~ _, ka;~T Architects Engineers - 200 East Carlton: b i ' i" ~~ Zaremba: Okay. That solves that. Okay. We are ready to open Public Hearing Item ''~~r '}' 11, CUP 05-021, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an addition of a gymnasium ', and commons area to existing junior-senior high school for Cole Valley Christian School :;_ _.;~. x ,: ~ -;> ~,,'~ s" ' ,,, a~~~~. ~ u .~S ~~~ ~. k, 4e ' ~ k~, _ .~?y~ix 'k ! ._ i r ~ ~ki ,~ 2; tv C~~ ~lt~7 #.. ti ~'.ta. ~ f~y, y> r k nat t .ds ,., r{~4~5.~ c'-'~ i a7.. ~~~ }#~z) ~ ~ 9 _ .~~ ~„ ~ , ~-. t ~ i J 1 1 ~. ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ': ~`+ r . ~~ ~ ' j... ~Y„td 1. ~~ tv'. ..1. SW~t r~~ ;~~ 'r xi: ~~ '~ "3 ~,..... ' .x,., ~ ~' 's s~:~ ~ :3 > a ,,,~~ .Y ~, ~ ~ ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~'" May 19, 2005 Page 47 of 67 ;~ Gymnasium, by CTA Architects Engineers, 200 East Carlton, and we will begin with the ~= staff report. z~. Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The application ~. before you is a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a gymnasium and a common ;ti~:` area to an existing 42,790 square foot junior and senior high school on -- in downtown ~.~~ ~~: Meridian on Carlton and 2 '/2-Street, the northwest corner. The properly houses Cole ~~ ` a Valley Christian School. It is -- it is zoned Old Town and in Old Town public schools ;~~ and accessory structures, they are conditional uses in the Old Town zone. That's what ~~~'~~ ~ has brought this application before you. The portion the applicant is proposing to ~~'~~~ -5 construct -- and I'll let the applicant correct me on anything if -- architecturally if I mess ~~~~ up here, but starting approximately here and attaching to the existing building and, then, :~„=" ~ constructing the new the gymnasium and associated locker rooms, restrooms, what ,, ' appears to be maybe a concession area, to the existing school and, then, also providing a little common area there in the rear of the building. Some considerations on this ~ application were land use buffers. Meridian City Code does require a land use buffer ..~,. '~~~~' between single family residential and a middle school or high school use and that would '~ba be 20 feet along this boundary here. I apologize; I should clarify the surrounding uses ~~'~~~ u i ma be a little bit. To the north of the roe we do have some existin sin le famil Y p P rtY 9 9 Y ~ residential. To the west that United States Post Office. To the south a mix of `~ °~~ businesses. There is a coffee house, a couple of businesses, I believe a funeral home, '`;=#~~ p p rty, again, there is a mix of homes and a a church, and, then, to the east of the ro e , `~~~''' professional office. In regards to the single-family use to the north, Mr. Freckleton has `p , corrected me that that is multi-family to the north. Okay. It sounds like it's duplexes, so , : `~~' ' that would remain the same landscape use buffer that would be considered single family attached. So, it still falls within that single-family residential category. The F" ~ required land use buffer on that north property line would be 20 feet per Meridian City ~~: Code and that is required to have one tree per 35 linear feet and vegetative ground ~. >' ; t cover. The applicant has not shown the full 20 feet as mentioned in special ~ I consideration number two on page five of the staff report. And similar properties in Old Town that are redeveloping and have space limitations, it's not uncommon to have r r;~ , buffers that can't meet the full width. Staff does support in circumstances that qualify, ~~~; ,[ t,Y~~ as this does, alternative compliance, meaning that because they cannot provide that full buffer width, they do have space limitations on the lot to qualify them for alternative "~, ' compliance, meaning they can provide landscaping that is perhaps above and beyond the ordinance in other locations on the property or along that property line, provide ~~`- substantially greater than the -- than the trees required to, quote, unquote, beef up that ``,~7 buffer and can meet that requirement through alternative compliance. Staff would be ~~ supportive of alternative compliance on this application and we did include a condition ~~~~~~ : that they need to work with staff to obtain alternative compliance prior to the issuance of r ` a certificate of zoning compliance for the property. Another issue raised in the staff ' report, special consideration number three on page five, would be in regards to the ~ ~°~ landscape plan and this might actually better illustrate the buffer I was just speaking of ~= ~~` along that line. But also in regards to the landscape plan, Meridian City Code does a,, 4y'A require that no more than 12 parking spaces are in a row without being interrupted by a '~ =~'a landscape island, with at least one tree, 50 square feet of planting area and no less than N - `~ ` ` r+~ ~~?~ ~r b ~ ~~y ~~E~'+1n'~s7. ~.. t '( l Y`. ~y~ o i~.,a _ d- ~r. <. (. F~ y j, F. ~.~4 "'CC~~ i,~. -. A i Y h{ `Y3 } YE--'~' a*~~ 2 ~i VW+~. , . h `~ .~ +,, ~ ,~. s: ~NI .d c. ~'. F. I Y r.l~T~l1c` b- - ~,*;~ ~ 'rr'', T ~i~.; . 1 t" 1 ;' ~ f Xr { !~~ f ~~~~~ ~' i, i...rJ ~yJ ~ T . y `F7' r`hy )n ~ Z- 7~4~ ~ N H S ~} ~ t~ 7 LL ~ T~y rl. ~~Pr~ ~ ~ . ` '`e3~-~ P Ax ;,X ; .~ ; +. c; f~ ~la ~ ' ~ rc A.,t ... - . ' e ~,y,{~~ t * ~ ai( ~ f 'l ~ W . ~4 ~ F J: F4+~~'l ~. ~~ ek r~ .. n-' - - J, ~ j(, ~'~ ~ Y t ~ , ~ M .... 1 .... ....~ .+~ .... .. ' _ Meridian Planning & Zoning <,:,1~ May 19, 2005 t~~:. Page 48 of 67 five feet in any dimension. The applicant has not proposed those along 2 1/2 Street adjacent to the gymnasium and along the north end of the parking lot. In my I _ conversation with the applicant's representative on the phone, they were aware of that ' , and did not seem to have any objection to that requirement to provide those landscape -3'~ islands. There is an associated variance with this application for parking that will be heard concurrently at City Council. The parking required for the school and gymnasium combined would be 278 parking spaces. Currently, and as part of the variance, they `~ are asking to provide parking -- curb side parking along the street as part of the required parking and, then, with another 143 on-site parking spaces, that would take their total ~ parking to 171 spaces of the 278 required. The justification for this being that the ~~ gymnasium use would not be used during the same hours as the school use. Meridian _ ,~~~ City Code does state that when you have two different uses like that that require 'i ;; parking, you have to provide parking for both uses in the sum. You can't say, well, this ~ parking space, you know, is for the school and the gymnasium. What they are requesting is a variance to that to allow parking less than is required by code for the two }~`:; ~ uses combined, because of the unique circumstance that the gymnasium and school would not be used in the same hours and staff is supportive of that variance application ~r~~' and staff has been supportive of similar applications in Old Town recently. The most recent one being the -- a similar situation where some street-side parking was - considered towards the required parking and, then, also a variance on a much smaller scale for parking for a church on I believe State Street and 3rd was approved earlier this year. So, is supportive of that variance and is pretty typical of redevelopment in Old .~;" ;~y- Town and concessions that can be made for that. I believe with that I will end staff comments and stand for questions. '' 4; Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Then, we are ready for the applicant, ~ please. °; °~ King: Good evening. I'm Jeff King with CTA Architects Engineers, 1185 Grove Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We are in agreement with staffs comments and make it easy on . ~~' .>.. you tonight, we don't have comments. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. I did have one question and, unfortunately, this is ~ dredged up from a couple of years ago when there was a previous request to put a ~ ti gymnasium actually closer to the road. :.l . King: Right. ,~: i :~~~ Zaremba: Which got approved. During that application there was discussion about food service within the gymnasium and how close to the food service the dumpster ;t~~ would be. Is there a provision -- is there going to be food service and -- 4+{ King: There will be a concession area -- ,~~,~"~ Zaremba: Concession stand. ;fir;. .y ;~_ 1 _ e" ~,~..