The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 07-21r~ 7~ ~ ~ REVISED 4 ;~ {:. CITY OF MERIDIAN Y,! .. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING G~c ~ ~~ AGENDA Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers ~° 1. Roll-call Attendance: O Keith Borup O Wendy Newton-Huckabay ' ' _ _ X David Moe X Michael Rohm ~.. _ - X David Zaremba -chairman k s 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve r ' 3. Consent Agenda: :: ~ ~r A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning ~:``: ~ Commission Meeting:. Approve with Amendments 4. Presentation by Dr. Linda L. Clark, Superintendent to Meridian ~`<-'~ School District: Presented 5. Recommendation: VAC 05-010 Request to vacate 16 foot right of way ~~ easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of r, ~~~ Meridian for Meridian Creamery by Zeke Johnson - 27 East Broadway ~" `'' Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 August 18, 2005 ~ 7. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 °''i `` ' Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 8. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 " '~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 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. r•;--. ~M ~` ~~ ~.. v riL Z ,'~ Z ^~ ~• w X. ~ t'~ ~ ~ I . d A l ` . ~ ,zt. - . x ' g ~'~Rrr ~k 4'l ,'.th . .f` , k ~,~.. t M!~. 5TI(C~~' J ? ,i,. ~~ ~ r ' i. ' ~ } • 1 ~x r N 4 tyW, \.., i.'% +~ ~ k '1~ L ~ M 1 . ~ ~ ~ _ i' 1ti ~~' ~ ~ ~ i. d.. r.. u~s.,':: Cr-: `; ~ ti'. r ., - ;.3 ~ ~.. t 1 eA ~ rT , ~'1 W~ ~ s'S' "N' r.: h ~ '~ c ~ ~G ~~? .tom. ti~~: s r-: .p~+a. _ ~' (~ £ +'~"' ~ _ _ ; e REVISED 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 August 18, 2005 9. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 4, 2005 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 4, 2005 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for single-family detached units and single-family attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 4, 2005 12. Public Hearing: AZ 05-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 13. Public Hearing: PP 05-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 15. Public Hearing: PP 05-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 17 single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 16. Public Hearing: AZ 05-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 2005 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ., ~ 4 _, $?` . C x , 1 4 '':A .~~}:: ~ ~ ~ 1 i x M fy ~~ ~ ^~,~ y 3, ~ ~,f _ f ~ '~~ s ; ? Y ,V ~i Y .: < r - Y x Z _1• ~•v tic,, . 'Rf : t _ ~ ~ ' a a t~ 7', r z • h i v3 ~ ! '. 1,0. Y t j Z '~ ~J f -.?: ! ~ S, t L~ k J t T ! a 1 g t - # z .r ' ~ ~~ {I ~ !~ ih Y. '. yr ~"; _ ~, ~a.: r'a ~; ,y ti 4 Hrt ~ Y f/ ~ ~' ; ' ~ ,~ 7x ESq ~ - y'. ~~ 1, ~i I ! • REVISED Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 17. Public Hearing: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 18, 2005 18. Public Hearing: AZ 05-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.74 acres to a R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 19. Public Hearing: PP 05-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 2.74 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 20. Public Hearing: AZ 05-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Carrie Jewett - 1560 Carol Street: Recommend Approval to City Council w, 21. Public Hearing: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council 22. Public Hearing: PP 05-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council 23. Public Hearing: CUP 05-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval for one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council v ,, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 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. ~ ~ ~ -~ . f ~ ~ ~r ,, ~;~ , .~F' ,~ ,_ ~ ~, li ~i ~~, { ~~ _~ ~_~~'~ ~,~.».;. { ~ ~ V~ f y~~ z ,, -r k ~ ;r °t `' Y L G~ ~ 'Y' F iyt FX ,:fi Y a ~ fi - F ti ~ ~ ~ I ~ Y :' ~~ t ~ft .'{J }, c F - , ~ Y t . }« ~ ~ S ~ r t ~ ''! ~~ ~ a. ? 3 ~ .,~, c ~ r ~• "~ ~- , a c ~ z ~. r ~ { ~ ~ .=": ~ Y ` ! r. sq? . A ~ 4 ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ jt ,.. t{ , . 4 3~ ~". ~~~~ ~`~, '=~ REVISED ~_ ,: CITY OF MERIDIAN ;fig: ~_~, MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING °~r <~ AGENDA Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers ~~ 1. Roll-call Attendance: i . ~ ; ® Keith Borup ® Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ David Moe ~_ Michael Rohm ~( David Zaremba -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: k`~~ZC .<~~. 3. Consent Agenda: ~~~"~ ~ A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~e ~t.~-~ ~~ ~,~~ 4. Presentation by Dr. Linda L. Clark, Superintendent to Meridian ` School District: P~~~~~~ +' $r ~' ~~ 5. Recommendation: VAC 05-010 Request to vacate 16 foot right of way ,.; easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of ~ x. -~~~, Meridian for Meridian Creamery by Zeke Johnson - 27 East Broadway Avenue: P.~-e0~li~ne~I ,~~v~A°ta ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 6. .: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for _ l ~ ~~ d.. 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: ~(~-~-C'~-~4 ~ ~I~.~ c j~ ~~.~Z ~ -icy ti~Ll ~`S~, ,~ } .,,~y ' ~ 7. e Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 bulldrng (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 Crossfeld Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road C~~~~ pu~~ ~ '"~- '~ i,~+ I ~, 2~~ ~5 8. Contin Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: CUP 05-022 Request for x ~~ r.~.4 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 ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 2005 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian x +- ,~~ . 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. _.~ Fl~~: 'rig!: REVISED ` '-'~ " of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: (~~~.~~ 9. Continued Public Hearin fro Jul 7 2005: AZ 9 y 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for ~~~ Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and v„; 540 Ea~ Ustick Road: ('(~1~'t1~e ~i~.~~~ ~~ ~1(~ 1~ /~-t,~9 t~~-~- ,,; J ~ ~ ~ 10. o~nt~nued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for • `~' Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 '~ acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, ' LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: ~~,~ ~1~ G '~~ ~j 11. Continu Public earing from July 7, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for +`~• Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for single-family ,~ ,t detached units and single-family attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: C`~1~inue '}~~°~~~ ~I ~~ ~~ 4 r 2d~5 ' 12. Pu rc Hearing: AZ 05-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 ~~~`~ acres from RUT to R-40 one for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Amke - '- 2070 West Pine Avenue: ~Ii1U~, ~,~bl ~ G t~(~. ~ ~ ~~ ~~~" 13. Public Hearing: PP 05-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 ~~ building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone r for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Amke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: ~~tl.~A-tom ~,~ 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-029 equest for Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 i• 3% acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivission by Benc ark Construction ~~ -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: (~l! f11.1~ ~r~l~vt r C -~eQ~~ ~ 15. Public ~ earing: PP 05-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 17 r `• ;` single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivi ion by Benchm rk ~~ Construction -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: ~p(~~t~l ~ L ~,; , ~; ~ art r~~ 1~ ~ `- ~',~®.~~ • ~ ~= 16. Public Hearing: AZ~05-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 '~~. acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, _ Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: C~n~~ ~~~ll! ~, :r.~-.eC~ ,~;, 17. Public earing: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 `,~ residentlal building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a V} { proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Su division by eckit Development, "'~~? Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: ~Gtl~1 t1Lq ~ ~c~lol t L 1~~~ uti ~ ~9 ~ s+ ~~, 2c~~~ `" pry '.' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 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. ~., ~: ~~'. - ~, ,~,~ ,. ~r,= , ~~,,, ~~ 4L ., s, :_ L_ ,N_ ,;~. F~ ~~ ., ,;,. ~r ~~ ~; 1:_,., ~;~>> ~:: ~.< ==~u; AyF ~. Ak' ~ a'".~-~4 ~ f- ~~ti~: i~Y:)r r.~-.i. y' Yf • ?''~ ~~> ~'~~,'.~ ,,„, F ,,,4. T l~ ~r al±ti., i[~`; ._. ® REVISED 18. Public Hearing: AZ 05-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.74 acres to a R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 620 South Locust Grove Road: ~CpYY~~l1~~e9nC~ ~~ ${g C`~ ~~~ 19. Public Hearing: PP 05-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 2.74 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave LL~ - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: ~.~~~~~le~ ~{~ `~"C~ ~~ c~ 20. Publi Hearing: AZ 05-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Stre,~tA Profession I enter b Jam sand arrie Jewett -1560 Carol Street: Kk(~0 NYII`'Y1~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~ ~o~n~ 21. Publicaring: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zonin of 5.502 9 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Su d'vision by The Land Group - 3295 F. East Falcon Drive: ~(;~C1'f6~~(1.1~ ~ 1~ ~ C~~ 22. Public Hearing: PP 05-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by Th L nd roup - 3 95 East Falcon Drive: ~ C~Q~fhe.~l~ Yam .~ ~i; ' ~~ 23. Hearing: CUP 5-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval for one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for Maxfield S bd'vision by The and Gr up - 3/q~29 East Falcon Drive: '~(9Qy1n~(l~~ lr Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda -July 21, 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. `~~: ii . r~Y. -{ -3.: ,. ~~:~ , ~~ -;r, ;~~= '. =_;f rr.~:~ ~~ ~: { Se'~~i -: „tr ,. ~^':-_ ~~. - ~. ~=. ,R--> '.-k~. ,. ~. ~~,: 4~,: i i~`*Y rYfK~ ~.;r. ~'~~=`i } ~ ~ .M;> -~ QK` ;- v :~~ t^; ~~ >;~ _<; ~~,~~ ri'~'r ; f,~ _ ?~ , a~>,. Ply P~I-~ P~~ ~ ue~ -7h~~~ ~Y 1 Y ®~ 1~B~LlLL al MEINDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm Chairman David Zaremba 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Presentation by Dr. Linda L. Clark, Superintendent to Meridian School District: 5. Recommendation: VAC 05-010 Request to vacate 16 foot right of way easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of Meridian for Meridian Creamery by Zeke Johnson - 27 East Broadway Avenue: 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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: 7. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 8. Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 21, 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~± ~~~ ~, of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development LLC - 955 West Ustick R d , oa : °~~ ~ 9. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: AZ 05-026 Re uest f q or ! ~: ' " Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Holl brook LLC 3 y , - 265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: '~~ J 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for ' Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15 32 ~~„ ~~ . acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook , LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: ~~;, ;~~,~ 11. Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for .' Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for single-family ,;~~: detached units and single-family attached units with a request for -~-x ~ reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard `~ ~,~ '~ setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: 4:,'~ 12. Public Hearing: AZ 05-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - .~= 2070 West Pine Avenue: s . ~~, 13. Public Hearing: PP 05-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 ~~ - building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: - x~- 14. Public Hearing: AZ 05-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction ~ -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: J i = f, ~.' ' 15. Public Hearing: PP 05-029 Request for Prelimina Plat a ry pproval for 17 w, ~ .=~~ single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.75 _ acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: 16. Public Hearing: AZ 05-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5 1 ~; h' .`t ~, . acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development „.;y: , Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: '~ ~ 4 ~ 17. Public Hearing: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 - , residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivi i b '?:r s on y Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: '`~~ ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 21, 2005 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become rt { ~ ~,' ,r ro e p p y 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 t l a east 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~`:- _ . .. .. ,~F rj};s. I~+ 18. Public Hearing: AZ 05-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.74 acres to a R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: 19. Public Hearing: PP 05-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 2.74 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: 20. Public Hearing: AZ 05-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Carrie Jewett -1560 Carol Street: 21. Public Hearing: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 . acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: 22. Public Hearing: PP 05-927 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: 23. Public Hearing: CUP 05-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval for one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -July 21, 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. ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT *~ a AS OF JUL 18 '05 1?~42 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDkt STATUS 06 0?/18 1?~06 3810160 EC--S 01'40 " 003 245 OK 07 0?/18 17.08 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'01" 003 245 OK 08 0?/18 1?~10 12084664405 EC--S 01'02" 003 245 OK 09 0?/18 1?~11 8841159 EC--S 01'01" 003 245 OK 10 0?/18 1?~13 2088840744 EC--S 01'03" 003 245 OK 11 0?/18 1?~14 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 12 0?/18 17 16 8985501 EC--S 00'59" 003 245 OK 13 07/18 1?~17 LIBRARY EC--S 01'18" 003 245 OK 14 07/18 1?~19 920837?6449 EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 15 0?/18 1?~20 3886924 EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK ___~ 16 07/18 1?~22 P-AND-Z EC--S 00'59" 003 245 OK 17 07/18 1?~24 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 00'59" 003 245 OK 18 0?/18 17 25 FaxSeruer EC--S 01'13" 003 245 OK 19 0?/18 1?~2? 895 0390 EC--S 00'59" 003 245 OK 20 0?/18 17 28 128300040 G3--S 01'16" 003 245 OK 21 0?/18 17 30 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 22 0?/18 17 32 ADA CTY DEUELMT EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 23 0?/18 17 33 2088885052 EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 24 07/18 1?~35 CHERRY LANE G3--S 01'59" 003 245 OK 25 07/18 1?~38 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 26 0?/18 17 39 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'00" 003 245 OK 2? -------- 07/18 ------- 17 41 ------ 2088886?01 ------------------- EC--S ---------- 01'00" -------- 003 ------- 245 ------- OK -------------------- ~~ Gt,~, ~~~'~ r ~~b~ic. IU~~ - I~l~~~s CITY OF ~RIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING -~~ AGENDA Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Michael Rohm Chairman David Zaremba 2. Adoption of the Agenda; 3. Consent Agenda: r L ,y;:_ x: ._ . ~~ .. ,,. ti ;;~; ~~~ ~,~~~~`` :, :., :.,r"r ,,x_ ~~ ~ ~E ~: • 4~ f 1 ~^t'ILL ~ v~~/'_ iF :~~: X s'~ ~ ~~ ~. .1i ~j+~E .LW :":. Cr'y' • _;,. N, Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 21, 2005. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 21, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. a Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Members Absent: Commissioner Keith Borup and Commissioner Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Anna Canning, Craig Hood, Joe Guenther, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call Keith Borup X David Moe Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 21st, 2005. It's exciting to see so many of you interested in what's going on in our community. Happy to have you atl here. We will begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Okay. We do have a quorum. Three of us constitutes a quorum, so we will conduct business tonight. The second item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. And let me tell you all we will take these all in order, but there are some things that I will tell you ahead of time, possibly to save you some time. On our agenda, Items 9, 10, and 11 relating to Hollybrook -- I know we continued it once until tonight. They just got their final decisions from ACRD and revised their drawings and did not -- were not able to get those to our staff quick enough for the staff to get it around to the various agencies that have to look at it, so, I am sorry to tell you, we are going to continue Hollybrook again until August 4th. We will discuss it on August 4th. Tonight the only thing we will do is continue it. Items 12 and 13 relating to Arnke Subdivision, there is a third item that needs to catch up with it, a Conditional Use Permit, that they are applying with and we like to hear all three of those things at the same time, so if you are here for Arnke, we will not discuss that. We will continue it until August 18th. 14 and 15 relating to Sunstone was not properly posted, so we will not hear that one tonight either, to make sure it gets properly posted we will continue that one to August 18th. If you were here for those items, I invite you not to leave, though, because we have the pleasure of having Dr. Clark, the superintendent of the school system, here to give us a presentation. If you can hang with us another 15 or 20 minutes, I know that will be very ~~ _.. .. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 2 of 90 interesting and, then, if you want to leave, because the other items don't interest you, that would be fine. But those three items, Hollybrook, Arnke, and Sunstone, we will not hear tonight. The rest of the items we will take in order. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Zaremba: Next is the Consent Agenda and that is approval of the minutes of June 2, 2005, and I actually have one change that needs to be made to that. On page five, one, two, three, four, five -- about the sixth paragraph down starts out with Mr. Wilson speaking. The last two sentences of that he did not say. We do each have a copy is the beginning of it and I actually said that in answer to a question of his. So, we do each have a copy of that and the rest of that two sentences are Zaremba. That's the only change I have in the minutes for June 2nd. Any changes from other Commissioners? May I have a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we adopt the minutes as amended. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 4: Presentation by Dr. Linda L. Clark, Superintendent to Meridian School District: Zaremba: Next, as I said, we are pleased to have Dr. Linda Clark with us. She has been a career educator and spent 33 years as an elementary teacher, a principal, and a district administrator and now, as you know, she is the superintendent of Joint School District No. 2 based in Meridian. Prior to assuming her Superintendency in July of 2004, I think it was, Dr. Clark was the director of student achievement in Meridian, a position that she held in various forms for the past ten years. In this position Dr. Clark supervised massive projects to redesign the district's curriculum, to develop and implement a comprehensive assessment program and to institute continuous improvement as the decision making model in the district. Much of Dr. Clark's work of late has been related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 and its implications for schools and districts. She is a graduate of Boise State University and has a master of education from the University of Idaho and a doctorate of education j,i;_~.at;yf. Fir: ~'.... :,; r< ~:,: x 4~ ?~` ;s- . ~;~;. ~~'~~: .¢ ~a :;~, ;: .x ,~ z ;; . , ~; ~~ ;,_ x<~~~ °= ~x-~ ~~~µ ~~_ ~~ ~~~. , ~,ri-:., Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 3 of 90 from the University of San Francisco. And we are very pleased to have her here to talk to us about the Meridian school district. Thank you. Dr. Clark. Clark: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have prepared some clip notes for you tonight. I looked at the agenda and saw how long it was and thought perhaps that would help us move through. I'm sure that the audience -- the size of the audience is reflective of my appearance tonight and on Monday night we had an issue before the Boise planning and zoning commission and our item finished at midnight and there was still two items after us, so I'm sensitive to being brief and making my points. I'm here tonight at the invitation of the chairman, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, to talk to you briefly about growth in Joint School District No. 2. It's really -- the word that I think is -- represents us best right now in terms of growth and all of its tentacles and all of the things that we have to attend to. Relating to growth that is really unheard of in our part of the country. I won't speak in detail tonight about the upcoming bond, but would request to come with some of my other staff at a future meeting to talk to you about the individual sights and the projects that are part of that bond. What I would like to do tonight is to give you a picture of the growth that the school district is facing and some of the issues related to it. We got a lot of press last year prior to my coming on board now and immediately after about the fact that we had significantly underestimated the number of new students coming to Meridian. And as we look back over the last ten or 15 years, we realize that the previous year's growth of 470 students was really an anomaly. We don't know why that happened, but it was an unusual year. So, let me start by telling you what we have learned and what we are doing differently. The real context in terms of understanding our district is probably most important that I noted that the district covers 384 square miles. Most of those miles in Ada County, but we do have a little bit of Canyon County. If you are driving up to Horseshoe Bend -- toward Horseshoe Bend, when you come to the Boise county line, just at the bottom of the hill, 3 that's our district boundary. And you follow Boise county line all the way over almost to Freezeout. And, of course, that goes up further into the hillside there. On the west the boundary is the Can-Ada Road. Down almost -- well, just a little bit before the cheese factory when we dip over into Canyon County and have that part. I recently learned that our southern most boundary -- we go out south and kind of Kuna carves out a little piece. We keep going and our southern most boundary is actually in the bombing range. We have no intent to build any buildings out there, but that is our southern boundary. The eastern boundary is very complicated and it travels down fence lines and down backyards and down the middle of streets as we zigzag around Boise. But 284 miles is a significant amount of mileage to comprise a district. And, of course, we are the consolidation of more than 30 individual school districts that came together in the 1950s as Joint School District No. 2, Ada and Canyon County. The forecasters tell us that today, with an enrollment of 27,967, that's what we ended the year with, that we are about 40 percent developed. So, we have a great potential for growth and those same forecasters indicate that fully developed the school district will be from 70 to 75,000 students in size. It will still be one district, given our interesting laws in Idaho, but it certainly will be significantly bigger than it is now. Over the past ten years the district has averaged a growth of 1,030 students and we had that sort of strange year of the 470, but from November of 2003 to November of 2004, one year, one school year, ~_ ~C~. ; r... Mcririi~n Pl~nninn £ 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 4 of 90 we grew 1,738 students. That was last -- this year that we have just finished. And that's a huge number and it brings us to say, well, was that another anomaly, is that an extra high year, just like we had an extra low year, but let me share with you some of the items here. In addition to the 1,467 students new who were there to open the school doors last fall, during the school year we grew 354 students. So, that is a significant amount of growth. The most during the year that the district has ever had. The previous year's growth of 188 students during the year, brought us that 1,400 new students. So, if 188 come in during the year equals 1,400, what does 354 bring? So, that is the first indicator that perhaps our next ten year growth average will be 1,500 or some other bigger number. There are currently more than 12,000 homes under development in the district and that if we use the 2000 census data, which calculates .8 child per home -- we don't get many .8 children, but that's the calculation on the last census. That means 9,600 students already in the pipeline. So, if development stopped and you stopped approving those developments and housing stopped, we would still have almost 10,000 students that would come to us from homes that are already under development. We also know that the build out of ten or 12 years that is planned has become six or seven years in reality in our school district. And I know you're very sensitive to that. This year we have made a concerted effort to expand the indicators that we have in terms of projecting our growth for budgeting purposes and also for planning purposes and we have formed a new committee, a long range planning committee, and there are members of -- from the cities, the different municipalities, the county, and others that we have pulled in to help us look at how we manage particularly land acquisition and make sure that we are -- we have all the players coming together cooperatively. That's been very helpful to us this year in getting some additional information. Among that -- those pieces of new information is a look at the building permits and their relationship to growth and you will see on your page that in the school year fall of 2002 we had 884 students that came from 2,275 building permits of that previous year. In the fall of 2003, we had that low year of 470 students from about 2,100 permits. This year the 1,400 and -- or last year, I should say now, last school year, the 1,467 students resulted from 3,325 permits. Last year's permits, which will bring us our students this fall, were 4,396. So, if 3,300 brings 1,400 students, how many students come from 4,400 permits. We expect alarge -- another large increase. Last year's 1,467 was the largest in our history and we expect to break that this coming fall. Between the years 2000 and 2003 permits averaged 2,175 and, as I said, last year alone 4,396 single home permits were issued in our district, which takes in your jurisdiction, Boise, Eagle, Star, Garden City, and parts of unincorporated Ada County. There are a number of issues related to this. I mean the first thing that strikes you is that this is phenomenal growth. Probably the only other place in the United States today -- there are probably two growing like we are. The one similar to us would be the areas around Denver and those school districts in what used to be rural Colorado and the most rapidly growing area, of course, is Clark county in Nevada, around Las Vegas, and they are exponentially larger than these numbers. But this brings tremendous kinds of issues to the district and its partners in terms of how we plan for and deal with this unheard of growth. The first one is that the -- I get asked a lot when ~ I'm out and about, here and in other places in the country, where in your district is it y growing, where are the hot spots. Where do you need to plan for growth? And as we `~"~ ,w '; ''g;S .