- e a~' ~~ jsj~ RS ,fit,. an , ~.r?v iY..~ j.. . . _ ,., i r ~ d ~ e i. s.5 r~yk$.b ~ ,;. ~; 6. - 1 ,V '~ryy, v ~ ,~~ ~~ ~. ~t ~.a r ~ ~c~, J i r~;.~ ~ r"= r" ~ - - y, a n•i ~2'~t ~ ::q`~.yl` f k ~~~ ~~, 1 4, tE~~~Y~IM1~ ~' ~~~i~~~ ar~~ <, ,. ~ ~ .~ ~.~p~93Sw~v~~ _ - ~ r'.'r ~~1 ~ F v nyir ~ ;~;: '#~~ .,;~~._., i ca- r' ~Tc ! GF x~i~~ " ;. ~~' ~ ~z ~.~ ~ ~'° M ~~~:'~ < N a ~-> 1lari Y h' .° '. i - ~YL. M~ ry ~~j~yyi ,m ~~-~li ,t.~,c.` `. ` Meridian Planning & Zoning `~~: May 19, 2005 '~~ Page 49 of 67 King: -- within the gymnasium. Zaremba: And how close is the dumpster to that? ~~~3~ ~ King: There is a dumpster -- currently the dumpster is right in this location right here j~,,t ,, and I believe there was a second dumpster -- is that correct, Mark? Okay. I guess 2 there is only one dumpster and it is right in this location. Zaremba: And you don't feel that people cleaning up the concession would have a 'r problem carrying trash that far? ~: King: No, I don't think that would be an issue at all. Zaremba: All right. That was my only question. '~~ King: Okay. Zaremba: Thank You. King: You bet. ~#~~ Zaremba: Okay. We have Rob -- Rod, I guess it is, Rettinger. Please come forward. ~~~~~' Thank you. ~7 ~;r:r Rettinger. My name is Rod Rettinger. I represent the Apostolic Bible Church. We are r'r; the X in the middle. We have worked with Mark and the school and it seems to be working out pretty well and I'm the assistant pastor there and we'd like to see them move on. We are for them. That's all I have. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Michael B. Morrison, please. Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive, Meridian. I, actually, own 4 property on 2 1/2 Street and my biggest concern is parking. Several years ago a beauty salon was okayed there, parking wouldn't be as usual. You can drive by there at any ,, ~ time of the day and find seven, eight cars, nine cars, parked along the street and now =:~N~ you're wanting to add more parking there? I have counted as many as 15 cars parked - along the north end where the duplexes are, you know, because that beauty salon *. ,~ ~ parks all over that location in front of the neighbors' houses everything, so now we want ''°' to give a parking variance to the school. And my kids went to Cole, okay? It's a good *s~f school. They usually do what they say. Okay? I don't have a problem with that. My concern is that we are going to be compounding an issue of parking by using street-side ~' parking, okay, adding traffic to 2 1 /2 Street. I have been passed on 2 1 /2 Street by ~_;~ someone who was a lot younger than I was doing the speed limit and was passed on h~ ' ~ the street. That's my concerns. Okay. Thank you much for your time. Any questions? Zaremba: I guess none. Thank you. Y'? . f ~YW J 4 ~ ,~ 33i'f ,bL, r'fi ~ , ~ ~~~ 1 "C~ p".-. 1 r1t ~~? S„« .i c i /L ~ ~ s~~~2Yr r %' a4 a ;'. 4t r ~. ?:.. F ~~~`5 ' '"~- 99 a y r~-s ,., ~.7 _. ,.. `.,.~-6 1 i 9 ~~* W .J,.a'' ~~J' ~1~:': Y s..~ .t re j s ~rr~.V,;, ti~.~ ry:~.: ~ ', f' ~ .T`t~~ rhC~ t ;L' r .. ~. r _ t ~ ,~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning €~~ g May 19, 2005 ~;;~ Page 50 of 67 ~~'~~ Morrison: Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Lupe Pineta. Pineta: My name is Lupe Pineta from Boise. My address is 4866 Alworth. I'm here -- he pretty much said everything. We are with the church. To go forward. Zaremba: Thank you. That's all we had signed up. Does anybody else care to add any ~~~ comments on this subject? Okay. We will have the applicant return. Come on backup, _,:~ ' please. The parking variance, actually, is not before us as a Commission, that is only =~~~ decided by the City Council, but you might address that for us a little bit more, if you would, please. King: Sure. You bet. Cole Valley Christian School has had discussions with the neighbors, with the church, you know, on occasion using their parking lot at times. They have got agreements with the funeral home, you know, to use their parking lot at times when they may have game days, you know, where buses can park over there. In addition, most of the parking -- the off-street parking would occur in the nighttime, would be, you know, after school, so that those parking stalls there would be, you know, for a game day, basically. Any further questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? Borup: Has the school -- has the school been doing basketball games presently or -- King: Not at that location. Borup: I realize that, because there is no building there. So, they have been doing it at other locations? King: That is correct. Yeah. Borup: And I assume parking has not been a problem? Or where have they been going? King: They have been going to different facilities within the area, renting out different facilities. Borup: Okay. I just wondered if you had a feel for how many cars are usually at those games anyway. Don't know? King: I really couldn't answer that question. Borup: Thank you. ~a •~ 1 - ~ j3fi~t~ '~ .q-::r is -k,9. <1 M~. t N t ,~ r. ~~~~ ~~ ~'',Y.' ' '.4..,i i f M~ .1 , 1{~ ) J~ 4 y iii T ,~{~, ~. r t1 r .- ~_ ~ ~ i~ ; , qq i1 y t ` V ~.+ ..:ar ~ s ~, _,, b ~ 4r:; s ~ ik 4 ;`f ~ y. J.~ ~ 4T t. .. s ~ {7 .. r~i ~._ XM1544 i ~,..k ~ 2~? a~ ~±~ t§f~t ~ '~ 1 ^~, f , u y r S w .err ' a ~ Kti ~ F~S~I~~- y Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 51 of 67 iL:J Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Does staff have any further comment? Wilson: No. Not at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners? Borup: I'm assuming in the counting you did not take into consideration the parking in the -- on the church property; is that correct? Because that's off-site. Wilson: Oh, yes. That is off-site parking. Yes. Borup: Okay. It looks to me like the parking thing could be good for both -- both groups there, because Sundays the school would not be in session and there is extra parking for the church and, then, probably on game nights vice-versa. Zaremba: Works forme. Who is next? Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-021. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. i~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~; ~:_- 1~ Zaremba: Commission Rohm. ~: ~ ~F, . )Z~ Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending ,,u~ approval of CUP 05-021, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th, '"' 2005, received May 13th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 05-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: R ~'~`""^ ~: ~. ~" ~,_,; r Lsw ~« :i ` F' ~,~ ~ ~`~.y ~ " ry ~YC tr e~.z i '3i ~Ni ~ { 9 j $ ; ~~~ t r :~ w ~ ~ ~~ `~~ `'+~ .k~ ns ","n= a. ~ ~;~~ r~ ~ } ~;,~ } ~~ .~~r ~ ~. ~, _ _ G~~~~'~~~~, a~ j ,.~'Y'~~. :~' c.4.:, _ pL.~. 51 ~S< !.- Y r ~~ f 1 .. *.,~t-~ 1? ' ~.'~. .zx~ A i. . ~~ ~~, 4 H ~'~~~~ S ~~~ ~ 4.e ~' ~~~ f {yr ~,y~~7 Y f. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning 1 ~~ , May 19, 2005 Page 52 of 67 ,~ Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to ;~~ y,~ ' allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned Development fora 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: y Zaremba: Okay. We are ready to open the Public Hearing for Items 12 and 13 on our agenda. That is PP 05-018, request for preliminary plat approval of 16 building lots and one other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones. And also CUP 05-023, request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a ' planned development fora 16-lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 by :~ Fairview Lakes, LLC, 824 East Fairview Avenue. And we will begin with the staff report. ~,~~f Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Devon Park ~ ~~~' Subdivision No. 3 is, essentially, amirror -- mirrored version of Devon Park Subdivision ~~ No. 2, which was before you in the end -- middle to end of 2003. It's located off of Fairview and there is currently -- this is -- this is the Devon Park entire site. There is the r-~_~ Alzheimer's facility and the living care in this location. Devon Park 2 is over in this ~" ~'~a location and, then, the Department of Motor Vehicles is where Hastings is also located, ;l±~ in the same building, and that's closer to Fairview here. There has been a new ~~~~~ intersection put in and it is signalized at approximately there where I have got it ~~~'~` indicated. Devon Park No. 3 is for these 17 lots, with Lot No. 3 being the common drive ~'.