~ ~.- .. ,. ~: ~; ~> ;~_:' .5 ._ r:. . ~~~~; - ;,r Y .r r~= .~~ ~~ ~~ ~' ' rU; .°~~: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 5 of 90 look, the growth is everywhere. We know that down the Ustick-Chinden corridor, which you're very familiar with, that we have phenomenal growth there. About 400 elementary children a year are coming -- have been coming into our system just from that part. But Eagle is bursting. Star is ready to burst. And the areas south of the freeway are ready to burst. We are dealing with subdivisions unlike we have ever dealt with before, when we talk about 1,400 units or 1,300 units or 1,600 units, they are more like mini cities or towns than the traditional kind of subdivision that I grew up with. The patterns of growth are different in the fall. We know that, for instance, we have had our portable buildings at Eagle elementary, at Star elementary, at Lake Hazel, and at Eagle Hills already. In our planning we have purchased additional portable buildings from our plant facility money this year. We have also -- we are also asking for ten in the bond. We will buy the tagged portables and one of the things that we are asking our partners to help us with is to speed up our ability to respond when we have a big growth area, to get those portables in place more quickly and to speed up that permit process, so that we can -- we can address those patterns of growth and the city has been very helpful to us in working through that process as well. Another huge issue related to growth is the acquisition of land and I'm sure you and all of the individuals in the audience tonight who are here, because they have interest in various developments and other kinds of things, appreciate how much the land is appreciating and we find ourselves in a position of having a conversation with owners of pieces of land and talking about a particular price per acre and, then, to walk away from that and one week later to have had another offeror another conversation for 15,000 dollars an acre more, because we have to wait for a bond to be able to tie that land, so -- and we also have a lot of concern about the patterns of development, about the outside groups that are coming in and buying land for speculation for support of retirement funds and other kinds of things, and being shut out of areas where we really need to be able to purchase land to meet the needs of future growth. Fully developed, this district will have 12 or 13 high schools, to put it in context of what we are talking about, what 70 or 75 thousand students mean. And we are -- we will be asking to bring a high school on in 2008 and Mountain View High School is two years old. So, perhaps that sort of adds to that perspective. But the acquisition of land is a big issue for us and making sure that we have -- we don't want to be land barons, but we need to make sure that we are not shut out of areas where we need to have land in the future. We have had some experience -- successful experience of late in having some parcels of land donated or partially donated for elementary sites. We, of course, have not had that same success in having 40 acres for a middle school or 60 acres for a high school. But that's something that I believe all of the entities are going to have to look at in future developments, otherwise, we will not be able to get the land. Or to at least -- we have had developers at least make the land available to us at predevelopment cost, which helps as well. So, there are a lot of issues surrounding land. And the final one is one I have already spoken to briefly and that is simply the need for us to have strong partnerships and cooperative relationships with all of the entities, if we are going to make sense in how our community develops and how it grows and if we are to control that growth in some kind of rational way. Not to control it to keep it down, but to make sure that we are able to provide the schools and the services and the streets. We have had some real success stories in terms of partnering with things like being able to go with only seven acres on an elementary site, ,'"''. - ~~tc;; tk:; a. ~s+; ,: Meridian Planning ~ Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 6 of 90 because we can back up to a park. We also have had some disasters. We have -- if you read the Statesman last week you read about Peppermint Park, which was to be the playground for Pepper Ridge School, but is tied up in legalities with Boise city and the annexation process and so we opened a school this fall that didn't have a playground and still doesn't have a playground a year out. This was really brought home to us and Mayor de Weerd convened a conversation early in the fall, which a number of your staff participated in, because we opened a new middle school this year, Sawtooth Middle School, without sidewalks and so our attempt at bringing the entities in to cooperate with us and plan with us to make sure that you know we where are building, what the time line is, and that we can work together to insure that all of the things are in place when youngsters appear there to go to school. So, that's a very quick kind of reader's digest version of the growth issues. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to stand for any questions related to this or anything else that the Commissioners have questions on. Zaremba: Thank you, Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Actually, I have no questions whatsoever. I really appreciate you coming tonight. A lot of information and a lot to think about, quite frankly. Clark: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, we will -- Zaremba: One of my questions was going to be whether you're getting cooperation from the city and the planning and zoning and you have pretty well answered, I think. Clark: We absolutely are. And I feel very good about that and I think that -- that your staff, as well as ours, would say that we have come light years during this year in expanding that. We just look at continuing to work on this. Zaremba: Great. Thank you so much. Clark: Thank you. And if your Commission will ask us to come back to bring specifics of the bond and to show you the site plans or places where we believe that we need to be purchasing land out of that money that we have in the bond for land acquisition, so that we can start that cooperative process. Zaremba: That would be important information also and we will try and schedule that. Clark: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Zaremba: Thank you, Dr. Clark. Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 05-010 Request to vacate 16 foot right of way easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of Meridian for Meridian Creamery by Zeke Johnson - 27 East Broadway Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 7 of 90 Zaremba: Next on our agenda is a recommendation. This is not a Public Hearing, it's a discussion among the Commissioners and the staff to make a recommendation to the City Council and so I will open the recommendation process for VAC 05-010 and we will begin with the staff. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you for recommendation is an application by Zeke Johnson of RSCI to vacate a 16-foot right of way adjacent to the alley on the creamery property in Meridian. The 16 feet is located on the south side of the alley there on the creamery property, which is south of Broadway Avenue and east of Meridian Road. The legal department has clarified for us that although the ownership documents may not reflect it, all right of ways are ACRD jurisdiction and this doesn't change your recommendation as a Commission, your recommendation will remain the same to City Council that they do vacate the city's interest to this land, but the process after City Council approves it may change for the applicant. And legal counsel can clarify if they'd like to. The applicant has also recently submitted an application to vacate a portion of the alley, which will be a separate matter heard at a later date, which does have some issues. In this portion there are no city-owned utilities and with that I think I will stand for any questions or maybe any clarifications that legal counsel may have. Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you care to add -- Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that was a good summary, but I, too, can stand for questions if you do have any. Zaremba: I think my question is, obviously, we make a recommendation to the City Council. Would it be useful for us to also add to that a consensus that would be passed along to ACHD? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that would be fine. And I guess since I do have the floor I will make a clarification that this particular 16 feet was deeded to the City of Meridian for right of way purposes. It was never opened as a road and so that's -- that's why there may have been some confusion on the applicant's part. Between now and the time that this matter makes it to the City Council, our legal staff will sit down with ACHD's legal staff and make sure that they agree that they do have the jurisdiction statutorily -- within the county they have jurisdiction over all rights of way, whether they are open -- whether that didn't open or not, but if it's a public right of way it's our opinion that they are the authority that vacates it. However, your recommendation to the Council is that you have looked at it and making a recommendation one way or the other, if you think it should be vacated. Zaremba: Thank you. Do we need to have any discussion from the applicant or do we know what we need to know? Commissioners? ~a; r ` rr~ s Meridian Planning & Zoning • ;~`? ~ 4 July 21, 2005 Page 8 of 90 . Moe: I've kind of -- I've reviewed it and I'm ready to make a motion. `_~~ 1,~;, _:, Zaremba: Okay. Likewise? :"4 j ~ Rohm: Yeah. I concur. 4 . 1 .~ Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of VAC 05-010. 'r~:~t ="fi-' Rohm: Second. ,; R=~~ Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ~~` ~ Zaremba: All right. With that we are beginning the Public Hearing portion of our ~ meeting and some of you have heard this before, but many of you don't come very ~, ~~"' _ often, so I will explain our procedures a little bit. Each application, the applicant and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together, so we begin each subject with a presentation from our staff that clarifies where the project is and what the project is and any outstanding issues related to the Comprehensive Plan and the city ordinances that may have come up between the staff and the applicant, alerting us to fY ;' those, and any potential either problems or workings out that are in the process of going ''_~ - on. Following that we ask the applicant to make a presentation, commenting on any issues that have been raised, adding any information that they feel we need to know to ~'~' make an intelligent decision. We do limit the applicant to 15 minutes and that includes any supporting staff they may have, engineers, architects, whatever, to make their part ri of the presentation and comment on what the staff has said. Following that is when the real public gets a chance to say something. We do have asign-up sheet and I will take names from the sign-up sheet and once everybody who has signed up has had an r, ~ opportunity to speak, we will also ask if anybody else thought of something that they "~ +.: need to add that would be enlightening. We do ask that you confine your remarks to ~ ~~ ~~ ~ about three minutes. This helps us not go on until 1:00 or 2:00 o'clock in the morning ~ ~ >.T. with these lengthy meetings and it's always appreciated if all you do is step up and say well, I agree with what Joe just said. We know what you mean. We do ask -- it is ' :>>_ important, since it was important enough for you to come down this evening, it's _ important for us to be able hear you. So, we ask that you only speak when you're at the microphone here. That enables us to hear you, it enables our recorder to get it down. `~~~ All of these meetings are recorded for public record. We also ask that when you come to the microphone, if you would begin by stating your name and address for the record, ~ >-~ = so that we know who you are and if there is any follow-up needed, we can ask questions, if we don't think of the questions tonight. As I mentioned, we ask you to confine that to three minutes. There is an exception. If there is a spokesman and an a_.z 5~.- _ '.~; ^. ~`;r' " ~ aia : ~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ ~. ,~ ~.: '. ~Ly; ~ ~ - ;.ax:?7! Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 "'~"• 'r„ Page 9 of 90 .4 ~: - example of that would be the president of a homeowners association, who is going to speak on behalf of other people who are not going to speak, because he or she is speaking, we do allow that person ten minutes. And that's exclusive of any additional =3;. questions we may ask after that. But, then, even if you have signed up, we ask that you just respond that you gave your time to Sam or Susie or whoever spoke. Following the zJ ~ general testimony, then, we do ask during that time that the applicant be taking notes ~,-x ` and we give the applicant an opportunity to come back and explain to us one final time `¢~ anything that they can resolve that's been brought up, whether it's a new subject or " ~~ "' something they thought up before, we give them ten minutes to answer any of the questions that have come up and resolve things. And, then, following that, theoretically , we close the Public Hearing and deliberate on what our recommendation to the City ~`'"' Council should be and forward it onto City Council one way or the other and then the , , City Council will have a Public Hearing, which will also be noticed. The same way that ~~~ you found out about this meeting you'll find out about the City Council meeting. So, ,~~~~ that's pretty much our procedure. We have a handy lighting system here. There is a ~~ ~~1 _ green light and, then, a yellow light and, then, a red light. When the green light is on you have time to speak. When it goes to yellow you should begin to conclude. And when it's red your time is up and we do ask that you either ask somebody else to '~~~ continue your comments or just conclude quickly. That helps us get everything done , so we do appreciate that. '`~' Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: AZ 05-015 Request for ~; :f an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for d~~ -=`~~ ~ Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: ~T Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare r~~F & 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 8: Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 =: t -: 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: 4 r :(~ ~ .' ... Zaremba: And with that I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-015, PP 05- 017, and CUP 05-022. All these relate to Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC, at 965 West Ustick Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. `'"~` Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was on the ~ : agenda a few months ago and was not the subject of discussion. However, the , ~ . -; A~ -'...:. `~a 4~Z`i._ ,* i ' ~~ O Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 10 of 90 applicant submitted a letter requesting some additional time to do some more =~'~B` groundwater monitoring out there. Staff did receive an updated report last week or the week before from their soil scientist and have had a chance to review that and that's -- ` ~r based on that report have sent this revised staff report. For the site that's located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately one half mile west of Meridian Road. The _ property is within our urban services planning area and is in within the current city area of impact. It's zoned RUT in Ada County. Approximately half of this site lies within the mixed use community designation on the Comprehensive Plan, those half moons on the ~: Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing single family dwelling lots within the '}~' development, except for a potential day care site, and I will point that out here when we get to the site plan. There is currently a single family home and some out buildings on } ~'~~~ the site. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing home near Ustick Road and remove the accessory structures. To the north of the site, just to orient you a little bit better, are some single family homes and un-platted ag land zoned RUT in Ada County. ~~ To the northeast of the site, just across Venable Lane, there has been a development Cedar Springs Subdivision is further north, right on that corner. As a professional ...rt_- ~ center, a car wash has been approved for that corner of Ustick and Venable. To the ~- `"' " south is the File Mile Creek traverses the south property right here. The File Mile. And ` the Meadow View Subdivision is just on the other side of that, zoned R-4 in the city. To `~' ' ~+ the west are several five-acre parcels of long, skinny five acre parcels. Unplatted. They are currently being utilized for agricultural purposes and they are zoned in the county. '~ °' Excuse me. To the east is Venable Lane, which currently is a private flag lane. It's not improved to any type of public standards or recognized as a public -- improved public or `;' private street. Waterbury Park Subdivision is also to the east, zoned R-4. Salisbury '~~ Subdivision No. 2, also known as Valen Courts, was recently approved. The lots are `~ "' not shown here, which is a 2003 aerial. But that was also recently approved for 1 ~ ~~; - development of single family homes. Recently the city has approved annexation and r < zoning developments, again, for Cedar Springs and Salisbury. Although there have been recent city approved developments in this area, the approval of this subject development will create a seven acre enclave and I just wanted to point that out, that if this development gets approved, the seven acres here will be surrounded by the city ,~ limits. Of the 246 proposed build-able lots -- I'm sorry it doesn't come out very well, it's a pretty big project. Of the 246 proposed build-able lots, 56 are within the FEMA one ~~~ ' :v hundred year flood plane. The applicant is proposing to conduct 18 zero lot line lots, 67 ~ 4"~~' alley loaded lots, 31 patio home lots, 128 single family detached lots, one day care lot, = and one clubhouse and pool lot. To break up the attached units, a patio home lot is ~; .Y proposed between each pair of the attached units. And it's kind of tough to show at this scale, but, basically, you have the attached units and, then, you have the detached units, attached and, then, detached kind of on the perimeter on the north side of their ` "` .~ { collector street there. I did want to point out just one other thing with the plats and its "~-~~= condition in the staff report. The applicant was proposing an 18-foot wide alley within a 20 foot -- within a 20 foot easement on the back side of the build-able lots. This was a ' ~y~~ ` little problematic, as far as staff -- kind of played that out and there wouldn't be a rear _ setback for the garage and the garages could potentially be hanging out into the alley and not be a drive-able surface. The structures on the properly lines that basically go down the center of the alley, so staff recommended that they put the alleys within a <~~" ~: ~- ;k,;: ~~~ ~> , ~: .~. ~. * ; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 ~ ~ ti ~ , ~ ; ~~~ Page 11 of 90 common lot or dedicate it to the highway district, kind of getting some separation to buildings, that way people that park in front of their garage aren't blocking an alleyway ~ . So, as staff has recommended, there will be 18 feet between the face of the garage and the property line and 20 feet to the asphalt of the alley. We did receive a letter from the ~~+ applicant today about that condition and they seemed to be okay with that condition. All ~~'~~ patio home lots, alley-loaded lots and attached lots are located north of Jasper Street :P.^y , . That's the -- what I referred to as a collector. It's not really a collector, but this is Jasper ,~`~p~ and the pool area and all 128 single family detached lots are located south of that. So, this is kind of a demarcation line between the small lots and larger lots. The common lot with the park is right at the terminus of the collector roadway coming into a development and I will show you that a little bit more in the landscape plan in just a _ second. Jasper Street is proposed as an east-west stub and I think that's important, ~! F° because today Venable Lane does not currently exist. There is a 20-foot wide flag, if ~° z' you will, down to the seven acres. That is not improved and cannot really be improved ~,;~: as a street today until the property further to the east develops and is in alignment with ,_ Venable across on the north side of Ustick Road. So, the applicant is proposing to tie into that future street, what the city has designated as a collect -- north-south collector at Venable. The gross density of the subdivision is 4.13 dwelling units per acre. With the subject PD the applicant has requested reduced building setbacks, reduced lot " sizes, reduced lot frontages, reduced minimum house size, and increased maximum ~.>. block length. The applicant is also requesting approval for 12 accessory dwelling units to be constructed within the project. Staff is supportive of the accessory dwelling units '~~ ' as noted in the staff report. It's a good way to get the densities up and provide some innovative ways to provide some smaller units on single family -- traditional single-family lots. I just want to really quickly touch on the PD amenities. Here is kind of a blow up of the pool and park area, again, the main entrance to the subdivision goes up to Ustick here. The applicant is proposing aten-foot wide asphalt pathway along the existing Ten ~~~~ Mile -- better go to the other slide. The existing pathway that leads to Tully Park, they `s`f' are proposing to tie into that in this location down here and construct a pool with _. ~ restrooms, changing areas, a splash pad area and the play area for the residents of this ~,,~~ subdivision. I did just want to touch on a couple of things from the letter today received from Engineering Solutions and, then, hopefully, the applicant can clarify and expand on some of those things that are in there that I'm not going to address. First, I want to just explain that the design of the subdivision, staff -- I believe I could have supported it fully ` ~ if the Comp Plan designation did not call for a mix of uses in this area and that's why the ,; : ~-;~: staff report recommended that the area north of Parkstone be left out of being final `` `? platted. So, that would be this general block here. That, basically, the applicant wait a .. - little while until the city sees how it develops on the other side of Venable and how Venable is constructed and what kind of uses are put in there and/or a market study is performed to see if any nonresidential uses can be supported in this area. The other thing that I did just want to clarify is in the letter it does state that Meridian has too many offices, basically, to simplify the letter, but it did say it was 22 percent, I believe. That n ~x,; mixed-use area does not just mean office uses, it can be retail, coffee shops, _~ ~ restaurants, you know, those types of other uses, not just professional offices or dentist ; ~; offices. So, just to clarify that, that the Comp Plan does call for these mix of uses. And y a~ ~ I would like the applicant -- we talked a little bit before the presentation, but just to clarify y f~.,'iY' I. ~. F>~:' ~~' 2 ' '-~:' ~~ std ~~ ;, ~` Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 12 of 90 ~r~~' -~.~ ~ how the 12 accessory dwelling units on the north side, to be constructed on the smaller `=`~`' lots and to talk about the parking for them and how the city should specify, you know, ~r ~ti ~ we have to designate somehow on a plat that these 12 lots or however many lots need to have an accessory use on it, there is no way for us to really track it in the planning department, so if the applicant could just talk about that for a minute. And, finally, the ,~ ~ ~~. only amendment that is recommended that the Commission make to the staff report is on page 33. Staff concurs with the applicant that the parks requirements for the pathway cross-sections are pretty eccentric and would just maybe recommend some -~ i' ,,; other language that the applicant shall -- I have some here, if you would like, but, basically, the point is the applicant shall coordinate the construction of the multi-use ~` ~=fT°°~ pathway with the Meridian Parks Department. I guess one more thing. The applicant did drop off a little post-it about the fencing -- perimeter fencing was questioned. Wrought iron is proposed along all the open spaces, including the park areas and pathway and, then, there will be vinyl all along the exterior and along the collector ~~ coming into the development. So, I did want to just go on record with that. And staff is t` ~~ recommending approval with the conditions as stated in the staff report. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. ' -,- '~``' ` Zaremba: Commissioners, questions at this point? Moe: I think I'll wait until after the applicant. ~~- Zaremba: In that case, we are ready for the applicant. srG'h 1 Y~ McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aiken Street, Eagle. I'm ~~- - ;:Y~, representing the applicant Packard Estates Development on this application. If I could } put some boards up. Hopefully, the Commission can see that. This particular site, as Craig indicated, is approximately 59 acres. It's kind if an unusual site, obviously, in its configuration with this square up here and, then, this kind of long leg down in here. We had some challenges in design for this particular site. We had three existing stub streets. We have one here and a second one here on the western side. A third one ;r -a - here on the east. We have existing Waterbury Park here and, then, Meridian Park Subdivision, I believe, is located right here. We have Five Mile Creek that runs along ~ ~fi~+ , the southern boundary. There is also an existing multi-use pathway that comes down, ,~~, crosses the creek and goes on east. One of the other challenges we had to work around is the city installed a 21 inch sewer trunk through this property a few years ago -. and that trunk comes up through this property like this and, then, exits into Waterbury Park. Our fourth constraint here is the Creason Lateral that runs diagonally across it here and, then, our other thing we had to work around was the existing dwelling that's ;~. `°~ located right there on Ustick Road and currently fronts on Ustick Road. So, taking all those factors into consideration, we worked and reworked this site, we came up with 4 ~~FT,°f` three or four different ideas on it, met with staff I think at least three times, maybe more. _ I lost count after awhile. Trying to determine what was the best use for this particular piece of property. These neighborhood centers that are designated on the Comprehensive Plan, as Craig indicated, there is one that comes around this property : kind of like this in this fashion. It encompasses about roughly 29 or 26 acres, I think, of ~ ~~. "'a5. „~., :,~f. ,~;., .; ,.. - _ _-_, i::77;: _s "~ ^• , M idi ~ ~ '~ °' `"~ er an Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 _ Page 13 of 90 ~~: ' this 59 acres. The rest of this is designated medium density residential. So, as you well - ' know, in the Comprehensive Plan, the neighborhood centers call for a certain criteria to be utilized in the design of the subdivision. That criteria is a more gridded pattern of the ~, ~ ° subdivision as short blocks, incorporation of alleyways, the usage of reduced roadways, 4' centrally located open space, pedestrian friendly interconnectivity. A variety of housing r.l7~ choices. It talks about creating a site where you have a radiating pattern of housing types where it's denser and, then, it decreases in density and the lot sizes and home sizes, obviously, increase. We feel that in working with this site, we incorporated those factors. And when you -- when you look at the Comprehensive Plan and it gives you this more gridded central half mile collector concept to work with, you know, it is not . '~ intended to be this is the only way to do it, but it is intended as, obviously, a guideline of t~~~ ~; one way to do it and that is how the staff has explained it to us in the past in our :" discussions. Now, one of the problems that we had with the neighborhood center is, 1 .IFS-~.~.~ obviously, the center of it is right there and -- but there is no collector roadway in that location and that collector roadway can't be built in that location until the Ward property .,: to the east were to redevelop -- or to develop excuse me which then would allow for , , , , an alignment of the public portion of Venable to the north that goes into Cedar Springs. The other second factor is when -- when the Comprehensive Plan showed a half mile ~r~ collector coming down, there were no provisions when Waterbury Park came through -- =~ ~, and Capital Development did that, for any interconnectivity. So, there was no mechanism for this -- a collector here to ever feed this main interior out to Ustick Road ~~ ~ -~ ' . So, it's one of those situations -- I think we have talked about it before on other projects, where, you know, kind of the sins of the past are affecting what we are able to do in the future. So, we had to come in with a central collector here. The best solution I could come up with is there is a flag drain that comes down the east boundary. We intend to pipe that and, then, have that landscaped through there -- that would be like a ' ~~~ perforated pipe that goes down and dumps into the Creason Lateral and, then, we created this kind of -- what I call kind of an east-west residential collector. We have ~,,~~::~ landscaping that runs adjoining it on the south side, we do have front-on housing here, but they are alley loaded right through here. So, there would not be ingress and egress to those lots. So, it could function kind of like a residential collector. What I envision when the Ward property -- oh, oh. I think I ran out of --Iran out of juice. I think when the Ward property -- thank you. When the Ward property develops and the property to the west develops, this would be kind of like -- not like a frontage road up next to the '~' arterial, but it would act as a main thoroughfare for interconnectivity between the subdivisions. This particular product here is about 4,200 square foot lots. The question ~ ~ ..'~~`~ was asked, I think by Craig how could -- how can you accommodate the drivewa s or ,. , y parking for these type of units when you have got say 40-foot lots. We did bring some examples. We brought some examples. I have some pictures. I got too many pictures. ~: _ These are some examples of pictures where -- where they have taken that accesso ry structure -- it's above the garage, so as you can see, this picture, for example, here -- s,~ Canning: Mrs. McKay, for the benefit of those in the audience, are they the same as the ` ~s ; ~ : ~; ~ ones that are upon the board? . . McKay: Yes. Yes, ma'am. _~. .,, { ~~:v ~~ . ,,. . ~;. ,~. , Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 14 of 90 Canning: Can you use those, then? y~`+; , , ~'~; ~j"xf..: McKay: Yes, I can. I didn't know you had those up on the screen. As you can see, the accessory structure would be here. This is the alley. Here is their driveway. We agreed with staff, we will expand the hard surface area to 16 feet. We will allocate a 20- foot separate lot. There will be a 20-foot setback from edge of garage to edge of travel surface. So, here would be the two-car garage for the main primary residence. The accessory use, like amother-in-law's quarters, or say a college kid, it would have the one car garage here. And so that's how it would be accommodated. What I indicated to staff is we do have some of these lots here that are say 36 feet wide. We would have to either only utilize the wider lots that we have in here that are 40 and above or widen these out to accommodate this type of accessory use. We designated 12 and my suggestion would be add a condition that when the final plat comes in, that final plat designates exactly which lots would have those 12 accessory use structures. Now, staff did criticize us of the density. Our density -- as you well know, those neighborhood centers call for a minimum of eight dwelling units per acre. Our overall gross density is 4.43 and our net density is 5.46. But as I stated in my responses to staff, when we look at this area up here where the concentration of most of that neighborhood center lies, our density is pretty high. It's above eight. f think it's 8.1 -- 8.16 dwelling units per acre and that takes into consideration the alley loaders and the patio homes and the accessory use structures. Now, one thing that we did do -- and I think staff did like it, is we did alternate through here where we would have like two attached dwellings and, then, the next lot over would be wider and it would be detached patio-type homes. So, that -- we wouldn't have everything in a row and they wouldn't be identical in width and look and bulk. When we got down in through this area here on the south, we had to, obviously, consider compatibility with the existing single family residential. We did have a neighborhood meeting, did get some -- have some discussions with the neighbors. I think a majority of them came from Meridian Park Subdivision here. There was discussions about fencing and a ditch. All in all, I was quite happy with the response that we received. We did make effort to try to match, obviously, their width and square footage to make sure that these were as compatible as possible. All of our open space is kind in the central core right here. As you come in the collector roadway, what you will see is the pool -- swimming pool facility, the clubhouse, which is restrooms, locker, changing room, and, then, we will have a --what we call a splash pad, like you're seeing -- like a lot of the cities have now where the water come up and the kids can play in it, it's very safe, and, then, it goes back down. It just kind of squirts up at about waist level. We thought that would be a nice feature to incorporate into this project. We have got central pathways coming up through here and, then, linking down into this southern portion. We also have linkage in through this area here. Now, staff and I have discussed the Creason Lateral. There is differing opinions. Staff has indicated that the Comprehensive Plan calls this the South Slough. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is saying that is not correct. The South Slough stops at Venable Lane. As this waterway goes westward to Venable Lane, it is the Creason Lateral. Bill Henson indicated to me on the phone that they will be writing a letter to the Council stating their objection to any pathway within their designated easement, which I think is 60 feet. Nampa-Meridian, Meridian Planning & Znnina July 21, 2005 Page 15 of 90 obviously, wants us to pipe it. It will take a 48-inch concrete pipe to pipe it. We did show on our preliminary plat that that would be piped. Staff has asked that it be open. We did take a look at it. I did bring some pictures today to submit to the -- to the Commission, so they can kind of judge on their own. There are some areas of the facility where it is about knee deep, a little over 20 feet wide, does have some esthetic value. There are others where it's narrower and it is deeper, so we do have to, obviously, take into consideration ditch safety and other issues when we are leaving these facilities open. This is the facilities -- I'll submit that for the record. Now, Waterbury Subdivision has improved a portion of it. They do have an area that is eastward where they have installed some grass along the Creason Lateral. You can see the Creason there. It weaves next to the manicured grass. But, then, as we go looking west, they just left it in weeds, not improved. So, it's kind of -- it's kind of a difficult call. We -- in Bridgetower we had the Creason Lateral traverse through our project there. We piped it. We piped it for two reasons. Ditch safety and we pipe it for ground water purposes. We found that we had to accelerate our plan to pipe that facility due to the fact that as soon as we installed a phase next to it, we could see that we were getting seepage from that canal and that we wanted to make sure prior to those homes being -- any homes being constructed, that we got that facility in pipe, we piped it, and we didn't have any problems adjoining it thereafter. If you would at look at my responses, staff and I do have some things that, obviously, we don't see eye to eye on. We do not want to have to do the grading and drainage plan on each lot. I have consulted with the project engineer. She indicates based on the city and ACHD's requirements, we have to have athree-foot separation from the roadway to the groundwater. Also, if you utilize the drainage swales, we got to have 4.7 feet. So, she feels that, obviously, that is overkill from a technical perspective. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: That's a lot to digest. McKay: I know. Sorry. Zaremba: It's been very enlightening so far. Moe: Mr. Chairman, not at this time. I will have -- Commissioner Rohm said it best. There is a lot to digest here with your answers to -- Zaremba: I would suggest that we go on with public testimony and, then, we will ask you our questions after that, if that's okay. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: Thanks. ~~~; ~_:, ~s>> F_ ,`yam., s: ;;_''1+~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21,20 Page 16 of 90 ~~ ~~ Zaremba: The first person signed up is Alisha Lopez. From the audience she says :~~~ she's just signed in. She's marked as being for and didn't care to actually speak, so 'j` ~x~' she's had the opportunity. The next name is Christopher Brower and while he's coming forward I will comment that we have received a very well reasoned and thorough letter 1 and that is in the public record and we have all read it. Thank you. ~' ~. ~ Brower. Chris Brower, 387 West Woodbury Drive in Meridian. I live in Waterbury Park ~~ and am here on behalf of the residents of Waterbury Park and just wanted to - Zaremba: Are you speaking as a spokesman for several people? Brower: Yes, I am. }" Zaremba: The whole group? Or most of it or - ;.~,;; . ;; Brower: After speaking with the board I believe I was the only person that - Zaremba: Are there people here that -just raise your hand -that he's speaking for? Okay. We will let you be a spokesman. ~~~ Brower: The reason I came as a spokes person is on the Valen Court Subdivision, if ~~ ,:~. you remember, Mark Snodgrass was the representative, because there was many of bri~AS , us, so we endeavored to just have one person come. To summarize, Waterbury Park, after it was built, the then existing Comprehensive Plan did not envision any neighborhood center and when the neighborhood center idea of high density was ;~.r~' introduced, we did cite that the other 13 were all semi circles around Meridian, but this one was a full circle and thought to see if just the northern half of Ustick Road could be #4 a semi circle to be consistent with the others, but that was turned down. And, then, ~~;~: when Valen Court was proposed, which is immediately to our north, we in Salisbury one -~:~ were concerned about two things, the fact that the lot sizes next to us were actually ~~~ ~ smaller than our homes and the traffic was being routed through the existing subdivision. So, it was worked out -was to have the traffic, instead, come through Indian Rocks Road, kind of a buyer beware, those people moving in after the neighborhood center idea came forth and to adjust the lot sizes that were next to our two subdivisions, so that they would be compatible. Our concern with this project is that it; seven acre parcel there -you'll see a stub street on the northwest part of our ~~~ `''#r` subdivision that we are the primary direction of travel and from that stub street all the ~~ way to Meridian Road there is no stop sign or anything and we believe that the high " „~~`" density traffic will, essentially, come through our lower density existing subdivision that existed before the neighborhood center idea was proposed. We are fine with the stub t street on the bottom and if this had been a similar or lesser density, we wouldn't be . here. We are only here because we are concerned that being the primary direction of travel, the high density traffic is going to come through in the morning and, then, as a rt` ,~ shortcut to Meridian Road, that they would not want to drive all the way up to Ustick .~Y~ Road, go to Ustick Road and, then, come down Meridian Road. So, what we are asking a ~ :ik, "~ ~u`„Wi'. j~'- ~ ~ .^ :>; ~: - p Y ~ '~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 17 of 90 for is that although this parcel is not -- the seven acres is not being discussed per se tonight, we are asking if, as a condition to development of this 59 acres, that that northwest stub street -- it could be agreed it won't be developed in the future, because our concern is that if we wait until this seven acres is developed, with all the stub streets from the high density leading to it, that the proposal will, then, be to connect into that stub street, because it's already there and all that traffic will flow through. So, like I -- the other concern we have is that -- if you notice directly to our west there is eight lots where we have seven lots. So, it's, again, not -- you would think that if you're interior that you would be the same or less density driving through on the way to Meridian Road: And so those are our concerns that we discussed at our neighborhood association meeting and I just wanted to make myself available to answer questions and to share our concerns, that we have tried to work first when the neighborhood center idea was proposed and, then, tried to work when Valen Court was established and given the precedent that Salisbury One was accommodated with the similar lot sizes and the redirected travel, that's all we are asking for is similar protection of that northwest stub street and that the lot sizes directly to our west between the two existing subdivisions kind of match the lot size. I agree they are also R-4, but they are still smaller than ours, even though they are interior of our location. And that's really all I had in trying to summarize in my written testimony. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Brower: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. I'm guessing it's Joe Simunich. We also have a letter from you about Venable Lane. Thank you for that. Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick. My wife and I sold this property to Crossfield Subdivision and not until today did I get a copy of the staff report or the responses from Engineering Solutions. We still own seven acres adjacent to the Crossfield Subdivision and I tried to analyze the staff report and Engineering Solutions' responses in a couple hours, I find there is some questions that need to be asked and maybe get some answers. I will start with covering or leaving open the Creason Lateral. In 1995, 1996, before this very same body, the plat was approved after considerable discussion to not cover the Creason Lateral. It was not required to be piped. The Creason Lateral upstream or the Finch Lateral clear up to Meridian Road or farther, it has lawn on one side, bike path or a pathway on the other side, and it's a real good feature for the neighborhood. The lots back right up to the pathway. Also, it was mentioned that the Creason Lateral will prevent seepage to the adjacent lots. I have been there for many many years. The Creason Lateral through our property or the property we had, through the seven acres, to the Kellogg property, is a swale, it's like a creek. The water does not go from the Creason Lateral to the adjacent ground. As a matter of fact, an analysis during the wintertime, water flows into the Creason Lateral from springs. So, I really think the Creason Lateral should be left open and let that water establish a good pathway and, apparently, Nampa-Meridian wants all these ditches piped, but a nice flowing stream -- people go to the mountains to see those i~! c~l; '. ~" .-"-. .~ J 4 t~,~"i Y:`_3 ;` ~3+~~yG. ~•;;~_< ~; ;r ~~~~~. _. ,,, ~~ ~ ~; r-;~: `:~~~:~_ ;t ~, ~r,~ ~-i ~~ Y'j a :.fit . ~ ~_ ~' „ ri ~.~ ~~ : . Marirlian Planninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 18 of 90 things, now you have got them right in town and you want to cover it up. And the Creason is not used for irrigation until it gets about two miles downstream. The Finch Lateral has pathways, lawn, trees, and it's good for the area and there is a final -- as a financial situation, if the Creason Lateral is piped on the Crossfield Subdivision, they have got 700 feet. So, I'm sure if that's required to be piped, then, when I develop my seven acres, I'll have 660 feet that we will need to pipe and it will not fit within the Finch Lateral that's upstream or the bike path that I donated on the -- for the Five Mile Creek pathway. So, I think we have got a good thing going there and I hate to see it changed for this subdivision. Now, on page 19 we go to stub streets. After reading the staff report, I see a lot of work that has to be done and mistakes are human, but I need to bring this paragraph to your attention. It states that the street from Waterbury Subdivision to the north would cross Five Mile Creek and may not be extended. This is the Creason Lateral -- or am I mistaken? I'd like for someone to answer this question for me. Hood: That's the Creason. You're correct. Simunich: Is it the Creason or the Five Mile? Hood: The Creason Lateral has a stub street to itself. Zaremba: I think the one you're talking about does cross the Creason. You're talking about this area right here? Simunich: Yes. In the staff report it says that may not be extended in the future. Is that right? Zaremba: The director may have some input on that. Hood: I can tell you what the staff report and analysis was, is, basically, if that road were to be extended it would be on your dime and you would have to pay for a bridge crossing of that. So, the reason I put it may not be extended is because I can envision you coming in and requesting from this body a variance to not have to extend that stub street. Simunich: That's very nice of you, but that -- that pipe or bridge or whatever, it should have been put in when Waterbury Five was developed, because that is on their property. Canning: Chairman, I need to remind you that his time is up and he has been notified of that and his time is up and unless you plan on giving everyone free reign tonight, you need to keep to your three minutes. Also, I would ask if anyone in the audience, if you have questions of staff, please, direct them to the chairman and the chairman will tell us if they want us to answer it, just to keep the Public Hearing running. Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. May I ask you to conclude quickly, please. ~ e Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 19 of 90 -r~~S ::.~::."K ~~ - : ~. Simunich: Well, Mr. Chairman, and Planning and Zoning staff, these are very important `~ `~~ issues that need to be discussed and I guess if you cut me off, that's the way it's going to be, but there is a couple more items here and I think they are very important. Zaremba: If you would mention what those are and not discuss them at length, please. ~: Simunich: Well, they need to be discussed at length. One of them is the stub street that I was just beginning to talk about and the Venable Lane issue. You have got facts ~~~~ < ~ ~" in here or information that is not all there. There is -- I own 20 feet of Venable Lane and ~ .. the county owns 20 feet. Nobody mentions that 20 feet. When Cedar Springs was t.,~ being developed, that was before this very same body and they said there would be no , problem connecting Venable Lane south to Venable Lane north of Ustick Road. So, we are getting mixed information here. Ada County Highway District owns 20 feet of -- on }. " the east side of Venable Lane. ; ~. ~`~~ Zaremba: Okay. Next point. _T: Simunich: You know, if you are going to put me on the spot, I can't answer this in detail in a minute, I'll do it by correspondence. Thank you. .~ Zaremba: Thank you. No one else has signed up, but this would be your opportunity to `~' <t speak if you need to. Seeing none, we will ask for the applicant to come back and ,; respond to the issues that have been raised. r " ~ ~~~ McKay: Becky McKay. I guess I'd like to talk about the neighborhood center. The representative of Waterbury Park brought up a good point, that it makes the most sense that that circle -- or that half circle be to the north of Ustick, because that's where the public collector lies. That's where the elementary is going, that's where we are seeing a mixture of neighborhood, commercial, and office take place. That has opportunity to ~at. ~ interconnect to Cedar Springs to flow that traffic out. I guess from my perspective -- '~ ;' Craig, can you put the vicinity map up real quick? If you look at this, there is really no =„~ ": ability of this interior to flow out to a future Venable. And if we create a little , „ ~ neighborhood center there at that half mile, it's going to function, at least from a `~ planning perspective, more like a -- kind of a strip commercial with access being taken off of Ustick versus the intent of the neighborhood center capturing that traffic and keeping it within section, instead of pushing it out to the arterial. So, I tend to agree with -- I think his name is Chris, that the neighborhood center concept south of Ustick is not ,3~ ~ what I would call a good idea. The seven-acre parcel, Mr. Simunich owns that particular ' ~~` property. He has a 20-foot flag that goes out to Ustick where the Venable private lane .~ ~ ~~~::: portion lies. He intends to build a home on it. I think it's construction at this time or getting there. He, obviously, wants to protect his right in the future to potentially _ _ develop that property. He went before the Council I think here a few months ago. The _ Council granted him, I think, a hook up to sewer and water, even though he was outside the city limits, because he did not want to be annexed and staff mentioned that is an ~:,~, ~;:~r enclave, but that he chose not to be annexed. We are providing a stub street to Mr. ;~y ~~ „~: S y~'. F xN ~` k s4 .. ~. .: ;t: °~~:: `~:~~~,: -.; ;, G~.SA 'r X'Fy -- ,; ;:~:,~> ~.} :.4 ; '.=E~~~ r:??*' at _~~.