~" and this road here has been recently dedicated to ACHD. It was originally platted as a private street access and through the developments a lot of different items have been ;t:`;x taken care of through the previous approvals. The landscaping shows where the f ll ;:~k~~ owance or a Hastings is. The DMV portion is right here. The purpose for the CUP is ~y` of a public, quasi-public, use. The DMV, actually, is there. This is basically to clean up l - some other zoning issues. It's -- public, quasi-public, uses are conditional uses in this ~ ;' zone. I believe they are conditional uses in any zone. This would, essentially, allow , '; ~ them to get their certificate of occupancy and clear up some other legal paperwork. _ }~' This is -- there is one condition that was submitted. They did not submit the deed for, essentially, this lot of -- this is Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. Staff just requests as a -_=~~ condition that they submit the deed in order to verify this building is completed and meets the application requirements. This landscaping, the layout, the building type is all consistent with what has been constricted in Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2. Staff ~~ ;,~; S is recommending approval with the conditions as listed and I will answer any questions. F~~ Zaremba: I wasn't clear whether the DMV is planning to stay in the location where they j,":`$ are now or are they moving into one of the new buildings? ~~, '"' ~ Guenther: No. That is their location. Zaremba: I always thought they were going to move into one of the other ones. ~~~~ Newton-Huckabay: I did, too. Zaremba: That's their permanent location? ~t ~ ~;ij 3 +t ~. ~ }~I F '~..~ ~ i~ ~5 1 ~2 T~i ~' ~'~~t. ~. ~- ~ r.~, G ~' ~ XF'~; ~ i ~ :f zrryy. ~y~ -F r "-y,~. . ~ skiC•~~~7 ~ R.9 F ~`.~am~ 7 ~yl; e i _, r' N 3~~; t r~~~w~ ~ ~~±h ~ z 4•E a r.~.. K~`4'" 1'' 4 c3?'t:,. ;',~' r Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 ~~:~ Page 53 of 67 Guenther: That's what has been indicated in the request. Zaremba: All right. If they did choose to move into one of the other buildings, there would be a new CUP hearing? Guenther: Yes. I anticipate they would have to do a CUP, yes. '° Zaremba: Okay. All right. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the ° applicant care to come forward? Hopkins: Randy Hopkins, a partner in Fairview Lakes, LLC. Do I need to state my address? I live at 1390 East Mallory Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Thank you. You R ; just covered the DMV. It does reside in the 25,000 square foot building, the Hastings ~,~~~ building, and they occupy about 3,000 square feet. Actually, Hastings has an option to ,';~"' expand in that space in the future, option to, and we would not be moving DMV to the back area, it would be -- hopefully, if they stay within Fairview Lakes, which it's worked >~=~a , very nice for them with the increased parking, versus the old school, we would be }_ , '~. `,;3 r moving them on what we call retail east, which is not on this plat, it's -- so it would be ' b more on the frontage, so they wouldn't be going back in the offcce area, just for `'~!~~ clarification. So, the -- there is two things that we'd like to draw attention to in this and ``~,~~~ that is Hopkins Financial is in Devon Park 2 right now and when we did, actually, Devon , ~~~~` Park 1, the Planning and Zoning allowed the ability for us to build buildings -- of course . tr, not to get a certificate of occupancy until the plat is recorded. It allowed us to move a little more quickly in getting structures built and so we would like that request -- or that .~,.~~ clarification that was allowed, actually, in Devon Park 1 for Hopkins Financial and, then, rte. 3 <«;r in Devon Park 2, actually, we allowed that to happen. Now, our plat just got recorded on Devon Park 2, which is just on the -- we call it kind of office east and this is -- this ''~'' Devon Park 3 is office west, is, actually, Hoff Industries is moving from out here in `fir'` }.:~.' Nahas's development, I believe, and they are going to be occupying in the next week. Actually, in our development, and that allowed us just to move a little quicker. So, we "`'~'~ ~ would like the ability to, you know, issue -- have you issue a building permit, but, of ; _'~L course, withholding the certificate of occupancy until the plat is recorded. Number two, , ~:~`ay the only other thing in your general conditions, item number four, we have metal halide "~~~ lights, not the 250-watt high pressure sodium streetlights, in our development, just a tone that we have set. We would like to stay consistent in our development and that was allowed before also. So, those just -- those two clarifications. Hopkins Financial, ?;~~~~ we moved out of Boise. I'd just it's -- the development is getting underway. It's been `~`~' very nice and Banner Bank is going to be building on the corner, so we'd just like those two considerations with this CUP. Zaremba: Thank you. Hopkins: Any questions? Borup: Questions? Y ~` ~Y +_\ 1. -T:.i }`Z t. 6 r y F ! { ~ ~' _~~'~ g~ ;5 ; r ~: ~ ~ F 1 .. z~ t ~ t'{ ~ ~„ A, { F { tij ' T ~ ~' ~ ~r! ~ 1,1 { v t~ 3~ ~~ ~k~iry~ ~ ~ ~ X . ~ a { . ~ ,~y,~ ~ , `F: h4~~ . t 0: ~ ay ~~ y,a '~~2r~ ;. i~,. ~~~ ~~ t --~ i s ~ r 2'~ w.~ i ;k ~ ~ "S ; ~' r' 2 w '~ "'1 r• ~i bk~'rv r.. , 'E~ .. ~ . t> ' , ~ r~y. ~4~ ~ "i~~~~~ s ~ ~~k 4,~, s ~-{ ~ ~ ,... L ~ - ~~ . r F I ~~ l 1 ~,,y. , ~! d~ :. ~~ ~~ 2 ~ I{Y ~ 'Y1 S _ ~' _ I ~. 7~ '.~`~,~L~ ~ l t h~ ' ' ti'` '. F~ ' Y}., ~i it t;~M4 ~i 6 ~ . ~- 4 .~x~F= i ~ I'~~' . - . .~ .,~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 54 of 67 Moe: What's your wattage on your metal halide? Hopkins: Doug just wrote that -- I don't know what the wattage would be. He didn't inform me of that. Generally Doug, as my partner, has come to these. I don't know. Whatever is appropriate for the public -- you know, for the public need or whatever. But I just know that we have -- we have those versus the sodium streetlights. Moe: So, they would be -- Hopkins: Be consistent with the rest of the -- Moe: They would be the 250 -- 250 watt -- Hopkins: I would say equivalent, yes. Equivalent, I guess, luminance or whatever. Moe: Okay. All right. Zaremba: And repeating the ones that are already there. Hopkins: Yes. Yes. Because that's what we have down North Lakes Avenue right now. Zaremba: Staff have any issues with that? ~" ' Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the only criteria that we have is on ~: public streets. Metal halide -- you do -- you do have to have a different wattage with ~~~ metal halide than you do with high-pressure sodium. It's a totally different kind of light. I `;;NS would, I guess, suggest like you were headed, that the light should just be consistent ;:~~ with what was approved previously and that should be good enough. Zaremba: Whatever wattage that is, it needs to be the same wattage. Borup: Yeah. Freckleton: Yeah. King: That is fine. ~~~ Zaremba: How about a building permit before the plat's recorded? Was that the ~~ ~~ question? j;.;~~ ~ Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, Members of the Commission, just for clarification, the '`~_~~n~ , request was to be allowed to submit for a building permit prior to the plat being '~'~~~` recorded; is that correct? k~'w~. `° fit.; ~ ," `. "~~>, €• 'Vi'i 7 ...C ~ ~~' °F ~ `"'s +~~ ~ k ~+ ,. , ;t a i ~~~~ ~~ h it !3 r"%~' ~ C ~ ,~ ~~{ t _.