~: ;~'; ;vF, '::.:~ ~,~;,`. _' T~~ f~8r T:,~ -:~~~ _ ~:~ r r ' _a. ,r~r . y;:rS ~r. ~~'.::; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 20 of 90 Simunich on his north boundary. I have been coordinating with him to make sure that that stub street is where it will benefit him, because it's solely for his benefit to feed out from his property. He voiced his concerns to me that when our subdivision develops and if he develops his seven acres, he sees that all the neighbors always come out and start to complain about any interconnectivity to these stub streets, even though it has been planned for years. So, he wants, obviously, to be on the record that at some point in time that stub street through this project will connect to other lots that may develop his seven acres. I have spoken to -- to my client on the Creason Lateral. We are not opposed to leaving it open. I would like to see staff work with Nampa-Meridian to help try to get them to come around. It is on the Comprehensive Plan that that is designated a pathway. Mr. Simunich is absolutely correct. There is one on Five Mile Creek, one on Creason. We can work with it. We have designed around it in its natural alignment, so we are not moving it in any shape or form. We were going to just propose putting it in pipe, because at that particular time when we made that decision we felt that that was the best. But, obviously, it's up to the Commission and the Council, but we are not opposed to that. The stub street I think that Mr. Simunich was talking about is the one coming out of Waterbury and as Craig indicated, they stopped -- Capital Development stopped that stub street short of crossing the Creason. So, I think what staff was trying to elaborate in their report that it's highly unlikely that that stub street will make a connection to the seven acres. Staff suggested the possibility of another stub street on the western side of Mr. Simunich. I did discuss that with him a couple days ago. He wasn't too keen on that idea. But, you know, I think the fact that it's only seven acres, we do have that one stub that should be able to, obviously, support any traffic that that seven acres could generate. With the fact that we have got this east-west street with the no front-on driveways or anything, you know, they will come up there -- if Venable were ever developed, when the Ward property develops, then, this interconnectivity could be made. We feel this is a good project on a very difficult piece of property. We monitored the ground water for a year and a half at this site and we worked diligently to try to come up with a project that meets what we believe the intent is, more of a neo- traditional residential subdivision. We are keeping that house there, I forgot to mention, and we'd like it to be a day care. We understand it takes a Conditional Use Permit and we have drawn in kind of a circle drive, we thought that would be great, people who live there could come in, drop their kids off right there, and, then, go on to work and take that direct driveway off Ustick. So, we tried to incorporate what we feel are some good ideas and complimentary to this area. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I think you have done a marvelous job. I am serious. I think you have taken a piece of property that has a lot of issues associated with it. My comment -- I don't have a question, but I do have a comment. And the comment is there are so many issues associated with the development of this property that I can't digest all of those things as (~; _~. _, ~ a ~~' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~-~. , ~` =a. July 21, 2005 Page 21 of 90 y }, ,.- -- over a course of 15 minutes while we are sitting here deliberating and from my personal perspective, I think that we, as a Commission, would do a better job addressing your concerns and the balance of the public, if, in fact, we -- I don't know if continue is the right word for it. I think we can actually close the Public Hearing and go back and digest this and, then, reopen it at a later date and ask the right questions, '`~ rather than close it out and not come up with the right solution. And that's -- right now ~''~~ that's the way I feel about this project. And that's not saying that you haven't done an . rw ;i_; excellent job, both yourself and staff. `~ McKay: And we appreciate that, sir. And we know this is a complicated project. Baird: Mr. Chair? ~: x Zaremba: Mr. Baird. ,~~~>.< ~~~ ;; ~ ~ Baird: If you choose to go that way, I would recommend that you actually make the , ` ~" ~ ` motion to continue it to a date certain. That would also leave the record open and give Mr. Simunich an opportunity to put his concerns in writing, since he indicated that he just got that report today. So, then, he would be able address those specifically and get them here in time and the applicant could also review that and we could have an : ' efficient continued hearing when we come back. = r `~ f A. -_:i ; Zaremba: Thank you. ;~ f ^. ~~ Rohm: And to continue that thought, any responses that we get with plenty of time to digest it, gives us an opportunity to do a better job and so if Mr. Simunich has additional concerns or wants to put his concerns in writing and submit them to the city, we get a copy of that stuff like the next day and we are -- I'm not opposed to reading that stuff on my own time and I think that we can do a much better job if we can just move forward ~'~'~; with that commitment. ~- ;w ~ Zaremba: I would say that thinking parallels Commissioner Rohm's. It is a difficult piece of property. There are many elements of what you're proposing that I think are just right in line with what would be good for Meridian. I think there are some kinks that ~:~ still need to be worked out and I do appreciate that you provide a very thorough answer to the staffs comments. However, I reviewed this just as I sat down this evening and x,t, not to give anybody a short shift, I'm agreeing with Commissioner Rohm, I would like ~- r time to study it. What you have said, I think, is to continue the Public Hearing, give Mr. ' Simunich a chance to put his very thorough comments on all of the subjects, which ~°~-`~~'1 ` would like to hear, into writing, so that we can study those as well. And maybe, in the meantime, there is some additional agreements that you and staff or even Mr. Simunich come to, incorporate any ideas of all the speakers and so I guess my thought is I would support the idea of continuing this and August 4th is very full and my thinking would be August 18th. Commissioner Moe, you're nodding your head. Do you have further k~; `rti~ comment? T~' }~~,N ~~i ~~ti ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning ` ~ July 21, 2005 - Page 22 of 90 -;; Moe: Well, I guess I would just -- I would just reiterate the same that the other two Commissioners have. When I read the staff report I anticipated that I would see >b> ' comments from you, which, of course, I did get when I sat down also tonight. You have done a thorough job going through this, through the public hearing so far there have been issues come up and I am, as well, am not ready to make a decision tonight and I think these things need to be worked out and I think the 18th would be perfect. ~~ ~ ;;.~~ Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. :; ~~~ McKay: Mr. Chairman, we do apologize. We received the staff report at noon on Friday F~' ` ~' and it takes a few days to, obviously, get with our client, talk with the highway district, talk with staff -- I talked with Mr. Simunich on the phone, but I had to talk to so many parties -- and I realize you just received that today. 'Y~ Zaremba: And it was also a very lengthy and thorough staff report. :~, ~- _ . McKay: Yes, sir. So, it took us awhile, so we do appreciate you taking the effort this ;~`{h~4; _ evening and I agree that the 18th would probably most appropriate. Zaremba: This is not a ding for having just received it today, but just we are trying to give it thorough thought and not jump to conclusions. So, a lot of issues have been raised, so I don't think we have any more questions that we need to ask. '~~' Hood: Mr. Chair? ri ~ -~° Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Mr. Hood. Hood: May Ijust -- based on the discussions you just had, a couple of things. I am not going to be here on the 18th, so I just wanted to point out a couple things. I'm, actually, getting married that weekend, so I won't be here on the 18th, so -- I did just want to -- I can prepare the staff report for that meeting, however, and I just wanted to see if there is any things that you would like me to change between now and the next hearing or if '' you want just basically the same staff report with no changes and digest all of that or if A *~ ~~~~ there is one or two glaring things that we can clean this up now, I can make those changes. Again, if you have thought about that, fine. I just thought if there were some _ things to lessen the amount of time we have to spend on it next time, we can get those cleaned up and if there is anything now, I can do that in the next three weeks, so -- and, ~ then, finally, what I'd like to do is just get -- since I'm not going to be here, is maybe ~~~~~ : ; explain just a little bit more about what's going on on Venable south of Ustick. I did talk ~ "~°~ with Christy Richardson at ACRD as well and she -- she made a couple of different ~~ ; ~; . statements and Iwill -- some of the pertinent ones, I guess, to this are, basically, the alignment of Venable north requires the parcel --and as I said before, that that parcel to , develop, even though Mr. Simunich has been discussing with ACHD the possibility of ~ ' $ dedicating that as a right of way for Venable, the offsets -- it just doesn't work to have them line up. So, that's -- I don't know what all his concerns were and I'm not going to ~ try to address all those, it's just -- I know that was one of the things that he has talked ~ a H. i ~~ .. F.„ ~, .~:. ly4ir ~~~ ~`.~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 ~~ Page 23 of 90 ~~5~ with Christy about at ACHD is how does -- how to get Venable down south, anyways, or ~~ what to do with that 20 foot flag that he owns now just to ACHD and ACHD can't accept r a 20 foot right of way that's not improved, so -- they accept right of ways that's fully improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and a drivable surface. So, that's kind of the `' ~ long and short of that. So, just for what I know about Venable, I just thought I'd pass "~' that along as well, so -- `'~ ~ Zaremba: Well, I understand that the majority of the -- the centerline of the roadway . , has to be farther east for this to align with the other portion of Venable. Is any portion of .~ ~~; ,~< '~~ his 20 feet going to be involved? Hood: I believe that probably the curb, gutter, and sidewalk can be constructed within the 20 feet, but, basically, the whole pavement and the other curb, gutter, sidewalk on the other side of the street is going to be in the new right of way. r'+, . ; Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. Can I ask you to explain that in the letter that you're going = to submit? ~, > f ~~ ~~ Simunich: Well, you have given him an opportunity; you should give me an opportunity. Baird: Sir, you've had your time tonight. The hearing is about to be continued. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Craig. };;` ~~ F,:~ ~ , Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: In your staff report you have brought up the mixed-use neighborhood center as kind of an issue on this development and from testimony heard tonight and the comments, it appears as if there is some question about maybe that's not the right or appropriate place for that type of development. Is there room for you to move off of that ,~,~~; ,~. or are you pretty stuck with that? ,,, ~, ~~ ~~. ,, _ s v;~~ Hood: I mean that analysis is based on the Comprehensive Plan and, like I said at the _ beginning, I like the design of the subdivision. I think it's very innovative. We don't see a lot of short blocks, alley-loaded units -- pretty nice. But I do think the site specific condition number two of the preliminary plat does have an out. It doesn't say you have to put in these units, it just says -- can you give us, you know, a couple of years or until 4 a market analysis is done or until the other property develops to further analyze whether ~:;~, residential uses are appropriate here or non-residential uses are appropriate. But at i< ~ ~ your -- you know, if that's -- if you say, no, residential works, then, I'll do whatever -- ~ ; ~~ ; whatever you -- however you tell me to change the staff report, so -- Rohm: And I question, from my perspective, having not digested this whole proposal , the residential doesn't look out of line to me. But I'm only one of five and so that would just be my comment. r .... t _ .~ ~ j+ 4, , , a{t 1' 1 iR'~ , .. .. ~ ~ r~~. - :~ i .. ', >;~`i ~. ^t ~: :; ;_ .Lkw .~sa,> ~, r~ ;r .r<; #r ~~ ~~a -.~~ ~~.; ~, , ` ri ~.. r j:~y ~y'- ~-` :~7'~: _-` 4. f; ;..,T - vi 4"-- . ~: L ~ ~~~,-' Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 24 of 90 Zaremba: I don't so much have an issue with the residential as I think that we need to give the original neighborhood center concept a chance to work. We keep finding reasons not to really implement it the way it was intended and, I don't know, like I say, there are things -- if you just handed me this plan, I would like this plan, but since it overlays -- and we don't have that many neighborhood centers laid out, it overlays the neighborhood center, and, like I say, we keep undercutting that idea and it needs a chance to actually happen somewhere. So, now, I'm not giving an answer, the jury is still out, in my opinion. Rohm: Well, I think that there is room for continued discussion between the developer and staff and maybe there is some compromise there that can be arrived at over the next three weeks. But with that being said, I think that it's time to make a motion and -- Moe: Well, before you do that, I do have one other comment for Craig and it's just a fairly minimal item, but I do believe we do need another notation on the preliminary plat that they do identify the locations for those accessory structure uses. At least that for sure. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think I will go ahead and make the changes that the applicant has agreed to, if you feel that's appropriate as well. I won't -- anything that's bold Iwon't -- I won't change or alter, but anything that appears that we are on the same page, I will reflect that in the staff report. Zaremba: Reflect the agreements. Rohm: All right. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue items AZ 05-015, PP 05-017, and' CUP 05-022 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 18th. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: AZ 05-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for F~:: ,S` ~~...;:. C~~-,:. ~~V... ~~~ : ~~ M ridi Pl e an anning & Zoning July 21, 2005 - Page 25 of 90 '~r~ ' Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and ' ~ 540 East Ustick Road: ~~ f; :,; Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: PP 05-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook - , LLC - 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: ;, ~} ~' Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005: CUP 05-033 Request for ` ° Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development for single-family ~ _~~ detached units and single-family attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage and zero lot line side yard ~- w' setback for Hollybrook Subdivision by Hollybrook, LLC - 3265 North -~~-~ Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road: :~_: 3~ Zaremba: Okay. The next items on our agenda are nine, ten and eleven. I will open ~_fi ~ the Public Hearing for AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033. All relating to ~~ ~~ Hollybrook Subdivision and will entertain a motion to continue these to August 4th 17 . ~; Rohm: Mr. Chairman? - =,~ Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. : _~; Rohm: I move that we continue items AZ 05-026, PP 05-025, and CUP 05-033, to the ''` regularly scheduled meeting of August 4th r ~, ,~ ~? ~~~~ . Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ~~' {_~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. r~ ~ ~~~~~~ Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 05-028 Request for Annexation and Zonin of 2 06 - g . acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 05-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 r~~r building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone =~~~ for Arnke Subdivision by Michael Arnke - 2070 West Pine Avenue: ~ ~ "~` Zaremba: All right. I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-028 and PP 05-028. Both ~~ of these in relation to Arnke Subdivision -- I hope I'm saying that correctly. And - entertain a motion to continue those to August 18th. ~. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? =~ fi ;, ~,._ ,,,, v~ ~~ _ .. i4~' ~, ,~ t~ J Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 26 of 90 1~ ~'' Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. ~' Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-028 and PP 05-028, to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 18th, 2005. Moe: Second. .~~,; Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction k -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: ;:,r: °F Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 17 ~, ~f2~ single-family residential building lots and 3 common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision by Benchmark Construction -1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: Okay. And now I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-029 and PP 05-029, both of those relating to Sunstone Subdivision on North Black Cat Road and I will entertain a motion to continue those to August 18th. ':~5~~ }~ ` Rohm: Mr. Chairman? ~ Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue items AZ 05-029 and PP 05-029 to our regularly ~~~z~ scheduled meeting of August 18th, 2005. ki>: 1, rt ~ Moe: Second. ~ Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That r . motion carries. , - MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. *~~, .;~ "`` Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 ~~ ~ acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 ~ ' ;w residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a :.: ° fib F' n; ~' ~'rF ?~tg3'. ^~ F: ~t:` . _ i ~,y,, ~~, .., S ~, Meridi Pl i & Z an ann ng oning July 21, 2005 Page 27 of 90 proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development ~. , Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: :34~. ` Zaremba: I will now open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030. Both of ~_; ~ these relate to Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development at 2770 South Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff comments. =' -F Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Members of the board. Members of the ~~~r Commission. This is a proposal for Windwalker Subdivision. It's 5.1 acres south on South Locust Grove, just north of Victory Road. The neighborhood is primarily ' t ~ ~~ developed, with the exception of the other hearing that you will hear later on tonight " . The subject property is surrounded entirely by the other subdivisions with built up _ homes on them. It does fit entirely into our comprehensive policies for in-fill development and in-fill development does say that we do support development of man y different uses and we make additional allowances for design criteria of these types of ~F` developments. The site, as you can see, is a vacant property. The existing single- , ~'h~. r ` family residents is taking direct access to Locust Grove as it is right now, shown on the ~- aerial photo. Currently -- ACHD's condition of approval is that with the access to x., ~t~: - d Inglenook and the access to Sherbrooke Hollow, there is -- it does not fit into their design criteria for another access off of Locust Grove to this property. Therefore, it will be a 25 foot landscape buffer with a sidewalk placed in the Locust Grove right of way or 3- .' in the landscape buffer, as well as the existing single family residence will be removed, as well as the easement will go away on that property. The other significant feature is ~~~ the -- this is the Nine Mile Drain, I believe, which is to the east portion of the property ~; . This is a significant water feature. It does not flow all year long, but it is managed by ;,~ ' Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. The applicant has proposed 24 single-family '' `~ ~,~ ° ` residential lots, with a unique design. They are utilizing the common drive feature of the - R-8 section of the ordinance, which the applicant has chosen not to do a planned 5 , ~` 5~=. development, so that what you're seeing is within the limitations of our zoning code. It is °- not a request that is over and above what is allowed through the zoning ordinance. The site would have a 15 foot setback from the roadway, as well as a five foot setback to the :~~. -- essentially, the other subdivisions in this vicinity, which does create kind of a rtA constricting nature. However this is not out of the ordina for a develo ment ithi th ~~ s' `~" , ry p w n e City of Meridian. I have given you several examples in your staff report that does su ort this pp type of a use. However, the design and the bulk of the buildings, I would encourage this board to look at and interpret as if you believe that the five-foot s tb k ~~r~' e ac is going to be appropriate for this site. With the common drives there will be 20-foot setback from the drive front to the center of the common drive and the comm d i ;~ ` on r ves will be paved 24 feet to the road access. This is for fire access if they needed to get Y. °~~ into that area, as well as for parking of residential vehicles in this location should facilitate that, at least parking for one car in that location. ~~,, ;_ 1 emba: I'm ~ rry to interrupt. Clarify again. Did you say 20 feet from the center-line of t he driveway. ,~, ~~, ,;:;; - ~_ } ~,~, ~~ ~~ ~,~. ,~ - ~,~ ~~. .~ r~'_ M ri i e d an Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 ` s e? Page 28 of 90 ' ~- Guenther: Yeah. The center-line of the driveway is the lot line for the rear lots, the {~,,;_ other -- which are the flag lots that make the ten foot attachment to the road right of way to meet the frontage requirements for the flag lot on the R-8 exception in our ordinance. This design is slightly different than the -- the design that's being presented here is ~' slightly different. I'm going to show you the revised one as per ACRD and the fire department. They are going to do an alternate style of a turnaround. This is commonly ' referred to as a snoopy, as the ACHD staff report calls it out as. This is an approved t ~~} turnaround for a fire truck with an 18-foot radius. This is because a standard 90-foot ~`~, cul-de-sac, this property just is not wide enough in order to accommodate a cul-de-sac t :~, ~ at both ends. With the requirements that ACHD is going to require, the 50-foot wide road section through from Sherbrooke Hollow, as well as a 42-foot wide road section through from Inglenook Subdivision. The ACRD staff report does indicate that they will be requiring these connections to these subdivisions, as well as the services for sewer and water will be obtained through the connection in the cul-de-sac that comes from '-~~ ~~. Inglenook Subdivision. The -- get back to my other -- all right. The road section in this ~+ ~ subdivision is, again, a reduced road section, but it is approved through ACRD. The '~~ applicant had to revise this layout slightly again with the -- with the snoopy turnaround at _ ~~` ~"~ a ~ the end, as well as the only parking -- residential parking on one side of the street to be t;, determined by the Meridian fire department. Again, the lot size is not wide enough in order to accommodate many roadway functions in there, as well as to also allow for ''`~`' adequate development of the property. One note that staff has made is that there is this connection into this open space lot in Inglenook Subdivision and staff would ask for a ~A;; ` five foot section of the common lot off of this and to connect through to that open space ' lot and, then, that would not be a fenced area as well along the Nine Mile Drain. The ~, ,~, applicant has given these renditions as -- which were not required of the applicant. She 1' submitted these to us as a courtesy, rather than a requirement, because we do not require elevations to be submitted without a planned development. These are the renditions for the Block 1, Lots 1 to 8. I'll go back. Block 1 is this block right through here. This is Lots 1 to 8. And, as you can see, they will be single story. The applicant ~,~ ; does have a better rendition of this that they brought with them tonight, so I'm not going ^~' ~ to go too much into this. But that should -- should help to give you an understanding of :, ' ~ ~ what they will look like. This is the other block of the houses, which will be a similar ~ ~ ~=~'~ type of a design to the one I just showed. These single lot lines for Block 2 would of this nature, with only one home being per site. The applicant submitted this as an architectural rendering. This is not -- this is the two-story product that they have. This °<~ is, essentially, just to give you an understanding of the architectural features that they . < utilize when designing these homes, with more of a southwest western style. And with ''~ ;~~; that staff is recommending approval of this subdivision. I'm sure you have questions ._ '; ~ ~~ _ ,~., and I will stand for those. ~' '" Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: I have no questions. Zaremba: Okay. Then, we are ready for the applicant. Please come forward. ;:z ~ F~~, ;; ;.. ,~~~,: _ _ ~, ~~: .. ,,, _ , >>~~ ~~. Meridian Planninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 29 of 90 Harris: Good evening. My name is Kevin Harris. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise. I'm representing the applicant Beckit Development. This piece of property was initially slated to be subdivided with Inglenook Subdivision. I'm not aware of what happened back then to stop this from being developed with Inglenook, but it left us with a pretty good challenge with the 200 feet of lot depth we have. We spent the last seven months working with your staff and ACHD to come up with a plan that's in front of you today. ACRD had required that we remove the access out to Locust Grove and connect Inglenook Subdivision and Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision. This subdivision has made this site 27 percent pavement, which is a huge portion. The plan in front of you tonight will be a development of the highest quality. This layout offers a unique design in which houses take access of the public road, utilizing common drives. The intent of the subdivision is a retirement community. All maintenance of this community will be professionally maintained and all buildings will be single story. We held a neighborhood meeting on July 13th. When I am finished, the developer would like to discuss this neighborhood meeting and their plans for this development. We are here to be approved. We made every effort to come up with a quality design that incorporates every agency's requirements and meets all of Meridian City Code and Comp Plan. We agree to the conditions placed upon us by your staff. I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: I didn't quite hear. You said you wanted to have a neighborhood meeting? Harris: We held a neighborhood meeting July 13th. Correct. And the applicant would like to discuss the outcome of that meeting with your guys. Rohm: I'd like to hear that. Harris: If there are no questions for me, I will turn it over to the applicant. Zaremba: Thank you. Williams: Hello. I'm Carla Williams and I'm here representing Beckit Development. And I'm going to be talking about the pieces of the subdivision, the home designs, the target market, and the neighborhood meeting and the concerns that were brought up and what we would propose to do about the neighborhood concerns. As Kevin stated, it is a unique design with the garages facing each other off the street and, then, the front entries facing each other into a courtyard. The entire subdivision will be a Northwest Energy Star Subdivision, which is basically an energy upgrade in all of the homes. This particular subdivision of 24 units will save 108,000 pounds of greenhouse gases every single year. The yards will be maintained by the homeowners association. A Mediterranean style -- would you put up -- this is a similar subdivision. Of course, these are two story homes, where ours are single level homes. And, then, there also is a rendering of the particular design that will be built in this subdivision. So, some varying Mediterranean meets southwestern kind of look. The subdivision will have plush landscaping, a gazebo in one of the common areas, and park benches in both common areas. The home designs are all single level homes. Eight of the homes will be ADA y~,f.: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 30 of 90 handicap accessible. Of course, that would be determined on who purchased the home and how much of that they would want in their home. Three bed, two baths, oversize garages with storage areas. Nine to ten foot ceilings. Hardwood floors. Upgraded countertop. Appliances. Fireplaces. Covered porches and patios. So, they will be very nice upgraded homes and the exterior of the homes will be low maintenance. The target market that we have for these homes are empty nesters that are looking to down size, but want a lot of upgrades and comforts, retirees that want a summer home end may leave for the winter. And it could potentially be a second home for someone. Homeowners that want low home and yard maintenance. Homeowners that are looking fora highly efficient better indoor air qualify comfort home and a home that's environmentally friendly and due to the energy star we meet all of those things. Grandparents that might want to be close to their children and grandchildren, but want to live in a nice community, but not have a large home to have to maintain and take care of. The neighborhood that we had -- neighborhood meeting that we had on July 13th, there were a number of concerns that came up and I'd like to address each one individually. The first concem was that the square footage of the Windwalker Subdivision was going to be significantly less than the surrounding homes. I pulled an analysis of a number of subdivisions that are surrounding this proposed subdivision and the lowest average square footage of these subdivisions is in the Woodbridge townhomes at 1,554 average square feet. The highest square footage is 2,306. The Windwalker as a subdivision is at 1,820. So, we really kind of fall in between the surrounding subdivisions and the square footages that are currently around this neighborhood. The second concern that was brought up at the neighborhood meeting is that this community would become a rental community, because of the common wall units and what I was looking at is that investors typically look at a lowest cost per square foot, so that their rents can competitive, and I looked at the cost per square footage and the surrounding subdivision. Inglenook is the lowest at 82 dollars a square foot. Tuscany Village is the highest at 114. Our estimated cost per square foot is 123. So, you can see that these are really going to be -- have a lot of upgrades in them and are nice homes. Also, the homeowners association will maintain the landscaping and we have low maintenance exterior. We expect the subdivision to look very nice for a long long time. The third concern at the neighborhood meeting was that the CC&Rs for Windwalker would be relaxed after the homes were sold and we believe that people that buy in neighborhoods, they buy because they like the features of that neighborhood and that's the reason they go to live there. So, after the homeowners association passes the -- once the developer passes the homeowners association to the homeowners, chances are that they would not drastically change things, because that's why they bought in that neighborhood to begin with. So, we can't really see that that is a big concern. The fourth issue that came up during the neighborhood meeting is that the new traffic will speed through the Inglenook and Sherbrooke Hollows subdivisions. As you can see -- would you put up the one that shows the roads a little better. The one you have in your hand there, I think. There is -- there is not really acut-through traffic, because Sherbrooke Hollows comes through here and joins to Windwalker. There is a very short turn and a short street here. Coming from Inglenook there is a very short turn here and, then, a short drive to where these connect. So, there is really not a street long enough to get up enough speed to warrant speed bumps or speed signs or those ~:~:; ;t~,; R~~;, ~_~:°' ~~~ ;~;. tr_. ~~~~ x '~ ~ ,; ; rs~` ..t ~+ ~ : 5'i `R ,, ~.. ~~. ~k~,: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 31 of 90 sorts of things. The fourth issue that came out of the meeting was the park in Inglenook being a private Inglenook park and those homeowners wanting to insure that the Windwalker residents would not use the Inglenook Park. There is a sign constructed on the Inglenook park that says that it's for the use of Inglenook residents only and the Windwalker Subdivision does have two common areas that these residents can use for their enjoyment, instead of the Inglenook park. There was a request to fence the park and put a locked gate on it. We feel that that's really the responsibility of the Inglenook homeowners association if they would like to do that. The sixth issue was -- and probably one of the biggest issues is the five-foot setbacks along both Sherbrooke and Inglenook. One reason that we designed single level homes is because of the setback that we have asked for, because they didn't want two stories peering down into their backyards. There was a request by both neighborhoods, Sherbrooke and Inglenook, that the developer install a privacy fence along those property lines. We are willing to do that if both homeowners associations will approve that and if we can replace the existing chain link fence on both sides with the new privacy fence. And we have estimated a cost of 40 to 45 thousand dollars to install those privacy fences. And the last issue that came out of the neighborhood meeting was that the Inglenook and Sherbrooke Hollows homeowners did not want the construction traffic coming through their subdivision during the development process. We have talked with ACRD and they have allowed us to keep the existing driveway that is coming in right now during the development process to have the construction vehicle come through and, then, once we are developed, that would go away and during the construction of the new homes we would have to use the Inglenook entrance and Sherbrooke Hollows entrance. And that's all I have tonight. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions. Quite frankly, I think you have done a very good job as far as presentation with information and whatnot. I appreciate that. Zaremba: I would say you anticipated my questions and answered them. Williams: There is one item that I wanted to clarify and correct me if I am wrong, Kevin and Joe, but these common driveways that are coming in are 20 feet wide and, then, we have 20 feet of driveway. So, there is, actually, 50 feet -- actually, 60 feet -- 60 feet between homes here and I think it was stated that that was ten and it's actually 20. The common drive is 20. And, then, the way these homes are configured, just for an example, there is one, two, three, four, five Sherbrooke homes here and one, two, three, four roof tops from our subdivision backing up to those five homes. So, it's not a really condensed -- two or three rooflines to one roofline for the subdivision that we are butting up against. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? To clarify, the lots that are the rear lots, essentially, for those types of courtyards, will have a ten foot flag on them, so it would be ten foot per lot, so it ~, 4, ~,; ;::. tf+t Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 32 of 90 would be 20 foot and, then, 20 foot of each open area between the garage and that additional 20 foot. So, she is right, it is 60 feet. But the access will be paved to 24 feet of pavement. So, there will be two feet of pavement that will be on the actual lot and not in that driveway. Zaremba: So, theoretically, somebody could parka 19-foot car up -- nose up to the garage and not have the tail hanging into the driveway; right? Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. That's sort of where we were going with in earlier questions. Good. Thank you. Okay. We have quite a few people signed up to speak and I can go through them in order, but let me ask this first. Is there a spokesman, a homeowners association president or somebody who is going to speak for a group? Let me start with you, sir. If you would state your name and address. Welsh: My name is Jonathan Welsh. I live at 1842 East Fireside Court. I'm in real estate as well. I'm all for development. I love development. I make my living off development. I specialize in new home construction. Actually, represent several developers. But what I see in this is trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. Roof tops, not dwellings. Three roof tops is six dwellings and I can tell you right now, a lot of business being done in this area are investors and that is not out of their market range, I can tell you that right now. They see this as duplexes. They can get two units in the one, they don't have to mow, they don't have to pay anybody on mow, it's all self- contained for them. It will become investor's alley. Intentions or not, when they start getting offers in, full price offers paying cash for these things, good intentions to have a 55 and over community go right down the drain. It becomes investor central. That's my experience and I do have some experience in the field. So, another issue Ihave -- well, first of all, we know it's going to be developed. We do not have an issue with it being developed. There never has been an issue. We have anticipated it the whole time. But five-foot setbacks right on our families' lines is unacceptable in our eyes. When you're looking at this development, look at it as if you lived in one of these properties backing up to it and they are five feet from your property all the way down. A new piece of information that I learned tonight is that their common area back here at the far east end is going to connect to our park that we pay 350 dollars a year as a neighborhood to have maintained. A sign is not going to keep people out, first of all. It won't. So, yes, we do have an issue with that. We pay for that for our children to play and it's not a city park, it's a private park, and there is no way atwo-by-two sign is going to keep anyone out. Second of all, on the north side of the property -- Moe: Would you, please, use the pointer that you have got up there? Welsh: Sure. If I can figure out how to work it. There we go. Right here. This is what is called a stub road. Right here. It is not round. It is a squared cutoff road that looks like future use. This is a cul-de-sac with fully finished curb and gutter all the way around, right into our community park at the end of our cul-de-sac road. There is ~: :fir ~M4 < _~_ ,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 33 of 90 r~~. r another development coming in back here that I believe you're going to see that ~:- ~ ~,;. everyone in our neighborhood signed up for, not against. We have no issues with that. -~„ _ We anticipated that. It is single family dwellings zone R-4, which is exactly like the k ~'~ ~ development all the way around, including to the west of Locust Grove. We have no `~"' issues with that. That was designed as a stub road. They have no other access out, other than this single road right here. They are not required to have two access points; they are required to have one. We are fine with the project that they are doing. Single- family nice development. Good setback in the rear. If they are allowed to have one, ~'~~' ~; ; maybe it's aquestion -- a legal question. If there is so many residents in a neighborhood, is there a cutoff to where it requires to two? And what is -- I don't know t~~,; the answer to that. I would like to. I would like to know why our cul-de-sac is being turned into a through street. Have you -- I have heard the word stub road used several - '~ ~~! -several times tonight through the other development and I have never seen this y.>r: described as a stub road. Around, fully guttered, fully sidewalked end of a street. I ' have never heard that described as a stub road. Another new thing I learned tonight ` that I wasn't aware of before is the access of sewer and water through the end of our <~ , neighborhood. Leaving the end over here open for construction workers is all fine and ~- - good, if that was the real world. That's not the real world. And this is my house right ~' ~ ' here. I happen to live down in the cul-de-sac area. I have a two and a half year old child and it's pretty nice sitting on my front porch right now watching him play with the other children in the cul-de-sac. That will be gone. Absolutely taken away. We purchased this house because we liked the cul-de-sac. You notice I use the word cul- de-sac a lot, not a stub road. If anyone here could tell me that this park will not be used =k~; by this neighborhood association -- or by this neighborhood here and somebody can -~' guarantee me not, I'm not too -- I don't have too much of a problem with that park. But "~ no one can. It's impossible, because we know in the real world their kids are not going ' to go down here and play on park benches. Park benches are to sit on and use them, but their kids are not going to enjoy playing on them when they look over here and see ~' a nice big developed park with slides, monkey bars and so on and so forth. So, we all ` know how that's going to work out. I'm not the best public speaker, so I apologize, but ' think that's about all I can think of off the top of my head. I don't -- I -- like Isaid, I -- this ,~~ is my -- this is my business and I have stood in front of city councils several times and pushed for development, but it was something I believed in, because I thought it was ~,r_ ~.,~ ~ ~ something that would improve the surrounding areas and this I see no way that it can improve the surrounding areas. It is higher density, multi-family use, mixed in with no multi-family use anywhere around it and Ijust -- like I said, this is a square peg in a round hole. That's all I have got. °' " ~~ Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. ;; t Y ~: ; , ~ '~ Guenther: Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification? ~ ` Zaremba: Yes. >.i ~`` Guenther: Go to your ACHD staff report on findings of fact number seven. ACHD calls that out as a stub street. The turn around for Inglenook, because of the number of E~ r N~ 1!: 5 , ..::.. _ 0.~ry .~ <;.' <:;. .<.~; {~~_' .k; ,~ <~: ~. .rte '~,;.. _. Meridian Planninsa & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 34 of 90 homes in there, it had to have a legal turn around for fire and emergency access. If the homeowners of Inglenook actually wanted to, they could go petition ACHD to have the rest of that cul-de-sac returned to their neighborhood and have it only as a road section, instead of a cul-de-sac. Zaremba: Thank you. Well, let me comment on that. I was going to save it until later, but I was on the Commission when Inglenook was approved and it was originally presented as stub street. They did the stub street. ACHD considers it a stub street. The reason it doesn't look square like the other stub streets is exactly as staff said. The fire requirements, not knowing how long it would take for the other properties to develop, when there was -- eventually everybody knew that there would be a connection the same as a stub street, they said you must have a turnaround. So, the point that he makes is now that -- now that it is connecting to another piece of street, it doesn't need to have the turnaround. Your association could take that property back and add it -- you know, on one side to your park, on the other side to what I assume is a house, and just leave the standard street section. But the point is it always has been a stub street, unfortunately. I need to move on to other people. And I will call names and if Mr. Welsh spoke for anybody, please, just let me know. Larry C. -- it's a very short last name. It looks like two or three letters. Okay. He agrees with Mr. Welsh. Okay. Francis Nix is it? Okay. Supports what Mr. Welsh said. Thank you. Brad Kiddo. If you're going to add anything, I do need to have you come to the microphone and state your name, please. Kiddo: Brad Kiddo. 1714 Fireside Court in Inglenook. They made the comment at the very beginning that this is a very small piece of land to try and develop and so in the smallest of pieces of land they are going to double the size of the homes. It just doesn't make any sense. If you have a small piece of land, it seems you'd put less homes in that piece of property. The other thing is that we have been informed -- we have received a letter just this week about that stub issue and I know this is something we would have to take up with our homeowners group or the developer that there was to be a sign there at the end of that that said that this would be, eventually, developed as a street and there was no sign there, so that would be something we'd have to take up with them. It just seems to me that a small piece of property -- and it's hard enough to develop as it is, wouldn't it make more sense to take that small piece of property and put less homes in it. It just seems logical to me. Just like the other folks are doing on the other side, they have a very small piece of property over there and they are doing, you know, single family dwellings on that small piece of property. It seems like it makes sense to me. So, that's our position. Zaremba: Okay. Patty Kiddo. Okay. Thank you. Spoken for. It looks like it could be either Dean Patch or Glen -- Parker: Glen Parker. 1795 East Lake Creek, which is just south of the Sherbrooke Hollow entrance. Right there. I agree with what Mr. Welsh has said. But my question for the developer would be how they intend to maintain this as a retirement community. And, you know, as the lots are sold and developed, they might start out that way, but ~~~r. _y~`; ti ` `~ ~ ` ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ w - ~ ' July 21, 2005 Page 35 of 90 - how long are they going to stay that way? That's mainly the issue I wanted to bring up. Thanks. '-1 Zaremba: Thank you. Shelly Strolberg. >_;; ,:~: Strolberg: Thank you for this opportunity. I have never done this before, so, please, F T ` ~ forgive my ignorance about this, but a couple of issues that I wanted to bring up. Just looking on the Internet and looking at Meridian City Code 12-4-2 on streets, I have a question about the type of street, the width -- the minimum width standards. Baird: Ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but could you, please, state your name and ~, a° ~'~'` ' ' your address for the record? r . r>.;~ Strolberg: Oh, I'm song. Shelly Strolberg, 1873 East Dworshak Drive, Meridian. On the minimum standard it says anon-continuous residential street would be 40 to 46 feet _ wide. This development, as we are told by Mr. Harris, is 42 feet wide. The next minimum definition would be a minor street, which is 50 feet wide. So, I have a question about which type of street that is. I couldn't find definitions for that. The other side of that is also in that same code on -- under subsection F, cul-de-sacs, it says no ~~~~f street which ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than 450 feet, which that R, seems that's much longer than 450 feet from one end to the other. So, I'm not sure, you y==;r,~ ' know, what the definition, again, of that is, but -- so that's a question I have. And also, obviously, we have got our quality of life. I mean we are going to have a structure five a _ ~ feet within our rear perimeter and when we went to this meeting I asked the developer, the real estate agent, I said would you want this -- if it were you, would you want this basically duplex five feet within your rear perimeter and they said no. They said, ~~- basically, we were stupid, because we didn't think of that ahead of time and -- but they are just there to make money, like everybody else, is what they said. They said we Y= should have brought it up ourselves. To me that's not the answer, that's not the moral ` right way to do it and if they don't have morals, then, we will give them some. And asked -- I asked the planner, Mr. Harris, I said can you think of any way this benefits us at all and he said no, but that's not my job. You know, if they can't even find a way that benefits us, then, you know -- we understand it's going to be developed. They have an alternative plan, but, of course, they don't make as much money, where we don't have ;r~, people sitting right on our rear fence and -- but, again, it's the almighty dollar. So, we would like the Commission to think of -- to consider their other plan. The other issue ,~ < 'y~ that I wanted to mention is if this is approved, if this goes through, they said that they will install a privacy fence upon approval and I'd like to know what kind of fence, what the material would be made of. And the other issue is the mission statement of the ,~.. "~- Planning and Zoning Commission states that innovative planning team that advances a quality lifestyle and economy envisioned by our Comprehensive Plan. To me that just _ doesn't seem like that's a quality of lifestyle. If they wouldn't even want it, then, why are `' ' they forcing it on us? So, thank you very much for your time. -_ : 1 ~a -?~~ Zaremba: Thank you. I can partially answer one of those questions and that is how a cul-de-sac is measured. It would begin -- this is probably the longest portion of the cul- ~~ ~:; -_ ,~ ;~;~. ~,~: ~~_. ~, _ .. ' N.... y ,71 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 36 of 90 de-sac. It begins, actually, where there is another direction that you can go. So, the measurement is from that street to the end of it and I suspect staff has already measured that. Guenther: Exactly 400 feet from the --from here to the back of the cul-de-sac. Zaremba: I'll relay the question. Is that the snoopy design, as opposed to -- Guenther: No. That is the measurement of this block from this property line to the landscape lot. That includes everything. That's over and above what -- how we would measure that. Zaremba: So, the snoopy is either the same or five or ten feet shorter. Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Thank you. And the other question you raised, the developer is -- or the applicant is making notes and will be put on the spot to answer those in a bit. Eric Strolberg. E.Strolberg: I agree with what's been said so far and we are here because of the design, not the fact that there is going to be development. We would like to see something that's asingle-family design. The big concern to me is the five-foot setback. I think the developer has tried to circumvent the normal planning and zoning requirements by turning things sideways. The setbacks are different for backyards, so there is a distance between your neighbor. They put it sideways and put five feet in there. They get 15 feet from the street, they get 20-foot driveways and they get 50 feet. They get 10 feet between their backyard on each side. They get 20 feet. But to my backyard it is five feet, because they don't care about my property or my quality of life. Again, acertain -- then with normal setbacks would be. You talk about traffic, by adding this type of design they are adding easy two-thirds more traffic than a single family home would have. Obviously, the Inglenook people are very upset, because they thought they had a cul-de-sac and now they are getting not single-family dwellings, they are getting two-thirds more traffic on top of that. There is no guarantees for what they are planning and what they say they are going to build and who is going to live there. They can't guarantee that. We know that. There is no guarantee that there will only be parking on one side of the street. They can't guarantee that. They haven't been able to tell us what their plan for on a privacy fence, if it does go through, and that's very important, obviously, because they are going to be five feet from my back fence. The reduced road section is something that I think needs to be looked at as a requirement for this type of area. It doesn't fit with the design. It's like putting a square peg in a round hole. And I'm adamantly opposed to this type of development, but be more than happy, just like I said, to look at single-family dwellings as neighbors. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Kevin Willett, please. ~; ;: .: ,`;' :; °~:;' ~;- ~:~; Meridian Plannin4 & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 37 of 90 Willett: My name is Kevin Willett. I live at 1732 East Lake Creek Drive. I'll try not to be redundant. Everybody that has spoken before brought up some really great points. The developer has, obviously, put a lot of money and effort into developing this plan and I don't think is the only plan that could fit on this lot. This is my 22nd year in construction and I have seen lots of different things in different parts of the country. There can be a plan made that would be similar to the plan that's going to be -- that will be proposed later tonight that's north of Inglenook that I can guarantee -- I cannot guarantee, but will almost guarantee that it would empty this room if they would put in single family residences there and you won't see our faces again. But you will see us every time until this goes through. We are adamantly opposed to this, as are our neighbors. That's all I have. Zaremba: Thank you. I believe the first name is Patricia and the last name may start with a J, but I'm not real sure. Very elegant handwriting, but I can't read it. What I will do is I will go on with the rest of the list and if I get to the end and somebody signed up and I didn't call you, we will have you come forward. Keith Olms, I believe it is. Olms: My name is Keith Olms. I live at 1660 East Lakeview Drive, which is -- blind myself with this thing. I can't find the -- okay. I live right here along this stretch of road where it exits out onto Locust Grove. I do have to make one comment about the discussion that was made by the spokesman for the developer. You can get enough speed on that road to exceed 35 to 40 miles an hour. I have got my mailbox run over twice, which is parallel to the road there. So, that really does exist. So, that was incorrect on her part. One of the major concerns, Ithink -- all the people that are on that section, they have been addressed by everybody and that is that five feet from the fence is very close. It appears to be a very symbolic symbol of greed. How many houses can I put on one piece of land. And to us -- we knew it was going to be developed, it was just a matter of time before the owner sold and everybody understands that and that's not the issue. The issue at hand is how can I make it a little bit user friendly to everybody and for the convenience for the pockets of those making the development. So, part of our -- our thought process is that it goes to single family dwelling and not put two houses, because right now, from my property line, I'm going to have -- right back there I'm looking at four houses right out my back door. And I have a nice backyard. I can sit in my backyard and look at those mountains, what I can see of them still, but to do this and put these people in my backyard five feet away from my fence line, that's just not -- that's not right. Okay. Nobody would want to be in that circumstance, so I will stop on that. The construction access, how long is that access going to be available. At some point they are going to want to make it a little bit more appeal-able on the Locust Grove front, so they are going to want to close that off, now we are going to have all the subcontractors and everybody cruising through our neighborhood. And, again, there is a lot of small children in those areas and that's one of our major concerns, is to prevent an accident. And especially on the Inglenook side, we have that small park there where children would be playing. Again, that's a concern of everybody. So far we have a neighborhood, which we do have some problems with young people speeding. However, by increasing -- you figure three cars per household, ~~,; t~F Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 38 of 90 >' s r~~_~ that's a lot of cars that's going to be split up between those two neighbors. That's too ~~. " many. That's all I have. Thank you very much for your time. You have a good day. r: ,~. Zaremba: Thank you. Patricia Olms. Agrees with what he says. Good. It's safe to go ° home, then. Murray Jones. He seconds what's already been said. Jennifer -- Coff -- I'll ';. ' let you state your name on the microphone. ~~i:_ Jones: Okay. It's Jennifer Cofflin Jones. 1636 East Fireside Court. And I agree with everything and I was going to say that I just agree with everything that everybody said, ,~ but there is just a couple of points that I wanted to clarify. I, too, am a real estate agent. And when I asked them if they were targeting retirement -- a retirement community, I asked -- that's the one class you can segregate and only advertise and only sell to them. Yet, they weren't willing to just do that. So, that leaves it open for more investments. I also -- all the numbers that she gave us on the lot size and her ', ' comparisons are on the other side of the freeway, not even close to our home. All those ~'_ tt communities are over the highway. Another thing, if she is targeting retirement, where ,' are the RVs going to be parking, because everybody knows that retirees have RVs. `~ And also have their trucks and their trucks won't fit in the driveway -- or the RV parking _ . So, those are just questions and concerns that I wanted to bring up. _ ~' Zaremba: Thank you. Robert Wahr. Okay. He says it's been covered. Thank you. believe it's Jim -- starting with a W. It's a short name. :_ Welsh: I just wanted to reiterate a couple things. My name is Jim Welsh and I live at `-° ' ~ z 1734 East Fireside Court. I, too, am in the property development business, a general ' `¢a contractor. I believe that anytime a commission establishes zoning for a community, that it's important to do so in a responsible manner that creates a community that's -. compatible within itself. I don't know where the numbers came from for the average square feet, but I can assure you if you get out and drive around the neighborhood that ;. : surrounds this proposed division, they are nowhere near the size that she's indicating. .~~°~ live in a 3,000 square foot house. My son lives in one that's well over 3,000. There is a _= 4 3,500 square foot house that's not yet occupied that's going to be backed up to a couple ~~, of those. We are talking about major investments that people have made under the hopeful assumption that the neighborhood, when it was further developed, would continue to be compatible with the neighborhoods within which they chose to build. I do not see this as being a compatible zoning with the surrounding neighborhoods. Also, the style of housing that they are going to do -- and you can call it whatever you want, a _ ~ duplex is a duplex. You know, a duck by any other name is still a duck. A duplex is a ~ `~{' .°, duplex and they are not complimentary to the existing single-family dwellings that are = within the surrounding neighborhoods within a half a mile or three-quarters of a mile of ~ ~ ~~~ this particular development. So, I believe that that, in and of itself, is not a responsible development by the developer. When we attended the neighborhood planning meeting or the neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago, the question was asked of the engineer how many additional vehicles -- vehicles could we expect a day and the ,::'~ statement was made about a hundred per day. That is a significant number for such a ~~= ~ ,; small plot of ground. Trust me, on Inglenook we have a couple of occasions where it's ~~~ ~~~.~ ~:~- thy'. .. .~~~..~ M ridi Pl i ~~~ .~r ~ e an ann ng & Zoning Jul 21 2005 . , ,~; y , s Page 39 of 90 _° _` just about the loop as a drag strip. I know what speed you can get up to, because I z,; .~~ have had to go out and holler people down and have them tum around and leave. Just ~;~ ::~ ~ dragging the neighborhood. Now, they haven't been doing that recently, but the point ~: the speed can develop and with duplexes going into the neighborhood, with the clientele that's there to draw on, I do believe that it's on just the increase of both the traffic pattern and high speed traffic going through there. That's all I wanted to say about it. ~, Zaremba: Thank you. Cassandra Dixon. Okay. She's been spoken for already. It ~' , looks like it might be Pat Johnston or a name similar to that. Okay. Come back to that ~ ~ ~ty~~ one if we need to. Judy Vanderleen, possibly. Been spoken for. And Arlene -- is there ~ an Arlene Vanderleen? Oh, Ann. I'm sorry. Anna. `~r Vanderleen: My name is Anna Vanderleen. I'm going to talk a little fast, because I've only got three minutes. We have this property right here is our home. This house right _ here is where our son lives. And right next door is where my stepfather and his wife life s~ :, and is -- has seizures and stuff. One of the reasons why we built in what we were told ~'~ was a cul-de-sac, when we purchased the home, which I guess there was a petition to ~' get it to be a cul-de-sac, that we would be able to allow him to go outside and walk around, because that way we wouldn't have to worry. So, in the Boise newspaper they are talking about trying to make communities -- I have lived in barrios growing up, okay, ,:'- j,? I know what it's like. I'm a mixed race person. And we just moved here from Florida and I can tell you one thing, if you had a community of only people that were going to be here part of the year, they are not invested in the community and that's one of the `~~~ reasons why I moved here, is because we know everybody on this block. We go into each other's homes, their kids come to our house, our kids -- it is a community and it's w= -~ ~~~; because of that so-called cul-de-sac that we have that kind of community. We get together. That's a community. That's what we need to build in Meridian is more of a community. And I think that what they say is it's going to be a senior thing, it may be snowbirds will come in here or whatever. I have seen it in very very strict areas in Florida where we lived where they are gone and their yard or whatever -- whatever they x° ;;~ r have left of a yard, is not taken care of, because they don't come and pick up the trash. ~. d: They may come and mow the lawn or whatever, but things fall apart in areas like that. z Believe me. I have just come from there. Okay. One of the things that I wanted to ~ =b mention was right out on the site there of -- right on Locust Grove there, if you have ever been out there in the morning when everybody is trying to go to work, it's a traffic -~ : jam. I mean a major major traffic jam. And I want to ask everybody, okay, we have how many seniors -- how many seniors do we have living in Inglenook? Quite a few. Quite ~, a few of us are seniors. I'm getting close to that. My husband's definitely a senior. f'm y running out of time. Okay. So, I think about traffic and everything and if this is opened up and if anybody is a senior, if you want to go live in one of these little houses, it's not ,- ~ going to happen, it's taken us two years to finish trying to sell everything in the Inglenook neighborhood as it is. You know, I mean it's been a tough road to try to get everything finished up there. And what's going to happen is as soon as they start trying ` : to sell -- this is only going to be for seniors, the prices are going to come way way down and it's going to end up being kind of like a border situation. Okay. I'm done. ~~~~~ ~; ~, ~~~, =- C~ ~. - .t i:.:,. ~~.,.,.. '~E ' ~' ~s. ~. ~,:; ~ _ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~' July 21, 2005 Page 40 of 90 Zaremba: Thank you very much. The first name is Don and the last name may be Hughes, but it might be something else. r ~, ~~,~ Thorpe: Don Thorpe. 1550 East Lake Creek Street in Meridian. I just want to say everything has been pretty much covered here by most of the people and I feel the k {1:~;;ui same way, that it's -- even though it is being sold towards a retirement issue, I moved .~> ~; here a year ago, I looked at this area, I looked at over a hundred homes before I moved in here. One of the things that sold me on this area was the fact of the quality of the `~ '' homes. I paid over 10,000 dollars more to live in this type of an area, to turn around and say retirement homes, locking in 55 or older, yeah, that's great, but if it turns out to ~,~ where they turned into duplexes down the years, then, I'm going to lose that 10 000 , ~_>~; put out -- put into it, so, then, I would be 20,000 dollars out on a home. I didn't move to ~, , an area to live around a bunch of duplexes. I really am opposed to this being built on `~~' the site. That's all I had. Thanks. ,,.:, Zaremba: Thank you. All right. Except for the two names that I was not able to get anybody to respond to, that's everybody that signed up. So, if you think you signed up and I missed your name, please, step forward. Alternate to that, even if you didn't sign r=~° up, here is your opportunity to add anything that hasn't already been added. Thank you. ' : ,,,~~ ,F~; Shipley: My name is John Shipley. I live at 2770 South Locust Grove, the site of the proposed development, and I have lived there for 32 years last July the 15th, when there was none of these people in my backyard and when you come and say not in my ~~ backyard and all that stuff, it makes my dander get up a little bit, because this is my opportunity to sell my property and if the property has been designed legally and everything is according to Hoyle, I'm asking that you approve it, because some -- I don't ..~ `~~~ know any of these people, but some of them are those people that threw their stuff over the fence in my field and littered on my property and made me mad and I thought if I go ~~ ~~~~' - talk to those people, they are so stupid, it won't do any good to talk to them. And have any of them ever come over and said, hello, I'm your neighbor. One man. Wanted to _ build a fence on the chain link fence next door and another man wanted to know if it was okay to put a fence up to my property. This is the plan of the original Inglenook. Somebody said this was a cul-de-sac. But if you look in Websters dictionary at what a ;,~:; cul-de-sac says, there is more than one house on a cul-de-sac. Two reasons they :a~>°~i made that look like a cul-de-sac, because they got a little park there and they wanted :,,. ` room to park cars for people that brought their children to a city park, not a private park, 4 ~ ~ ~~° '~ because I was in on all those meetings and I know at the time it was called a cit k y par and it had an interconnected street from Sherbrooke Hollow down the back side, which ~. the ditch company has locked up now and I can't, for the life of me, see why if this is legal and all these people are down here, because they don't want somebody in their backyard, I can't see the mountains, I can't see the sunset, and all these big tall houses and they are supposed to be single level houses, all around my property line. Quite a ~ ~ ~ ~; few of them on both sides. Thank you for listening to me, okay? ~~, ~tr~~ Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. That concludes all of the sign up. Anybody else need to r : add anything that hasn't been added? You did have an opportunity to speak, so I think _„~.,. ~<.~~,~; :~ ~~r; hr4 ~b ` ...:: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 41 of 90 we need to move on. Thank you. It's the applicant's turn. You have a combined ten minutes. Taylor: I agree a hundred percent with everybody else. I'm Dave Taylor, at 1860 East Dworshak, and I'm right there in Sherbrooke where the R-4 is. And like everybody else, I've got a big investment in our house and put in a pool for my kids and just really disturbed at the fence line that's going to be no further from me to this desk there. And I think there is a better way to develop it and I -- you know, everybody explained that and that's probably the best way, to just agree with everybody else. I did have a quick question and a lot of those folks built privacy fences already. How is that going to be dealt with if they plan to put one in? Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. The applicant, please. I know you have been taking notes. See if you can get it done in ten minutes. Harris: Kevin Harris. 1800 West Overland Road again. The first comment was a square peg in a round hole. He made a comment about the rooftops. Each attached house will appear as one house. These houses here, you're not going to see two rooflines, it will look like one very large house. Therefore, you know, as Carla mentioned before, there is less houses impacting Sherbrooke Hollows and Inglenook than there are on this block already. The second comment, the five-foot setbacks are not acceptable. On rear yards the five foot yard setbacks are part of development, you know, and sometimes it's not the best case scenario, but I pulled some plats from around the adjacent subdivisions and it's kind of interesting that two of the four phases in Sherbrooke have the same scenario. Three of the five phases in Salmon Rapids. Every phase in Los Alamitos and also Terra Wood Subdivision has exactly the scenario and if people would like to see those, I can put them up on the board, the islands in there. Stub streets. And, again, I sent a letter to every resident in Inglenook last week, along with ACHD's staff report for Inglenook and I -- within the letter I said, you know, look at site specific requirements, items number five and six, and look at items number five and six in ACHD's staff report for Inglenook and it says connect the stub street to the 2.47 acre parcel north of this site located on Lot 6, Block 2, and Lot 18, Block 1, as proposed. Install a sign at the terminus of the roadway stating that this road will be extended in the future. Item number six. Construct a stub street to the park to the south of the site. Install a sign at the terminus road stating this road will be extended in the future. And I sent this to every resident of Inglenook this last week, so I tried to put out some of the fires there, but I guess they are still pretty upset about it. You know, it's ACHD's requirement that we do it, therefore, we have to abide by ACHD. Another issue was brought up connecting to the sewer and water stubbed out in Inglenook. That sewer and water there was stubbed for the purpose of this property here in connecting to it. That is why the stubs were put there. It is a small piece of land. We feel we came up with a great design for this property. It is a unique design, accessing common drives. Take another look at, you know, the applicant's rendering of the houses, you're going to have, you know, stamped concrete in the driveways, it's going to be a very nice looking subdivision and we feel we came up with a very nice design for what space we have had. Being maintained as a retirement community, I'll let Carla answer that one. ~: , ~~. ~~~ , _ ~:` +•~~' Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 s.,._, "~"' " ,,, Page 42 of 90 ~.,, I'm not a real estate person. It is my understanding that you cannot target a retirement community or call it a retirement community, because it's against the Fair Housing Act. But if I'm wrong, you guys can correct me there, but it's my understanding that it's against the Fair Housing Act to call it a retirement community and just sell to retired people. The cul-de-sac issue, the cul-de-sac lane, we took care of that already. The ~;;: ;. statement about -- I guess our comment at the neighborhood meeting, you know, that f~~y ,~ ~ was all false. You know, I told her that, you know, where I live they are proposing ;;,4 commercial behind it. I knew it was going to get developed. You know, as long as it's a "~'~ quality development and that things are done right, I don't have a problem with it. So, _ you know, her statements were very far off the mark. Joe also -- Joe from P&Z mentioned to me that they might allow us to go with a ten foot street setback and move *J the side yard setback here ten feet. If that's acceptable, we will gladly do that, reduce it to ten feet and extend this to ten feet. That will give an additional buffer on both sides of ~~~; the -- both sides of the houses there. What type of fencing would the developer put up? ~~r~ At the neighborhood meeting she commented that it would be a vinyl fence, if the ' ~ ~~~ homeowners of Sherbrooke and Inglenook allowed them to take down their existing ~' fence. Different design on the property. Initially, we came in with a street off Locust ~:,Y- Grove and a commercial pod came off the stub street in Inglenook and a cul-de-sac a , , stub street off Sherbrooke Hollows in a cul-de-sac. We had bigger lots, you know, a lot of the lots were still oriented with side yard setbacks, because of putting this road through it leaves substandard lot depth. It would be about 76 feet and really you can't ~~~~ , , build a house with the orientation of backyard to backyard in a 76 foot deep lot, therefore, the houses would be, you know, have to be rotated this way. Zoning for the ~,~ .v~~- community. You know, R-8 meets the Comp Plan for this area. It's called out for medium residential and our density is 4.71, which is well within the mark of the Comp - Plan for this area. Sageland to the south is an R-8 community. Traffic counts. There - was a couple of comments made on traffic. ACHD came up with the traffic counts and I ~ think it's around, you know, ten -- ten trips per day per additional house and that's based ' on residents, you know, mail carriers, package carries, utility workers, so that traffic #=~ count is based on, you know, a lot more than just the residents and they are in the other subdivisions also, so it would be a continuation of a lot of the existing traffic. And they ~'~~ - also mentioned that Locust Grove is a pain to get out on in the morning. Again, ACHD has done a traffic study out there. I believe Locust Grove is a better than C, which is well within their standards for traffic coming out -- additional traffic coming out through - Inglenook. An issue was brought up about the quality of homes. I believe that Carla did a fantastic job of deciding what she's going to do with the houses in this development f and I don't think I need to expand any further on that. I think that pretty much covered .{ all the issues that I could write down as fast as I could. So, Carla, if you want to answer some, if you have anymore. . , ~, - :~ Zaremba: You can use his remaining three minutes. Williams: Okay. I'll try and be fast. Carla Williams. A couple of items that I have noted. One statement was that if an investor came in to buy these homes, that they wouldn't .,~`~~ have to pay for the upkeep and they actually will, because that will be part of R`~= homeowner dues. So, someone buying the home for a rental, it's going to be a pretty ~~ ~ ~.~~ ~,:; Y',: rye: ,; ~~~, ;1i}~: .~z~ YJ u., ~~ i, :~r: ~~~ ,,~. >: xs~.. -o-; r< ~~ --~~ ~~,:,- ,,;; .;:~F' ', 1:` .s: ~t ;_${;, f ~ , ;~:~i'. ._ 4ti ~;:j <..r~ ws ~Y'~ ,,; ,~ ~,: C.` ,: / .;z >i ?,~. 21 ~ ~.:~' Maritlian Planninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 43 of 90 costly, expensive rental. As far as the Inglenook people maintaining their park, we will also pay to maintain our common areas. The gate at the park, if we are required to put that there, have an opening here at the -- right at this point. If we are required to do, then, we certainly would do that. But their comment about being able to walk from this common area into this private park, I don't really know how to respond to that. I would take any recommendations on that. As far as the retirement community, all I can say there is that we are targeting a certain group of people the way we have designed the homes, the features, that the homes will have their two car garages, so there is not three cars in the garage driving back and forth. There is three bedrooms with one of the bedrooms designed as a den, could be used as a third bedroom, but just the design of the home indicates the type of person that is going to be purchasing that property. It's going to have a lot of upgrades in it and they will be very nice homes. So, I personally believe that that's not really the target of an investor. The one homeowner that talked about the neighborhood meeting, the conversation that we actually had when she asked me about if I would like to have somebody living behind me with a five foot setback, my comment was is that when you buy a piece of property that is not developed to one side ~~~ of you, you really don't know what will be developed in that. And she responded, so you're saying I'm stupid, and I said, no, ma'am, I'm not saying you're stupid. So, that was not a very good interpretation of what she had said that I said. There is an assumption that these residents are all going to be speeders. I really expect that the people buying these homes are going to honest citizens and obey the law. I don't have much more to say than that on the speeding. The construction access, to my knowledge, is that we will be able to use that off of Locust Grove until the development is complete. Of course, at some point we need to get this permanent landscaping put in here during the development, so we can get final plat, so that access coming in for the subdivision development would have to be cut off at some point, so that we can complete the actual construction. Am I done? Zaremba: I do need to ask you to conclude, yes. Williams: Okay. Just one final point is where the numbers came from on the square footage. This sheet here came directly out of the MLS. Inglenook has 1,400 to 3,500 square foot homes, with an average of 2,155. Sherbrooke Hollows has 1,500 to 2,877 square feet homes, with an average of 2,136 square feet. And Windwalker is at 1,820. So, it's not really a significant difference in square footage if you look at the average square foot of the different subdivisions. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I have a question of staff. Wasn't there apathway -- when this development went, weren't they -- did they put a path there along here? Isn't there an assumption that it will continue and connect and people would walk back and forth on it? Or am I wrong about there being a pathway? Guenther: There was no pathway planned for this section here. What was the -- it was not planned according to the Comprehensive -- the city Comprehensive Plan. The overall development has a fence, a gated fence in this location, as well as there is a paved walkway that goes behind these lots in this area and this is all common lot up 4~~ . ;' . -.r ice, _~;:>M Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 44 of 90 here off of the other street. The impression that the overall development of the neighborhood has been is that there would be some sort of walking path, paved or not, or some sort of access for pedestrians through that open space natural feature and that is one of our comprehensive goals is to encourage pedestrian access to the limited natural features that the City of Meridian has and that's why staff brought up the fact that there should at least be a five foot access between the two common areas. Zaremba: Thank you. I'm sorry, you did have your opportunity. We got the answer I was looking for. Commissioners, questions? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. x Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: The developer mentioned that there was some possibility that the structures could be moved five feet further in towards the center to widen that setback. Could you speak to that, please? Guenther: I had discussed that with the applicant prior to this hearing and I brought it back to the director, whose interpretation of that would mean that they would have to get a planned development for the site. The planned development would put conditions of approval as amenities would be required, additional open spaces would be required, and that is something that the applicant has tried to avoid at all costs for this development, is to develop this within the standards of the R-8 district. If they did a planned development, they could go to the ten feet, but they are not proposing that and the director's interpretation was that we can't give them an additional reduced setback unless we had some sort of variance or planned development. Canning: Chairman and Members of the Commission. And that is correct and if the Commission is interested in pursuing that, this may be a case where a variance is warranted, given that it is an unusual topography and an unusual -- unusually narrow lot, given the -- as a remnant lot between in-fill developments, so -- I didn't articulate that very well. I'm sorry. But this may be a good candidate for a variance. But as presented it does meet our standards. As they have applied for it, it does meet our current standards for the R-8 district. Zaremba: The five foot setback is allowed because of the orientation within this project that's considered a side yard, not a rear yard; right? A rear yard requires 15 feet. Guenther: That is correct. .~:~- Zaremba: This is a side yard, because the buildings are turned sideways. Guenther: That's correct. y~~:.: _ ~~ .. ~: r n~^.- ;, - ,.:.~ x. , Marirlian Planninn 1L 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 45 of 90 Zaremba: I understand the side yard dimension internally to a project. In other words, the sides that line up with the sides of other buildings in the project, that's always been five feet. But when we get to the exterior of a project, is that true, too? Guenther: That would be true with this type of a product, the attachment of the two single-family residences would be their side yard and that's what the attachment is is a zero lot line setback. And, then, opposite would the five-foot setback. Zaremba: Regardless of whether it's the perimeter of the project or it's an internal lot? Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: Chairman, Commissioners, the only projects where we do a perimeter setback is multi-family and that's specifically written into the code. Zaremba: I knew I had seen it somewhere. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I just had one question in regard to the variance. Is that a variance to the planned development as -- Guenther: There would not be a planned development. A planned development is a conditional use application. The variance would be an exception to a bulk standard as per our ordinance. We can only go down to the five-foot, because Public Works requires aten-foot setback from the right of way for the utilities. So, regardless of that, we can't go less ten feet to the street. The variance would come because we can actually say that this site is -- it's being developed the only way that it possibly can with the restrictions that were not created by the developer, which is the shape of it, the size of it, the requirements of ACHD for the width of the street, those are things that we can qualify as hardships to this property that were not created by the developer. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: So, the variance would allow aten-foot set back without being a PD? Guenther: Correct. Zaremba: Is that what you're saying? Guenther: Yes. If approved. Zaremba: Okay. And, actually, it's a City Council issue. They approve variances, we don't, but we make --give them an opinion. _-. _~ ~F~ . , ~: , ~:~j , ;. ~»''~: ,y "- ;:_ .~;~° '.-~.. ~-r.5; ,~'~~ .~u ~~ Y` ~%`b`~L :°~ -': ~;~„ w p: t ~~ r ~;~ ~> t, ::;.: ~ . ,.~,t s¢¢ k `C,~ ~~, ;~:K gin:: . Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 46 of 90 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: At this point I think that to encapsulate what the majority of the folks out here have spoke to is they are very concerned about the five foot setback. I mean that's been spoken to a number of times and the second one is the fact that this is a duplex development, whether it be for senior citizens or otherwise. I don't think that as a commission we can specifically speak to the dwellings themselves, because it falls within the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance and I think that as this project moves forward, there is opportunity to bring those same objections to Council that we can't specifically look at as finitely as Council could. But I do think that we can speak to the setback, which seems to be the second issue that is of significance. And my position on that would be that it would be more palatable to all if we were to recommend that the Council consider a variance, so that they could move any development an additional five feet off of the property line, so that both this project can move forward and it will take into consideration the issue -- or the wishes of the neighboring property owners. And from my perspective that's the best that we could do from a Commission's perspective. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would say Commissioner Rohm has very well spoken there. I would anticipate that based upon the fact that this does meet the Comprehensive Plan for an in-fill project as such, I, too, have a concern in regards to the five foot setback and I also would be much in favor of requesting that Council review a variance for that to go to a ten foot setback. Beyond that I think the discussions in regards to the cul-de-sac and whatnot have been pretty well talked through, the fact that that was noted to be a stub street and, basically, there was a cul-de-sac mainly because of the fact for fire department access it had to be there for the development to continue forward. So, that's about it. Rohm: I have one final comment. The material that would be used as a fencing between this development and the neighbors, I think the developer mentioned vinyl and I just wanted to make sure that it would be a consistent fencing along the entire property line, as opposed to -- it's going require cooperation between your development and the existing property owners, so that there can be a consistent display between properties and I think that that would be in keeping with the wishes of the neighbors and your development. So, I just throw that out as something that you should be willing and prepared to participate in. I don't have anything else. Zaremba: Okay. Does staff have anything further to add, issues that we have missed, or -- 'i1 7i' ~, .1 K '<'~,` j A ~j ..`r ~' ;fib ,., .- 7~. r w x; ~, :; x ~ F~! •,~. y- ;;t,:~; ;, t.-~; 1 ~~~. :,~;; .J-L ~i ~r ~~Y ~, ~:.~_ ~_ :~; :y.., McAeli~n Pl~nninn R 7nninn Ju~r 21, ZOQS Page 47 of g0 Guenther. I don't believe we have missed any issues. I would ask maybe legal counsel, in order to get the applicant's feel - I don't know if we can either have them agree with the -from the field that they would submit a variance, but I don't think that we can make a variance a condition of approval. It can be a recommendation, but don't believe it can be required. Zaremba: My question to that -and maybe it should be to legal counsel. ~ Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission - Zaremba: If we were to recommend to move this forward, I would withdraw my recommendation without the ten feet. So, it isn't just an opinion. Baird: Indeed, your recommendation would be that they approve it with ten foot setbacks. Now, the only way to .get there would for the developer to also submit a variance application when they get to Council, they would have both. It's up to the developer or the applicant to decide if they want to move forward in conflict with your recommendation and still seek the five foot, or they could choose to apply for a variance and have them both reach the Council at the same time. So, it's really in their court, but you're certainly welcome to make a recommendation and that way - if that's what you choose. You don't have to specifically require a variance, but the only way for them to get there to meet what you're recommending would be to request a variance. Does that make sense? Did I bring you full circle? Zaremba: I guess the other question I would have of staff would be among the many options that are still available would be to require that this really do come as a planned development and meet the other requirements of the planned development. Guenther. That's where you can't require that, because they meet -they meet the minimum standards of the R-8 district. What you could do is deny it based on you don't like the five foot setback - or the side-yard setbacks to a rear setback and if they so chose to come back again in the future with a planned development to address that concern, that would be up to the applicant, but you can't require them to do a planned development. Zaremba: Okay. One of the feelings that I have about this is -and appreciate all the testimony that has been given and I agree with much of it. There is not exactly the same, but a fairly similar project -this was one of the first projects that came through the Commission when I was on it, Berkeley Square off of Ten Mile near Pine, that strikes me as being a fairly similar project, that, actually, is turning out to enhance the neighborhood. You might not have expected that, but as I drive by it it appears to be nice. Again, it's new, so it's hard to know how the upkeep is going to go for a long time, but my sense of it is that -that I'm not sure the neighbors need to be as scared of this as they seem to be. It has worked out nicely other places. Our obligation is to make a recommendation whether it meets the legal criteria or not and it appears that they have IUnririi~n Plnnninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 48 of 90 worked out the things that wouldn't, but the one issue would be the ten foot setback and I certainly think needs to be a requirement however that happens. That's my opinion. Rohm: Where in the staff report does it speak to the five-foot setback? Can you direct me to that? It may not even be in there, it might just be citing ordinance and, then, if that's the case it wouldn't be specific to the -- Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, on page 11, under the findings for preliminary plat analysis, I did present that to the Commission that the proposed design shows, really, R-4 existing development bordering the side yard of the proposed development, which creates only the minimum of 20 feet total separation building to building, which would normally be 30 feet. I did not make a recommendation on that. There is no condition of approval that says that they -- that this is over and above what's required, it's just the minimum standard as they are bound by the ordinance. There is nothing that we went over and above on that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Are you starting to anticipate doing a motion? Rohm: Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to figure out -- Moe: Well, on page 15 you just end up doing an additional bullet point to 22. Zaremba: Are we ready to close the public hearing? Baird: Mr. Chair, before you do that, in your conversation I believe you may have been wanting to seek some input from the applicant on how they might wish to proceed in light of the comments that you have made. I think they have indicated a willingness to give you some idea on what option they might want to pursue. That might help you in determining what your motion might be. Zaremba: Okay. For the sole purpose of asking a question, we would care to have Mrs. Williams back again, please. Williams: Thank you. Appreciate that. One thing that I did want to state is that we have submitted to staff probably somewhere between eight and 15 different plans for this site and because it's narrow and the required streets that were -- we have been asked to put in, we have tried to come up with something that's financially feasible to do and it's not because we are money hungry trying to cram as much as we can in. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, we have already taken testimony. Zaremba: Yeah. I need you to just address the ten-foot issue, how you would like to see that handled. ~. ~;;;. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 49 of 90 Williams: Before we would submit a request for a variance, I would want to know from the homeowners if that would satisfy their concerns on the five foot setback, if it was moved to ten, would they be happy with that or if we submitted a variance for ten and they still weren't happy, I don't know that we would be solving much. So, I would want to know that up front. I don't know if we can take a vote tonight or get a sense for what their feeling is on that. Zaremba: I was looking around to see if -- I lost my list. Was it Mr. Welsh who spoke first? Seemed to be in tune with a lot of people. Rohm: And he -- Zaremba: He had to leave. Okay. He's not here. Is there anybody who would care to be brave enough to be a spokesman for their neighbors? Moe: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to take somewhat of a five minute recess and that they could congregate and make that decision and, then, come right back in? Zaremba: I think that's an excellent idea. I would make it aten-minute recess. I believe we will do that and reconvene in about ten minutes. (Recess.) Zaremba: Okay. Let's reconvene this session and let the record show that all the Commissioners that were present before are again present. We left a question hanging, whether there was somebody who would step forward as a spokesman for the neighbors. Would you, please, come forward, please? Stover: Again, my name is Eric Stover and I live at 1872 East Dworshak. I live on the Sherbrooke Hollows side, speaking to the people that are left here from Inglenook. We gathered some petitions you have of 75 signatures over atwo-day period. I don't think we can answer to those people, because what we spoke to the neighborhood on both sides about was the plan was presented to us and they all said no on the petition that we gave you. So, for us to change that in the middle and, then, make a decision for them, I don't think I can answer to that, because I don't think at this time we can agree to accept the amendment based on the few people that are left here and we came here to speak for them. So, I don't have -- I don't feel we can answer to that. I appreciate the Commission considering the change and I'd like an opportunity to go back to the neighbors and see if that would be acceptable to be them. Zaremba: The petition that you mentioned was very general. It just states that they are in opposition to the design and the rezoning. It -- sometimes it's helpful if there are more points to it. It helps us to say what specifically are the sticking points, in which case you might feel more comfortable modifying one of them or not modifying one of them, but -- s~, -;. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 50 of 90 Stover: And the two major issues that come up are the setback issue and, then, the density of the -- the type of homes they are putting in there and that's something we could clarify with the homeowners to make it more clear for you for what the decision would be from the homeowners. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Rohm: Kind of in a spot. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Were we going to hear from the applicant again on this? Zaremba: I would be willing to do that, yes. Mrs. Williams. Williams: Thank you. Zaremba: I guess the question is still hanging. Would you apply for the variance? Williams: If the homeowners -- if this would settle the issue that the homeowners have with the setback, yes, I would. But I would like to point out that the people that signed the petition, thank you, there is only 11 people that signed the petition that back up to this subdivision -- the proposed subdivision. Zaremba: Would there be any value to you in continuing this or would you -- Williams: In continuing -- I'm sorry. Rohm: Continuing the hearing. Zaremba: If we continued the hearing to what would probably be August 18th and have another neighborhood meeting, would there be any value to that? Williams: Well, there is no value in delaying my project and I know that there has been a lot of comments said that they would do anything they could to delay the project. So, I would -- I am willing to work with the neighbors, I value their opinion and I value their concerns and we have proposed a pretty good compromise here. Rohm: I think there has been some enlightenment tonight in this open forum that possibly your neighbors maybe were not aware of before tonight's meeting, in that the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance, which is what we make our decisions based upon, doesn't support denial based upon the fact that you're proposing duplexes, whether they are retirement duplexes or otherwise. Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan doesn't speak to that, so -- and I think that that might have been one of the things that was of greatest concern to the public. The second issue which we can address is the setback and we, as a Commission, try very hard to listen to both sides of any and all issues and b~: . ~: ~,r ,. :~,: ~, r;. J; ,:,~- ,; w ,~ ''= .'i,h~~ 1;; .-' ~„ k. , «;,~~ 4/~~ ~4 i~' ~~1 `~° ,:~a-~< F Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 51 of 90 for those things that we can find resolve, it is in everybody's best interest to get that taken care of before this board. For those things that are lingering that cannot be responded to via citing a specific ordinance, that's why, once our recommendation moves forward to City Council, City Council has a little bit more leeway to act more definitively based upon the specifics of a development than what we do. And so what my recommendation at this point would be is that we continue this to the 18th and you folks decide whether or not you can lived with a -- on both sides live with a request for a variance to get an additional setback which would offer up some benefit to your neighbors, while at the same time allowing you to develop the project as you visualize it and gives both of you room to move forward and that's -- I would say -- because we don't -- I don't think feel comfortable making a decision for everybody else when it's your lives that are directly affected. Williams: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I don't feel comfortable submitting a request for a variance if it's not going to make the homeowners happy. Rohm: And like I said, I think that everybody is more enlightened now that they see the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance supports the development and, really, the best thing for everybody is to find something that -- a common ground and so -- Williams: Yes. I agree. Rohm: -- that's my position. Moe: Well, I couldn't have said it any better. Zaremba: Would you care to express a motion? Rohm: Yes. I will do that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 18th, 2005. Canning: Chairman? Does the maker of the motion want to limit that testimony just to the ten-foot setback issue? Rohm: I think that's an excellent idea. Baird: Do you want to put any restrictions on who you would hear from and how long that testimony would be? I mean do you want -- what I'm getting at is do you want to limit it to a representative -- Zaremba: I would suggest and will discuss this in the discussion of the motion, that a representative of the applicant, which will -- can be either Mr. Harris or Mrs. Williams, <. .<, , ~: r, ~~ ~~= ::.,°:. ~!{ ; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 52 of 90 and I would be willing to hear one representative from each of the two subdivisions that border it and that would be my proposal and limited specifically to the ten foot setback issue. The other issues, frankly, comply with the law. Rohm: And that may be added to my motion. End of motion. Moe: Then I'll second that. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.74 acres to a R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 9 single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 2.74 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision by The Enclave, LLC - 2620 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. Thank you for bearing with us. We are now ready to open the hearing -- public hearings for AZ 05-031 and PP 05-031. Both relating to the Enclave Subdivision, 2620 South Locust Grove Road, essentially one property the other side of the area we have just been talking about. And we will begin with the staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an annexation and zoning hearing for an R-4 zone, 2620 South Locust Grove Road, immediately north of Inglenook Subdivision. The subject property has one single-family residential house that is existing and will remain in this location. As you can see from the aerial photo, they take direct access from Locust Grove Road through an easement. This is a dirt road that is entirely substandard for any type of public access and one of the staffs conditions of approval is that they -- this house take access through the new public road system, as well as this -- this street may remain as a secondary access for emergency access only. With that, the subdivision is a hammerhead type of a subdivision. A hammerhead is an approved turnaround by the Meridian public fire department. The fire department required an additional 24 foot wide, so they can get in there and backup appropriately. ACHD's only request -- they are recommending the 36 feet. The applicant has included another -- I believe a total of -- I think it's 72 feet for that turnaround. Staff is recommending that one of the conditions of approval be modified, which would be -- of course I had it marked and now I lost it. Under the site specific conditions of approval for the preliminary plat, page 12, that the last sentence of condition number two read: The common drive shall have a minimum of 24 feet of improved surface and shall be designed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk in such a manner as to be consistent with the public road section. t tr,;: rkx,. ,'CC.;; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 53 of 90 Rohm: I can't write the fast. Guenther: I'll slow down. Zaremba: You're just adding curb, gutter, and sidewalk; right? Guenther: Essentially, the character of this public street here, the intent is to make the common drives appear that there is no -- that there is no difference between the public street and the common drives. So, the curb, gutter, and sidewalk is going to continue down the common drive and so the common drives will actually have their own sidewalks on them as well and instead of having the rolled curb and, then, have four different accesses taken off of that, the applicant has indicated that they will just continue the curb down and create one large road section, instead of having a public road section that is completely different from the common drives, because this is not a private street area and all of these properties will address off of Inglenook Avenue anyhow. So, in order to facilitate a better looking road system, that's what staff has recommended for a condition of approval and the applicant has indicated they are in compliance with that condition as well. With that being said, this design is designed for the fact that there is four houses that can be accessed per common drive. This is in compliance with the ordinance and only four homes can be accessed from one common drive, which limits the number of homes that can actually be placed on this property. As you saw in the other one, they had four homes, but they made the lots smaller. They are not even eligible to do that with this subdivision, so this design is pretty much the limitation they are bound to by ACHD's conditions of approval. Currently they are proposing to create a large common lot for the Nine Mile Drain, since -- and also since this property is less than five acres, they are not required to produce the open space for any type of road system and such. Anything under five acres is pretty much allowed to get away with the landscaping and such in order to facilitate smaller parcels to be redeveloped. With that, staff has had discussion with the applicant and the Inglenook Subdivision does have that pathway that attaches to the rear portion of this lot and it was staffs recommendation that a ten foot easement or common lot be placed along the Nine Mile Drain in order attach to the drainage -- it's a drainage open lot immediately north of this subdivision. As you can see in the aerial photo, these two lots -- there is a lot for the Nine Mile Drain and, then, this open space lot, which also connects through to the open space lot and Inglenook, which would connect through to the Windwalker Subdivision and through to the accessing of Sherbrooke Hollows. And staff feels that this would be a good way to create pedestrian traffic through these multiple subdivisions without having to actually access a public road system. Zaremba: I may have misunderstood earlier. On the Windwalker Subdivision there was no pathway; right? Guenther: On the Windwalker Subdivision they are proposing just the common lot there, but their lot line actually came right to the corner of this common lot here and that's why staff made the recommendation that they move that lot over five feet and ~j :'..r, ;1, ~,~ . 