~ s.. r1F~~~tr. a ti.... :i ;t ~4: E, ~r ' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 55 of 67 Guenther: Correct. (~ ~ t Hopkins: We did that on the two previous developments, which allowed us to get some buildings up, of course, without a certificate of occupancy. ~,± Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think one difference in these scenarios is that the -- the plat -- the prior plat was one large lot; correct? So, I think the number of building permits has already been used up for the property, meaning that you started with a 23 acre and, '``~' then, you divided and, then, you got your buildings that were permitted for that. So, ;:~ don't think that staff would really support it. ;~ ~ Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. v:,~; {`~~ Hopkins: Understand. =~ Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We will discuss that. Okay. Mr. Hopkins spoke and Beth "'. Ingreth, is it? Okay. She's marked as for and she supports what's already been said. ;h That's all we have signed up for that. Anybody else care to make remarks? Testify? r . Thank you. Okay. I guess, Mr. Hopkins, we don't need rebuttal again. Commissioners? Rohm: No questions. ,, ~~~- Newton-Huckabay: I think this development is coming along quite nicely whenever ~~ drive by there. ~~ '~ ;~ Zaremba: It's very attractive. s k,~ :, Newton-Huckabay: It's certainly an improvement over that vacant lot. { ~ °~`~~ ; Moe: Mr. Chairman? . "`~ Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. sw Moe: I move we close the public hearings on PP 05-018 and CUP 05-023. ~'~"' Rohm: Second. ;x Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That '~'~~ motion carries. `~x MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~= Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're on a roll. ,~ , ~; -. ~r> :~ gas, ', ~'~, ~YJ~ Y ~'. S ~~ I -,~~ i{i i,S 1C'. ~~ ~~~~~~ s'. ~~ ,Ua~1 e a'b~~ ^~p•~ ~~`j~~ ~,w# Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 56 of 67 Moe: Okay. I could probably do this. Let's see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward `~' ~ on to City Council approval of PP 05-018, with all staff comments for the hearing date of *~~~ ' May 19th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 13th, 2005, with one change -- thank you. Under the preliminary plat general requirements, item number four -- under ~,.~ number four where it notes high-pressure sodium, I'd like to change that to read metal s.; -~~~~ halide streetlights at a wattage as approve previously in the subdivision. Rohm: Second. s ~:~.~ ~~' Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. ~~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ,, Moe: Mr. Chairman? i, ;~; : ~, f Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. ~~€ ~ Moe: I move we forward to City Council approval of CUP 05-023, to include all staff `~~~~ comments of the hearing date May 19th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May ~~ 13th, 2005. Y '. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That ~ ~ motion carries. ~`~~ ,, ~~j~"~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. fi4 '``~ Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-016 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 28.65 -~~ acres from RUT to R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision by ,r'~~ Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and west of North .: -~ Ten Mile Road: ~; Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 05-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a <~~ Planned Development for multi-family /clubhouse /office /daycare ~`~~' ~ development with no minimum street frontage and multiple buildings on a single lot on 28.65 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Silver Oaks :'~r~ ~ Subdivision by Charter Builders, Inc. -north of West Franklin Road and =:~i; '~~; west of North Ten Mile Road: y4 .k . ~~ Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you. Next we will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-016 ° ~;~1~, and CUP 05-024. Both of these relate to Silver Oaks Subdivision and we have a ~''~ request to continue these immediately to June 16th, '05, for both the ACHD action and ~' ;F the staff report. Is there a motion to that effect? rte, ~,fi ~~~ ~~. y~dt~ i F K A~ 4 t r) y ¢ c~, ~ ~ p ~:~. Irv'F $~' . 'XF ,. ~ ~'i ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ `=F ..;"y ~ ~a r m ht 4 3 i~. A" pExh F.1T~ ;Y ., ^f, 3. f; '` # ~h ; •^ 4t T~~ ` ~ b. &L~ '~;~ )tai s f{'r ?'.i', f a .~ tN;~, Sry~ y. ." T t '. I ~ ~'~~ 1 1 ~~ft r ~~. L RR: { i ~ , ~~~ r ~~ a 1~ .n F, q. ~~(f ~ ~~ rv p~~~t~C~'*4~~ ~~r,~r ..:. ..i~~ ~ ~~~E qtr ~ :'3~i, ~~. .~ : - ~. }, s .,.. _ "k .. .. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 57 of 67 Borup: So moved. ~: Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to continue Items 14 and 15 to June 16th, '05. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ':'~~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. °' k Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development to include changes to ,;:~,~ building elevations, parking area and amenities for Troy Place =: Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -1236 East 2'/2 Street: ~~ Zaremba: I'd like open the Public Hearing for Item 16, that's CUP 05-025, request to ;~:.;~ modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit and planned development, to ~ ~ ~; { include changes to building elevations, parking area, and amenities for Troy Place ~~. "~~ Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 1236 East 2 1/2 Street and we will begin with ~, ~_;, the staff report, please. s; ~.~3 ''`~ti~ Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you know, this a .-,~4 modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit located on the east side of 2 1/2 Street, just across the street from the gymnasium and the parking that we talked ~` about earlier. This was approved in early 2004 and has come under separate ~~`~, ownership and they have made the changes you just mentioned in your summary to the structures, the parking, and slightly to the amenities. I will touch on those here in just a second. There is an aerial view. To the north is single family. To the east is some ~<~ `~`#'~ multi-family units. To the south is the salon that was talked about on the 2 1/2 Street ~, is ~ frontage. And there are single-family homes on the southeast of the subject property ~ duplexes and Cole Valley Christian across 2 1/2 Street. This is the subject again and '~~ , , site plan. The pad sites are approximately the same as the previous project, which is ~'~' 'r shown here, in the same general location. The parking layout has significantly L ~; i Y xa , changed. They have added, in addition to the tandem parking stalls that are proposed, so each unit has a garage stall and another spot behind that for another car. In addition 4 ~~ to that they have three visitor parking stalls located in this general location. The on- ~~~~, Y street parking in this area was discussed with the previous application, so they are -~ showing some visitor parking, in addition to the existing triplexes approved in 2003 by ~ the city, this home was converted into a triplex in 2003. They do have six parking stalls .. >~~ for that triplex and two per unit there as well. As I mentioned, in addition to the parking ;,~~~~ change, the elevations, which I breezed through briefly, are -- I'm going to jump back to ''~'~ those just real quick and try to explain the units, how they layout. The two inside units have livable space on the ground floor and second floors, with the outside units taking ~,:x' } ; access through the stairwells to livable space on the second and third floors above. ~ Y ''3` believe that's how it works, from what I can tell from the floor plan, anyway. It's a little T 1~ different. Here is the rear of the building, which is, actually, if you go back to the site ' ,, , plan, this would be the front. The buildings face each other, so the rear of the building, ,~~~ 1 ~ w , A'!1 ~ ~~r ~ +t~ Il„C~ t "Z~~Y`~ A ~6y[~ !'\ .~ h~~~~ "~{. t '' .kY. 1 f t1i; y ~~ v7 f JIB ', Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 58 of 67 n that elevation I just showed, would be this elevation. This would be the side elevations would be the north and the south, which I will get to those here. Pretty blank facades to the sides. There was discussion at '04 hearing when different units were proposed here, from the property owners to the south, talking about -- concerned about people peering off of their porches into the back yards and things of that nature. So, they have addressed that with enclosing porches and not putting any windows on those sides to kind of help the privacy of those neighbors. Here is a picture of the north property line adjacent to the single-family residents. It shows up pretty well here. What the applicant is proposing to do -- and I guess I would touch on those couple of things with the application. Generally, a 20-foot landscape buffer is required between multi-family and single family. Again, being in Old Town, there are some constraints, that triplex being one of them and getting access to the rear part of this building with a 20 -- 25 foot wide drive aisle. There is not another 20 feet to construct a landscape buffer. This property owner did testify at the previous hearings and it's my understanding that the current applicant has met again with him on what he would like to see along that north property line and that is detailed with a slight modification, I believe. The applicant did submit a letter yesterday and it sounded like from the original application submitted, they were not going to do any fence from a large oak tree, which is in this location, they would do a six foot fence back, is what the landscape plan shows and my understanding was there wasn't going to be any fence from there to 2 1/2 Street. The letter submitted yesterday does talk about afour-foot fence, so it must have been a change of mind of the applicant. So, you may need to modify that. Site-specific condition number five does not talk about any fencing requirements, so if that's the case that one may need to be modified. Then touching briefly on the south as well. Again, that landscape buffer -- I'll go where that salon is first. The salon was granted a variance by the city when that came in in 2002 or 2003, I can't remember now, but they were the higher intensity use at that point and weren't required to construct the landscape buffer adjacent to the -- at that point a single family home and so staff does not believe that it's fair to now put that on what was done from the family home, because the higher densities did not construct that at the time. Now, the two single family residences that fronton Carlton are -- do not have the landscape buffer and there is a ten foot wide setback proposed to that building and leaving the existing fence that's up along that property line. I have not talked to either one of those property owners, but the staff report is written up to grant that modification. It's similar to the previous modification that was granted for this site. The one thing I guess I would like the applicant to further clarify, just to go on record, it is in the letter, again, dated yesterday, but the one hundred square foot of private use open space per unit, just to clarify it does state in the letter that they will meet that, I was just wanting maybe to point that out to show how that's being met, so when we look at the certificate of zoning compliance we can actually make sure that -- that it's being complied with. So, with that I believe I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward, please? Leatherman: Megan Leatherman, 12552 West Executive. Thanks a lot for your time tonight and thanks, Craig, for your work. I'm just going to be brief and touch on a couple ,_ ; .' C ~ y R " ~° s ,~ ~t .. ~. ~ ti h '... Urt~1. }T1Z Ytr S ~j ;.*~ -~ } ..y }.firr =p~~i io ' ~ o-4 1 ~%~ ~• yy ~`t jsr i .rr ~ . 1~ bt j #:.~ .... l.t 7 ~,~ !~ Mh ~~hl'b ), _ e~.-i ~ ~~,. k:~~H, ?'te .. .. .... rt F*,: ~ Y~ i C?, ,.,..'~tikd br }~'~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 59 of 67 ';<:;f <r things that Craig brought up and also get on record some of the work that we have done k_ with the neighbors and the agreements that we have come to with them. Oh. And he also -- well, first of all, the hundred foot open space -- square foot open space . requirement, we are going to meet that, like he said, with the deck on the second floor w for each unit and, then, on the bottom for two units with the patios and we have talked to ~'~~~ the architects and that's not going to be a problem at all, we are going to be able to make that. And, then, for the neighbors -- in the previous CUP there -- Mr. Stevens, ~'~~~ ,~. who lives on -- right here on this property, he, actually, uses a wheelchair and so he -- and this driveway is really very close to this property line and he was kind of concerned x about him and his caretaker being able to maneuver around the fence and I did meet with Mr. Stevens several times and he, actually, says -- and the caretaker agreed -- that a four foot fence would be okay at this point and it would also be better for them to have ~~ f.. the fence there, because it would keep some of the people from crossing over onto his - property. He has a gas tank there, I believe, and he's kind of concerned about people getting to that. So, we believe that would be fine, you would, we would taper it down ~~, starting at the big fence, down to four feet to the end and so I guess that would need to be adjusted on item number five. And, then, for the other neighbors on the northern ~~:~=' ~ boundary down here, we sent out notifications of the changes to our plan and also held ,~ y a neighborhood meeting and one of them came and talked to us, Mr. Row -- Mr. and Mrs. Row. They were fine with the plans, as long as we run along and didn't have the <~ windows on the side and agreed to put on the balcony on the upper floors a wall, so you couldn't look through it. Does that make sense? And we said that was fine, we would do that, we had no problem with that. And so I -- they were,. actually, here earlier to ~~~ ~: , speak in favor of the project, but they kind of got tired and so had to leave. It is across the street from the gymnasium that was proposed earlier and accepted, I guess, and ~ next to -- on -- down here are some more apartments as well. So, we feel it's a good suit for the site. Any questions? k,; t~ Zaremba: Commissioners? I do have one and it's either a mystery or a bad recollection on my part, but I think it was also shown in a photo that we were looking at a minute ~~ ago. Isn't there on this -- back there. Stop. That A frame garage -- now go back to the ~~ ~~ ~ plan that we were just looking at. Shouldn't that be just about right here? Is that being removed? Leatherman: Yes. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Because I didn't remember in the earlier version that that was going to be removed. .. Leatherman: Yeah. We are removing it. i~~~- Zaremba: It's now going to be removed? `~ ~ Leatherman: Uh-huh. Zaremba: That's great. That gives you more space for the neighbors. tt JkAkqq ~,~ 4'~ i,~. ~ 'H . ~ `y4 " - t ~ r 1F I,x- F,. ~ ~, _ ., ~ ~ G .'' . x ..t • ~' >'~F ~ : G y9 F + ~„ +. . i Ma 4. ~ g ~. J 4 „~' .J ~ Y Y ~.~~ ~~~~5 ~ ~i~{ 'a 7._ ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ M ~~~, ` '~~ r. ~'~~f Y R~ hr R~a'~p f -» r w ~ - ~ _ , '';I ~ ~~ w} '. 1. `Ga`f ~t~tiY. .'~~~ i ,t~ ~.. 'rt, }, b r IFF- 1 x ~~ ~"`~ .~~ r dslt r &~' r ~. T d : 1 / 4 r '~;4 4 ' r '~ •6 fi~i w ,r, t ~ ~{ __ _ '~. f fT ~UU, }~tI 4 ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ;, ;_ ~• May 19, 2005 Page 60 of 67 Leatherman: Right. ~~ ?'3. Zaremba: I though that was one of their objections, that they didn't want the cars so close to their property line going around that garage. ~: Leatherman: Yeah. Before on the project, yeah, the parking was on -- closer to their property line. ~~z4 Zaremba: So, you have solved a lot of problems by removing that. Good. tYi yr, ;.;_~ Leatherman: Yeah. ..~ Zaremba: Any other questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one question. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Megan? Leatherman: Yeah. Freckleton: Did I hear you correctly that you said that there was some sort of a gas tank? Leatherman: Well, I think so. I think that's what he said. Freckleton: Okay. Zaremba: You don't mean like oxygen gas or do you mean fuel gas? Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. He did mention something about being scared that people were going to steal gas. Zaremba: We are hearing that there is a small shed in the backyard for a lawn mower and he, apparently, has supplies for that. Freckleton: Okay. That's -- Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I just thought -- we just thought that he would have more privacy that way with a fence. Freckleton: Okay. I was just --when you said gas tank, I just got all concerned. Zaremba: You haven't noticed the pumps in his front yard? Thank you. t:' ~ ~^. k t 1~~ . ~ ~ ~t y ~ % ~ ~... ~ y~ ' ~ .i ~'. '~G . ,2..c. : ~ r _ ~ : ~~' :.r ~ ~ P ~ y.' . 5 ~~ 4. h1, ,n ,?~A i ~- ~-af i ~ Y ~,__. yT k e r ~j. -~. i~~'>~' ~Y '~ 1y1 ) 1 i Y' 1 , b .f ,~ ~M` ~~~ C~ yr i ~, ~ i~ .. `.l ~' t `.,.2ar ~'. a7-t .~?~~~ 3- -'-Y~r » ; F- ~ ~ ~,~~ .,. ~~~~~ ` 4 i ~i5 i E ~ i i v; 4Er,a2 r. ~ ,,FAY ~_ 4~ f~~ 'ads -!~Y', C ,. t Y,b~i.. ~. ~: 1fi '., ti:k~~ .. K r S~ ~1 i. ~ _ Y.~w~i xtf^1`,a,y A. ~ ~.tY 6x. r~ Nit. x.. ~f ~~li_ . Meridian Planning & Zoning > ~ May 19, 2005 Page 61 of 67 Leatherman: Yeah. Thanks. Zaremba: Bill Row. Care to say anything? Oh, they were the ones that left. Bill and Vera Row have left. Okay. And Michael Morrison, you're signed up. Care to say anything? '`,~'~' Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. I own property on 2 1/2 Street. I spoke on the gymnasium. Unlike the other gentleman that had this property, this -~ gentleman is easy to work with, he's provided more parking, worked with all the neighbors, very nice, cordial, done his job. I'm for it. Zaremba: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. ~.~~ Newton-Huckabay: You're a very concise speaker. Zaremba: Well, we understand on the other one. We weren't ignoring your parking =~^`~ issues, but it's the City Council that's going to have that hearing, so - Morrison: I realize that, but with the salon that you did have issues with, like I say, when I drive by there is 15 cars parked there. They are parked on the front of this unit, they ~~~;~ are parked across at the gymnasium, they are parked -- they are parked everywhere {~ ~'~~~ ~ and it's causing an issue parking, driving, more use of the street and everything. As ~~~ ~ long as you're aware of it. And like I say, when I have people parking in front of my ~~ house going to the salon, that's not good. Zaremba: And I agree, we don't want to add to the problem. -~; Morrison: Thank you very much. Anything else? Zaremba: Thank you for your help. Morrison: Okay. Thank you for your time. i Zaremba: Let's see. We probably don't need any rebuttal, unless you have anything ~wi, ~ further you wish to say, Mrs. Leatherman. Okay. Commissioners? YV 'x:. ~ Newton-Huckabay: No comment. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for an action? Close the Public Hearing would be in --' order. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? r ~ Moe: Go right ahead, sir. ~. t ~ ~ , '"~, Y ': ~ -': ~'S ~ x ~ ~: ~,n 'u^' ,t~ w r x.~ 3 p F _ ~~ - ^ d -, y}am; . r N~ Y.Y~< { ~ w 5't~V. i ,i Yf.tfc P2tr~-!+ i •~ ~,4F. fl a ~~ ~.~ ~ ~ , ~~- 1 1, ~• S.a -;ate , t .•.~~. a ~. y~u~'~3 , r;:4' 4'.. ~ ~,~<~~ L~3~ r - " 'j~ Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 62 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-025. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Before I make a motion, I need to ask staff where we need to address that fence -- you had mentioned that -- Zaremba: What page is it on? Rohm: Oh, what page is that on? Moe: Is that page 11? Hood: Page 11. Yeah. Mr. Chair. Moe: Item number five? Hood: Yeah. You could do that there or you could add a whole new condition, if you so choose, regarding fencing, because there isn't -- Moe: I didn't note any fencing anywhere. Hood: There isn't. So, it would be a modification to -- the third bullet talks about the -- excuse me. The fourth bullet talks about abuffer -- a landscape buffer along the north --` property line, so this could be considered part of that buffer. It would fit in there. Or if t.~ you wanted to add a whole new condition, that would work, too. ~: ' Rohm: And I guess I need some help with that condition a little bit, just that it's `~~ acceptable that they put afour-foot fence -- ~:~:~, . Hood: Yeah. We don't have any fencing requirements per se. The applicant, again, was showing asix-foot fence from their east boundary to that oak tree, approximately. Previously we tried to accommodate that neighbor and it was pretty much left up to his discretion, whatever he wanted to see, some shrubs or fence, was kind of left open to accommodate him. So, if you -- so with those directions, trying to make sure that someone's complied with the condition. But afour-foot fence would be agreeable to staff, if that's what the property owner to the north wants. Rohm: It's afour-foot fence from the oak to the street? w~M , r ~ ~ t c7 f ..~ t ~ y,~ ?e,,, rf,. ~~~~s~~ c_~; ~~~ ..,r ~ ~ o-~Y. ~"~~` x,~ ~ ' ~~ A ~ ~ `: . ;,;r Mendian Planning & Zornng .May 19, 2005 _ Page 63 of 67 Hood: 2 1/2 Street. Yeah. And that would also taper down to, you know, three feet and be clear vision within 20 feet of the right of way. But we can work with them on designing that. ~~;~ Zaremba: Or you could just say there is more fence than shows on the drawing. t~~~ Rohm: Well, I have already written this now. Zaremba: Okay. °~ ;:~ Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- :~ Borup: That landscape drawing does show a fence all the way to the street, I believe. It just can't -- doesn't -- the height is maybe what's changed. ,: _,~,~;~ :;a Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending ~- approval of CUP 05-025, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th, ~~= 2005, and received May 16th, 2005, with one change, which would be an additional bullet on page 11, item five, and the bullet would read: Applicant to build a six foot ~~~ fence to the oak and a four foot fence or less the remainder of the distance to 2 1/2 Street. '~ =~~`~~ Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. ~.~ Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That r motion carries. =;~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: r,}. Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 ~~ _ building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool /locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for !~~~\~ Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 ;~ ~ West Ustick Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~~' Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to ~:~ allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 ~~,, ~ ~1~~ ~~ .~:, . .~ ~. - ~. . f ~' ~ . - `~..: 1 t gt ,n,• 1„ 9 ~k ;aid ~i Y ~ t ; ig " ~I st..3~}~U i ~ s x ~l f 4i~~ ~ ~>'; n r 1 4 ~ L; ~ ~,r..yt ~ •'~~ ~'.. ~ f„~'' R ```~ ~, 4` T 1' ~ K ' °Y - I ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ r _»,~~,y ,.,rte x. ' u 4 site ~ 5' 4 ~ . l \ Ki' i _ K ~ ~ M ~ {i ? ~ a I ~ f .~. Xb r-~ ~ ~~ ~, k ~ k ~'F ~ S x .,J i. /Xfi ~~ ~4 ~ "l~1'6 s ~::~ f ~~' \ ~k .^.f~ t (H . j __ _ _ _ ,5 t ~"s, . ~ e -e ~: F'rit i+- ,~~9 ~ ~r~„~~~ '~'~ '?', Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 ;; ? Page 64 of 67 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We'd like to open the Public Hearing for Items 17, 18 ~~ and 19. That is AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, CUP 05-022. All of these regarding Crossfield `~```~" Subdivision. And a motion would be in order to continue these to July 21st, 2005. ~; , Borup: So moved. Zaremba: So moved. Do we have a second? ~'~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~`'~ Item 20: Discuss Request for Continuance for Bellingham Park Subdivision: '~~~. Zaremba: Okay. Item 20. This is a discussion and we are cautioned that we cannot discuss the merits of the case itself, but we can discuss the continuance. Bellingham ~;;~_~ ~ Park Subdivision, I believe, has been continued too many -- three times and is now "Y' scheduled for us to hear on June 2nd. Staff has been supplied with the details that they ~~` need. They are prepared to write the report. The applicant has requested another {-~~~~ continuance, just because it's inconvenient for them to be here that night. Our discussion is do we want to -- on June 2nd come prepared to continue it again or do we want to insist that the applicant show up on June 2nd? Moe: In our -- in our last discussions on this issue we set it out to the 2nd, so they, in '=x fact, would have everything done, over with, and we made statement, then, that if they "'_~ - couldn't make the 2nd, it was over. And as far as I'm concerned that's -- if they can't make it on the 2nd, I guess it's over. Zaremba: I remember a similar discussion. 5~ Newton-Huckabay: I would want to know what works for you guys, because you're the ones that are going to have to do the work over again, potentially, and we certainly don't ~.: want to -- you know, that all costs money. Borup: And along that --and along with that, it seems like I remember their last meeting M that we were pretty full that night. And I agree with Commissioner Moe, but -- was it the ' ~'~ 2nd one that -- where you said we wouldn't get through everything? Or was that the {~`~~~ 16th? Zaremba: Actually, it was tonight. ir~-~ ~:%i ~: :~:. Y!!1R _ yy~. ~t ''' .74 Wf f ,. s'o1 r~ a c4::., _, ~' ~4:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning "' ° May 19, 2005 '`'-'~'`'~ Page 65 of 67 ~~ ~~' Moe: It was tonight. Yeah. 3`,~S ,,.,,; ` Borup: Oh, tonight was the one that was going to take us until 2:00 'clock? F~ $ Moe: Well, yeah, but don't forget, we -- ~~r~, ';` Zaremba: We lost a few. And the 2nd looks the same way to begin with. `>ts`° Borup: Okay. So, maybe that's -- that is one. thing in consideration, if we are that ~. -~`~~ jammed up. =ti= ~~ , =~ Rohm: I think sending the signal along the lines of what Commissioner Moe spoke is ` exactly where we want to go. Zaremba: And in -- ;;~ Borup: But what if they show up and, then, we don't get through everything? Or are we ~_~ assuming they won't show up? ` ~ Rohm: Boy, that's a -- ~~ Zaremba: I suspect they would -- they ought to be able to send somebody to represent their case, even if it's not the principal. r~~: ~ti,. Moe: Well, would it be in a continued hearing? Would that not be upfront anyway? ~t ; Borup: Right. ~r: Moe: So, they are either here and we have our hearing or they are not here and they are gone. =~=, Zaremba: And it's over quickly. And my instinct is this is unfair to the public to keep -~ ~; ~ pushing it off, pushing it off. I mean if they go to the effort to show up when we have said it's going to happen and, then, it gets delayed -- I mean you just get the feeling that somebody's trying to wear them out and -- r.,~.~ . ~'~' - Rohm: It wears me out. ;~ Zaremba: Yeah. It does. ,~"~ Borup: And I agree. I don't think we had any public testimony on this one, did we? But 7~, -- ;' `'I ~ Zaremba: We may not have had. :~~ Q x~ ~~° ~~ ~ , ~p~~ ~ ~'~1 ~ ~~ Y: i'~' :k 4 . '~'r~'-r z ~r yr, ;~.~ar ~ ~ ,~ , ~ ,~ .;~ ~ ~~ t}j ,~ ?~~ ,~ ~ 1;4.°~ ie r w Na ,g, . ~ ~ :.t Y ,p : , ~:~~sei~ N 1~ ~ E.: .. 'S . 2 l ~.~~ J n ~ H ~ ;~ 3? eE ~ ~. •~ ' ~ G ~~ Y `~ ..T.; < v ~ js~l 7r-d ~ ~~~9 ~..,~?S' ,. .~ c ,~~~ y~ s r ~~,, a ''Y-z ~ L * - ~ t... ti .l ,_ ~ ;'S t,, fry ~; ' 5 ~',` ~'~_~ la~ j"t~+jF4ft~ ~ ~~ ~' r,.. ti ., rte'', i5 ' ~ ~ ~ k~ ~T~r~ ~ ~a t Q Y ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning "-~~ May 19, 2005 "~~ ~' Page 66 of 67 ": Borup: And Mr. Freckleton can remember back -- when I came on this Commission, I had been here six months and there was a thing that got continued again and been -- ~_: found out it had been continued for two years. Packard Estates, when it first started. ~. don't know how that ever happened, but it -- I mean every few months it would get ,~ continued again. 1.~~ ~~ Newton-Huckabay: I still maintain -- I'd like to know how staff feels on that, because, i like I said, I mean if you have to do the work again, that costs money. ~~~ °`~~~`~ Freckleton: Mr. Chair, I guess just a point of clarification. When you opened up your ~~ ~ comments for discussion, did you say that we did have everything we needed and we n~~~~~~~ were prepared to write a report? t::~3~~f Zaremba: I think it's Joe who is the -- Freckleton: Joe's the planner in Planning and Zoning. _~ -~ Zaremba: The planner and I asked him before he left this evening and he said he did ~s~ have what he needed. I didn't ask him whether you had what you needed or not, but -- is it to -- to state what he said to me, his wish was that we either fish or cut bait, that we have it on the 2nd and they are either here or they are not, but he did say that he had ~~. the materials that he had asked for. Freckleton: Okay. The last I knew we hadn't -- we still did not have a resolution on the pathway issue and we have received some additional data on the groundwater study, but -- I wish he was still here. The pathway -- Mike was just saying that he thought that Joe was pretty happy with the pathway issue. So, I guess I'm ill-informed, so -- I guess if it's your pleasure to move forward, we will have a staff report ready for you. Zaremba: It would be my preference to leave it on the 2nd. The public's been told that and -- Rohm: I think you know the position of the Commission. Zaremba: It doesn't require any kind of a vote, but that was discussion and we will now entertain a totally different motion. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: There is no Public Hearing. Rohm: Excuse me. Zaremba: Adjournment is the appropriate motion. Rohm: There you go. I move we adjourn. ': ~; N ~S~ - -,5 y h F h •Gi.l { .'.~ -~i ~~4 - c ' -;:, ~ _ ~~ .~ 1 t .F'lE.l hX ~' . # rE 'W._+' G ~y~~ ,.c s ~Y n. 3~1#Y~k '.'' ~ o a a , Y ~ } ~ 3 ~ ~ T ~ `inT ~~~ , K- ~{.5.+ } .1 ~ Y„~22. ~~t ~ Mfr. ~-~ l ~ ,7~ ~:w~ (~~ 1 (t g ,;~ w ~ ~'~-- ~~. - ~:~ i. ._ i z ~" ~.~"~ :`_ ,~; ~r ~, ~!~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning v` ~. y.i , May 19, 2005 ,~~x„ Page 67 of 67 Y,.K Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. i' ' Zaremba: Thank you very much. ~~~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:43 P.M. ;, E, ;: (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) f4j~ APPROVED DAVID REMBA - C IRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: ~ ~' 1.~~ AM G. BERG JR., CITY CL RK ~~~ ' u£ i{.- r ..~. y~'..~ 7 ~ ~ Y: T'... ?~i R'„`?` i ''`~ ~ e, ~.F MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING MCIy 19, 2005 APPLICANT ITEM NO. _ S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 21,2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS ;; CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY _ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~J ~ _ CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDWG DEPT: i ~(~ ~~< CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: `~, CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~,~N ~w MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~'~'' SANITARY SERVICES: h" `'3~ .,~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: . ~~~I CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~rF ;,~i NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; ~~;~m. "~~~` SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: -' IDAHO PpWER: ;.~I . _`' ; i;`:~r,~Q INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: r~~~ OTHER: =! Contacted: Date: Phone: "`-yg Emailed: Staff Initiais: MahHlals presented al pul~Nc meeiinga shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~3.r.yt, yr ?k`tl rs. C~ ~ ~ ,~ ". ~ y ~' ~ " :~ a`rvl:~. f ~ ~.~ .., i_-gin . ~ .. t` `, 1 n;,~ _ • I~ t, .. ~~~: ,: h: ~I .:~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING MCry 19, 20t,S APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Presentation by Ada County Highway District M ~ AGENGY COMMENTS CTrI( CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: I CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: (~ o ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: 1 `~/J~~~` 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: Matedala pr~ssM~d at public meeHnga shag became propQtiy of fhe Clay of Meridian. ~~ ~ ;~ ~~ _ E' -~r .~~ a~ ~. e 3'y~ 1x~1~ ~ 1~~^j .Y~ y~ k ~~.j fJ ~'., . n~i ~1 Fp 'Y%}~ S ~~ r~„ 4k?u < - ~~. i ._ E~~ b ` ~f~~' z ~~r +Y~ `~i~~~~„' "mot , F ~IF~}~ i ^~~'. "t~~ r r.. . r 'rS 3 ~' y, ~1{ ~ r r;,tx, ~ S. -~~, ~,~,. ;^!i, t~ 3. ~ ` `~?.a -'r ~»w'' ~ ~ :.~ oaf ,~,~ " ,~ ~~_ 1~~ ` ~N ~`µA{r 2 `~.,. N f ~ t ~ -. MLa~ .~-- _`if~ ~ ,.,.~,.c~., , ,:;~: N ~+ ~::: ~,;~, ~ _:ao , . _ ~` . ,_ ~h. iKi tt' w~i r ~. ~~~~ .: `d ,; ~~; k ~~~ ~, ;; ~,~ ,::,;,~x ~,~ , ,= ~:~' _.~ ;,~> ~,° z, ri. A~ .,, ., i,~~4 'F'~,~, ~~„ ~ %; r~' .'f~k .-^~ ` ~-. ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ Y.MS' `:^ fibs ~, :'&ry .5-. 0 AZ 05-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT C5 Development, LLC ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres to a R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision -west of North Locust Grove Road and South of Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,.- e rr ~^{ 0 ~:~~_ ~~. a .~=:t >~ t ;~:; i ~: ~= 4.~ ~4S} ~,~t}~ ';~: I~ s~~} ~ L ~''y { V,~? '~~t n. `~~~ ~. '; ' J~ ~. ~~', - ..f:~ ~~~ ~ '~ ~~ ;~~I: ., €e~~ ,J;. :-,:~. < .~ ~- t.. .. .~;4'~ ~; } ,a :~.,; r ~ :; .__ cf-~c 0 PP 05-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT C5 Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 7, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval for 22 single-family residential building lots & 7 common lots on 9.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision -west of North Locust Grove Road 8~ south of Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~,~.: s ~. - r,T ~ ~~;, ,. , :, S ~; '; ~,<, ~;~: ~_,F ,~2: .~,t'. ~, <~; ;:~ ,.:G.= tr`.r, ~k~+ n~,, , ~`~~ ~.`~ AZ 05-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT C2B Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005 -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.34 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision - 701 Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from Residents Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~; r~ F.: ~t:; ''~~~s t r :~~. r~:~ ~ it ~` .x-~; ;,~s },v ~' . £, x ~: :. .,_ ~,~:~ :>>~` .,~, 'L4,+ ,'~~' ~. ::; ~~.~s: =~ n ~ = ~ , 3 ` F i, ~aa 1 ~ i.~''~~ni - 0 0 PP 05-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT C2B Development, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005 -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.89 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for EI Gato Subdivision - 701 Blacl< Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letters from Residents Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ • o £ _ ~ ~~` ~E ~ `'`~ ~ ~~ AZ 05-014 ~; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 ~ APPLICANT Landmark Engineering 8~ Planning ITEM NO. 9 ` `~' REQUEST Public Hearin Annexation 8~ Zonin of 19.72 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for `'~~~ Sicily Subdivision -south of East Victory Road and west of South Locust Grove Road 'a ~, .. '- °'' ~~ + AGENCY COMMENTS j CITY CLERK: ~~ CITY ENGINEER: See attached Staff Comments ,. ~; _- ~,: `~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ;~~ CITY ATTORNEY ' CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~, ~ '~.,~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~<.~ ~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment I CITY PARKS DEPT: :rH~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: _~ SANITARY SERVICES: ' ~~:~ ~ ~~'~ ! ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NO Objections NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments -`~-<~; ~r~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: " ~~._~ ~ ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: F _;; OTHER: See affidavit of Positng f Contacted: Date: Phone: r~> Emailed: Staff Initials: :~ ~~ ;: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CNy of Meridian. .;~ ,. ~ ~'.=? ,. s:,<. rp:';; r ,. 5. ,: s~ ~~= . _ _ F ~G _+ ;r w~ .....:~. _~ ~: . ,iii ' f. tr~ .~ ki.i YV ~ , ~: ~;, ~ti' -1 ~ " r } , ~ :. ' 1 a i. ,_ ti4. =~~ - ~ F~;`~ ~~; ~` ~ :~; ~ ~'•'~ _, ;:,~; N?~::: 's.: ;;, rpt~,- o e PP 05-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering & Planning ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots & 5 other lots on 19072 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sicily Subdivision -south of East Victory Road & west of South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CNy of Meridian. ~} h, ,:y ~sY~ ~. }'' r~, r>.y.~y;~ i e o CUP 05-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING MQy 19, 2005 APPLICANT CTA Architects Engineers ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing: A Conditional Use Permit for an addition for a gymnasium & commons area to existing junior /senior high school for Cole Valley Christian School p Gymnasium - 200 East Carlton ' ~ t ~~> AGENCY COMMENTS r ~~~ t f_ ;~ •' ~ CITY CLERK: , CITY ENGINEER: ~.~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments ~; " <h~ .- CITY ATTORNEY , `"~~ . CITY POLICE DEPT: '' -~' CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ' ~~' " CITY WATER DEPT: gin, CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment 5 +' $~ CITY PARKS DEPT: <~:~' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ; SANITARY SERVICES: } ,':,~'r f ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~,. ~ '; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Objections NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments p4 i_qc- SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~` IDAHO POWER: ~r~i ''`~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: "' n: ~" I ~I OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: ~,; Emailed: Staff Initials: ~; Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cltyr of Meridian. F :;,~. :z . ~: ~?t~:~i g .,~~,w ~~ .`~4 3't3 ~ 1 ~ R' '`}~-; h "` ,,1..' ~$ _;' a~` F: <. ,~;; '' ~- -,F, Y. f<; z` ±. -;:, =;:~; t ~ 4 / ,~ •;:F:. ;,;. .._z,; =f, -~~` ~> _`_?~•, . .~. • PP 05-018 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval of 16 building lots and 1 other lot on 6.26 acres in C-G and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 - 824 East Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;_ , r ~r =~~ ,~ o. r , =; ., -:`i;4^ ~ .-~~ - ;l~~ •'~~r -'~ YX ~~ Yw ~~ 1 } :;.. _.,^ ;~ ~ } F • o CUP 05-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit to allow the Department of Motor Vehicles and a request for a Planned Development fora 16 lot office complex for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 - 824 East Fairview Ave. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments 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: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER:. INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become properly of the city of Meridian. i:r;.:-: ~/` .. v~ ... :.... ~:.':;: '"3._ jF ~~.~ ..~ a. -5.::.i~~ :~, ^,~I- ,i ~~,- -. ~3 ~':-r ',,;. :. ~, ~ a 9.'s ~:~: s~ ;'rte ~; w; f~b ~, ~~ :~~,~, `_,~' ~ x ~` :, ._:k .Y~~ ~~s - s ,.. t _~> ~~~~r :..x. ~~t;: ;~,~:; ~n ~ ,~ ~~ .,.: r; ';4sa ~r_ti; ~~: ,"y~':. i`~,~ ® o AZ 05-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Charter Builders, InC. ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 28.65~acres from RUT to R-15 8~ L-O zones for Silver Oaks Subdivision -north of West Franklin Road & west of Norfh Ten Mile 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. -.- ... k' 0 0 CUP 05-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING s~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing: Modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to include changes to building elevations, parking area 8~ amenities for Troy Place Subdivision - 1236 E. 2 1 /2 Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Objections NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~ , ,; , ;~x~~:, ;,~F~ ~ ~, Ott ~~`~ Y: -; ~FY ~~ ~~ -:1 ~..~~.. ~ t , ~,~~ ,; ..y':i ~~~{ f 1 :::. >: z ~'_ ~: ~~~ ~~ _,__~ ._;,:.,> ., ~:,.,. K s"",~;. Y~'i; e o AZ 05-015 ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING , 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST -+~d Public Hearing :Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS .,fie CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes ~~a, CITY ENGINEER: .~ . ` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report ~~' I~~° CITY ATTORNEY ~rac CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. e PP 05-017 ' 3 ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ x y ..{ ~~ ~ 1 ;,. ~'! - s x' ,.°?~ r I ~p °r:~.~t ~,;Zy ~* ~ ~` ' I ~ `. ::~~, ~ ,_,~; . ,: ~..,r _. i <. ;,; ft ,i M1 ~ ~~:< ~, _ y F„ `, i. `~~~ S t,_'. ~, ~r ''iC ,Y ..~, L'~ :::~ '" ~ A;$~; f s;~ }+' ~~ , MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare and 1 pool/locker facility/restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue 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: IVo Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~b~k CUP 05-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING May 19, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 9 REQUEST Public Hearing: CUP for Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes 8~ block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue 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: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Christopher Broer Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. >: ~z~, i~r , .~