4,t ;}'y S..' ;:~-;. -s; ~~ `%;. ~;,; .t :;~~~. ~'f. t ~_: '.4 ~9 ' ~ ~ i~'".y Meridian Planninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 54 of 90 create that connection through to the common lot, which, again, connects through to the other proposed common lot, which also connects to another common lot and so there is, essentially, four subdivisions that would be affected there, providing a contiguous nature of a pathway on the west side of the Nine Mile Drain. Zaremba: All right. Well -- and the reason I brought it up, because during the Inglenook discussion when that came before us, when we asked them for the pathway along the drain there, they said what if it doesn't go anywhere. So, apparently, we are making it go someplace both directions. Guenther: That is the intent. Zaremba: Okay. All right. We will have public testimony in a bit and we will get to you. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Were you finished? I interrupted you. Guenther: I was just going to round out with staff is recommending approval of this subdivision with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report. Zaremba: Okay. One question -- let's see. Let me see what was displayed before this. Might have been a plat. That. Yes. I can see the four building lots with access to this end of the private drive. It looks like five on this end, though. Is the access to the west going to be lost? Is that going to be closed off and do we, then, have five lots? Guenther: No, sir. This lot here has appropriate signage off of Inglenook Avenue, which is a public street. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. So, Lot 1 doesn't count? Guenther: Lot 1 would not count. Or, actually, not Lot 1, Lot 5 doesn't count, because it has over 40 feet road frontage in here and I guess Lot 6 also qualifies in there, too. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: Two of the nine. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. We are ready for the applicant. Kevin Harris: Kevin Harris. Business address 1800 West Overland Road in Boise, representing the applicant on Enclave, LLC. We agree with your conditions set upon us by your staff. This subdivision was a lot easier than the last one. It matches the R-4 everywhere around. We have got nice lots. We will put the pathway through to connect the common lots. And the applicant has provided some elevations of the houses they are proposing, if you'd like to see them. ~ Zaremba: To the clerk first. Thank you. ~~;. ;r ~., ~: ,,_ .;~.. ~_. ,:;? F,S~. ...ci .: ~;, . ;~~f. ^'~,~- .~~:, .'r:, ~''_:r: . Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 55 of 90 Harris: On the common drive issue, the reason we are showing it as the 65 foot from radius point to radius point is that's what ACHD told us we had to do. So, we showed it the way ACHD wanted us to show it and we are planning on extending the curb and gutter and sidewalk out to the end of the common drives. With that, I'll have any questions if you have of me. Zaremba: Is that a rendering that needs to be changed before it gets to the City Council or is it okay like this? Guenther: No. This is the public road section here. As long as there is curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Inglenook Avenue, ACHD would accept that road. Zaremba: But it looks like the curb, gutter, and sidewalk cut off the driveways. Guenther: It looks that way. However, they would still be able to do a rolled curb here, but that's not what we are recommending. We are recommending that they put the rolled curb as far out as possible in order to allow these other lots to have a better driveway, essentially, in there. Zaremba: Well -- and I'm agreeing that's a good idea, but do we need to have the drawing depict it that way? Guenther: We cannot, because this drawing -- these preliminary plats -- this is the road right of way that's going to be dedicated to ACHD and these common drives are not. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Cleared that up. I'm sorry. I probably interrupted you as well. Harris: Oh, no, I was just here for any questions if you had any forme. Zaremba: Commissioners? Okay. Thank you. We do have people signed up. Jim Welsh. I believe I was told that he already went. Oh, that was John Welsh that left. Yeah. Jim Welsh, please. J.Welsh: My name is Jim Welsh and I live at 1734 East Fireside Court and we had the neighborhood meeting. I'm not here to speak for everyone in the neighborhood, but I will say it was a very pleasant meeting. We had a very pleasant experience speaking with the ladies from the developers. They presented some -- what we felt to be -- were very reasonable and responsible plans for development, things that were going to enhance the neighborhood, add value to the property, and we felt that it was going to be a very positive neighbor association. We feel very very good about this. There may be others from the community that would like to speak as well. I just wanted to add my two cents in that. From my family's standpoint -- and I know for my son as well, who will be backed up to this neighborhood -- we fully support this particular development without reservation. In fact, we have encouraged them to become part of our neighborhood ?~~ ~ . °~~ .,. A~:_: > =i5, .. .`.? Marirlian Planninn R 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 56 of 90 association. We just felt that the common ground was so strong there that we have already established a bond, so we are working toward that end. Zaremba: Thank you. And the next name is Jonathan Welsh, who is the person who has escaped. Okay. Robert Wehr. Okay. And let me comment Jonathan Welsh had an X marked in the for column and Robert Wehr has now said that he has been spoken for. Patty Kiddo. And Brad Kiddo. I believe they have left, but they are also marked in the for column. Cassandra Dixon. She's not here anymore? Okay. She has departed. She's also marked in the for column. Those are all the people that signed up. If anybody else would care to add anything. Come right ahead, sir. Please state your name and address. Jennings: Virgil Jennings. 2640 South Locust Grove Road. I own the property that has the easement on the road. I didn't know that was going to be a concern until I got here. What does emergency road -- I think the road should be abandoned back to me. The easement's only for one house, not for all of them. So, I'm concerned about what's going to happen if that's an emergency road left open, how many people are going to access that up and down my road? Zaremba: Okay. We will ask staff that. Typically what happens is there are bollards put there and the fire department has a key to them, that if it's a dirt road now it would probably stay -- well, it would have to be graveled to support a fire truck, but it would not be available for normal automobile passage. It would be locked in some way that the fire department could -- Jennings: Well, if that's the case, I'm not opposed. Zaremba: Okay. Let me confirm that with staff. Guenther: I'd have to review the fire department's conditions of approval. Currently, our staff report from my office says that it just needs to be signed as emergency vehicles only, because of the connection between the common drive and, then, the existing access here, we can't -- it's an off-site improvement to require them to abandon that easement. The easement doesn't go away from the platting. The access is for one home only, which, as far as this one is the only home that would take any type of frontage on that easement would be the existing home, which the only -- the way that we could address this would be to make sure that it is signed appropriately and complies with the fire and emergency access -- the emergency access requirements of the fire department. Zaremba: Could that include bollards that were actually on the current property? ~„ ~:~.;, Guenther: That is -- that is -- yes, it can include bollards, but I would have to make sure that it was okay with the fire department and one of their conditions of approval. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Anybody else care to add anything? Come right up, sir. ~::_. ~F,: .; ,' i3' i :'~`~ .< ~; :_~ ~. .t.. ,,,r~ ~v- ,.i~ ,_~ ~~ a~; ~~ : « ~ _ ~ , f ~'Srl'. " ~ ~ .; s :' ~~ ~_ <. *:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 57 of 90 Shipley: John Shipley. 2770 South Locust Grove. I'm the land that was proposed for Windwalker and the best of my recollection; the sidewalk in the back of Inglenook runs along the Nine Mile there. And it was proposed that the back of all those properties to be an interconnective thing. The ditch company's locked all those gates up. It makes no sense to build a sidewalk on any of that property. And, as a matter of fact, the Inglenook subdivision has a fence in front of the sidewalk so nobody can get on the sidewalk. And, then, that sidewalk was made out of asphalt and it's just got willows growing through it and it's just a -- going to be a terrible thing and I used to access the back of my field and my fence line through Sherbrooke Hollow, because there was a gate there and they put a padlock on it. Some little kid got lost in the bottom of that ditch and the ditch company don't want anybody in that ditch, so it makes no sense to be an interconnective sidewalk between this one you're talking about now or the back of mine either, because they have abandoned it, the one that they got by putting a fence in front of it and it just don't make any sense to me. Unless you go out and look at it, you won't figure it out. But that Nine Mile Drain is -- you know, I can crawl out of it if I take a good angle, but some little kid in Sherbrooke Hollow wasn't being watched and they didn't know where he went and when they finally found him why the ditch company locked that and, you know, makes no sense to keep doing that, you know. So, I don't know what -- about designs or anything, but if it's a sidewalk going to nowhere, because everything is locked up, what's the deal, you know? Are you going to fight the ditch company for interconnectivity? But every gate on that Nine Mile Drain has a sign on it from the ditch company no trespassing and -- you know. Zaremba: Thank you. In other locations where the city has tried to put pathways along Nampa-Meridian, we have had to get licenses or something like that with Nampa-Meridian. Perhaps this didn't happen here. Guenther: Well, currently, as everything is situated, there is so many pockets in there that there is no connection and Mr. Shipley is correct. However, if Windwalker develops -- there is a fence here, there is a fence along the irrigation ditch there. Once that fence is all the way connected through, there is no way to access the irrigation ditch, which is the standard way that we actually would create a pathway along a ditch and the fencing requirements of our ordinance would still apply. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Let's see. I think I already said that's everybody that has signed up. Anybody else care to comment? If -- any questions or shall we have the applicant back again? Moe: I think that would work. Zaremba: Okay. Your wrap up, please. Harris: The only comment, I guess, was the emergency access to Locust Grove through the easement. In the ACHD staff report, they actually put in there to work with ij'Y: ~~ ;: r;-'= ~.. i, ~X~: ~,, ~~. .~t, :y~f. 'i Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 58 of 90 Meridian fire department to put up either a gate or parking bollards, so that is a condition of ACHD. So, that will not be accessed from that existing house either. Zaremba: Okay. Only in case of an emergency. Harris: Only in case of emergency. Correct. Zaremba: And the fire department decides if it's an emergency. Harris: Yes. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Not every kid with a fast car decides it's an emergency. Harris: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Harris: Other than that, that's all you will hear from me. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-031 and PP 05-031. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question of staff. Joe, in regards to the site-specific number two, would you read one more time what you would anticipate putting in the curb, gutter, and sidewalk? I wanted to make sure the common drives shall have -- is the 24 foot minimum still -- Guenther: Yes. If you go -- Moe: And, then, just after surface you want to put: And shall include curb, gutter, and sidewalk? Guenther: And shall be designed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk -- ~~':: .. <, >~. a ~'~;a ..:~ L'~k''( .~' ~:r,' ~ ~' a, ~,, rig. ~' ~} `L' -, f.~;.~ ,. ~:, ;~r" ~;~,~ ;~°;U°~, ,r,- ~;,~}~;, ..,f: ,_j ,_~.,:; M t.,,. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 59 of 90 Moe: Wait a minute. Okay. As to be -- in such a manner as to be consistent with the public road section. Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21st, 2005, received by the city clerk's office July 15th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21st, 2005, received by the city clerk's office July 15th, 2005, with one change. Under site specific conditions of approval on page 12 of the report, item number two, in the last sentence I'd like to change that to be the common drive shall have a minimum of 24 foot of improvement surface and shall be designed with curb, gutter and sidewalk to be consistent with the road system. Period. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. F ~y s .:=~~^, ~~. ~~,` S 5'. ,... Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Carrie Jewett -1560 Carol Street: Zaremba: Thank very much. And now I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-032, request for annexation and zoning for the West Carol Street Professional Center by James and Kerry Jewett at 1560 Carol Street. And we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of East Carol Street and North Locust Grove Road, just north of Fairview Avenue. The property is designated for low density residential uses on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. However, the applicant is not proposing residential zoning for this site. As you know, the city recently approved Resolution 04- °~ t. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 60 of 90 454, which allows residentially zoned property and depicted properties on the future land use map to apply for office zoning if they meet two criteria, one being they have frontage on an arterial road, the second being they are less than three acres in size, which both of those criteria are met with this property. Currently, the site is zoned R-6 in Ada County and contains a single family home and a large shop, which on the west side, so the shop's on the west side, very near the property line here and the existing home. To the north and west are single-family homes, also within the same subdivision, platted within the same subdivision as the subject lot. To the south is a commercial pharmacy. They have adrive-thru window on this side of the building. On the east is the Fred Meyer and some other commercial businesses, a restaurant and some other commercially zones C-G properties. The applicant has submitted a site plan and landscape plan showing how he anticipates this site to redevelop with the office building, parking, and landscaping. The applicant has depicted one new access to Carol Street. No access to Locust Grove is being proposed. This applicant is going to remodel the existing home. The foot plan of the existing home is generally this number with a back patio and this is the scope of the addition for that expansion and the shop as well. I just would point out that they are proposing -- currently the shop is accessed from the south, there is a large door here, they are proposing to flip the access to the east and provide two parking stalls within the shop today and use the rest of the shop for storage. The approximate square footage of the remodeled building is about 4,000 square feet. I did want to touch on a couple of things regarding this application. The applicant did request alternative compliance for the required landscape buffers along the western and northern property lines. City code does require a 20-foot wide landscape buffer between office and single-family homes. The existing shop is only about five feet to the property line and is proposing, again, proposing to retain that shop. Excuse me. The setback from the rear of that building is about 14 feet to the property line. The scope of work for some of the new improvements, the new parking area, the new building, encroached ten feet into that 20 foot, so there is a ten foot wide buffer now. The landscape materials are very thick through here and you can't really plant them anymore dense in that ten-foot buffer. In addition to that, the applicant is proposing to construct asix-foot tall vinyl privacy fence along both of those property lines to limit the amount of noise and any other intrusions that may go across the property line. Staff is recommending that the existing shop be allowed to stay, including the encroachments into the -- what would otherwise require 20-foot wide buffer, including the two parking stalls that are proposed there go down to ten feet. The proposed new additions to the north should comply with the 20-foot wide buffer as stated. Just a further note on that property to the north. That property is also in the same situation that the subject property is in. It also has frontage on an arterial street and is also less than three acres in size. Maybe not tomorrow, but I could see that property applying for a similar zone and developing as a similar use. So, I don't know if that property owner is here today, but if this does zone -- get zoned L-O, of course, this landscape buffer could be reduced down to nothing or five feet or -- and when it converts it could also be reduced. So, as it is today, though, a 20-foot buffer would be required. The same for discussion, too. It was not in the staff report and I apologize for not discussing it earlier in the staff report, something I would just have to point out. If you look at these other four parcels, these Office Jet Subdivision that was recently ,~^ ~; ~.,~ r ,:: ~: Sk ~~Y~i -~:. h: y ~3 ti~ ,;;; ~=. t. ;,:, ~t ~~t ~~~ ~. . ~r: ~~ w- ~_:_ ;_~, 1 7~ ~r~ ' f<, ,<.~ ,r ~n .q'. 7 Y.~is; . ~`~'.~=' ;.~> _, ~~~~: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 61 of 90 approved with office zoning, under construction. I think some of the buildings were even occupied maybe even. But access to these parcels here, again, because they only have access to the arterial street, staff is recommending they at least discuss providing cross-access to that property to the north and they could extend that in the future if and when it develops with an L-O and it gets extended on down the line and, then, eventually maybe one access comes out to Locust Grove Road providing an alterior way to get into and out of, rather than using East Carol Street. The final thing I just would like to make mention of is we did receive quite a few letters on this project. A lot of them had to do with traffic and I did just want to note -- to further note it is quite difficult, there are a lot of obstacles and things to kind of look out for when you are exiting the subdivision. I entered the subdivision coming from the north, so it was easy to enter the subdivision, so I haven't tried to -- but turning out of this subdivision is quite difficult. There is five lanes here and four lanes on Locust Grove Road north of Carol Street and you have to really creep out into the road to see if there is any oncoming traffic before you make your turning movement. At the same time you have to look across, because Fred -- this is a Fred Meyer access that gets some good traffic as well and Walgreen's has one here. I didn't see much conflict with this Walgreen's access, but there were several cars entering and exiting Walgreen's and I also heard -- not the time of day I was there, but I have seen traffic stack up waiting to turn onto Fairview Avenue, traffic stack up just waiting for the light to tum back into this intersection. So, understanding that there are some traffic concerns, staff does not believe that this will be such a use that will just make it unbearable -- it will, obviously, add to the traffic situation out there. An office will generate more traffic than a single family home does, but the intensity of the use proposed should not have a significant impact on the existing traffic. The hours of operation, uses permitted, and access are standard for the other developments that we have looked at this way and similar to these other ones, staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning request, with the conditions for the development agreement as stated in the report. And I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: Yeah. Craig, Iguess Iwould -- you spoke about the cross-access agreement and at the same point we are speaking that we already have a traffic problem here. All we are going to do is create more traffic if we are giving cross-access into the other one as well, but you don't -- you don't anticipate we will be able to take any access to those other lots off Locust Grove? Hood: The idea requiring this applicant to stub their driveway to the property and, then, to extend it so that the access on Locust Grove that this home currently has can some day go away and eventually three or four of those tie together and you have one confined -- or combined access to Locust Grove Road somewhere in the middle of those and some of the traffic maybe could even use that as another way to get out to Locust Grove Road if need be. I envision that everyone from the north will filter down to get to Carol Street to get out. You may get that as a movement for some of the cars. ,fi ~r ,. .: ~,: i';'°~% sF `f `' , M ridi Pl e an anning & Zoning i ' July 21, 2005 ' ~~ Page 62 of 90 Moe: The project to the north, the other complex that's there, is there across-access going to the south from there? ,a Hood: I looked that up this afternoon and they did not provide one to the south, so you s;Y> will not get the connection all the way to Office Jet with that frontage type road here, because they just did their -- I'm shaking right now -- they just did their driveway and it _ =,,~ stops short. Kind of what the applicant is proposing here, it stops just short of that south property line. So, we did not require that there. So, that is something to give consideration. You're not going to get the full road all the way extended. So, again, just ~~~ ~_~` for discussion purposes I thought I better bring that up, so -- ~~~ R Moe: Thank you. 7:Yy ~ Zaremba: I can see some logic to -- if they could all interconnect, to having it align with ~ ~'~~` -- it's called Avest, but I'm not sure what it's called there, but the street that goes around ~> behind Fred Meyer. I did have a couple of questions. One is -- well --and just gleaning through some of the letters here, somebody mentions Doris Subdivision, which I see indicated. Is this property currently part of Doris Subdivision? S' Hood: It is. I'm not sure what the lot and block number is, but is it part of the - _ subdivision. : - ,~~. ,~tr Zaremba: Okay. ~` ~,; Hood: It was recorded as a lot and block in that subdivision. - ~ ~ ~ Zaremba: That's what I wanted to know. Then, the second question is just kind of an ,µ off-the-wall one, I guess. Normally Meridian Road is the divider between streets that _~ , are named east and west. I would have expected Carol to be East Carol, as opposed to ~~ ,7~~ West Carol. Is there an explanation? Hood: The way it's -- and I don't know why it was done this way. This is East Carol ~~~;~ Street to here and, then, this is West Carol Street -- this is West Carol Street? That's how it's platted anyways. Zaremba: We will save that and ask somebody -- when we get to public testimony I'll ' ~ ask somebody that lives there. So, anyhow, it really is West Carol Street, even though '- ~ -` ~ ` ' it's east of Meridian. All right. Never mind. We will get to that later. Commissioners, any other questions? Moe: Nothing for location, that's for sure. -r,~ Zaremba: All right. Then, I guess we are ready for the applicant. ;-:,:z , ~` ~ .~-~ Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett. My address is 516 South Capital in Boise Idaho. Get , , my history out how I have gotten to this point on this property. About a ear a o we Y 9 r?+ .:~,:, ~ ~? F..~ .~~.vr ~ ~; } . pN'. _4 l;H~± ~; <:~ a ~~} '~_ ,~^ a*.i :,:, .L h '~`~~.: ;:~7~ E :~k`=~+ 'ti:1- ~::° ~~ "~~~= ,, z., >:;- ;; ~.:~~; `~:-:. ~~ r-~ ~. i ~i ~~~~,'+ {~;_ a <t~: _ Y'. ~r~~. -'" p~.Tr':. ;; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 63 of 90 tried looking for an office to relocate our business from -- at that time we were in Eagle, into Meridian, because that's where I live, and where we do a lot of our business. I do real estate development and real estate marketing. Sales. So, we started looking at Office Jet when it got platted and the developer there was moving kind of slow and we wanted to be in by Christmas of last year and he wasn't moving fast enough, so we looked at this property during the winter and didn't know if it would work out and tried to do some other things and finally came back to it once the city adopted that Comp Plan amendment that would allow these L-O zonings in the residential areas. So, then, we negotiated with the seller and decided to go forward. This was an ideal location for us, because of all the retail, the restaurants and everything that was around it. Our office downtown in Boise right now is very close and we walk to most of the restaurants to have lunch and so we like that here. We can walk to the stores and walk to restaurants for lunch, instead of having to drive all the time. With gas prices the way they are, I don't want to drive as much as I do. So, we looked at this, this was adequate with the ordinance -- or the Comp Plan amendment, so we went forward, not really realizing how much some of the neighbors were going to dislike what we were doing and we will hear some of that and I'll try to address that after they comment. I'll just touch on some of the issues of staff. I'm in agreement with the staff report, with the caveat that we did ask for the alternative compliance along the north and that was really -- if we don't get it down to ten feet, the amount that we are allowed to expand becomes very limited, because we can't expand this way, it doesn't make sense for us to expand this way, and we can't expand that way. So, if we lose ten feet, our expansion goes about like this. So, it really is minimized how much we can do and, then, we either have to look at going up or just going smaller. Or one of the options I talked to staff about is just waiting for something to change at the north and doing our expansion then, which might be one of the options we look at. But with staff commenting that cross-access easement might be appropriate, we certainly would agree that that would be appropriate. We have acknowledged that that is future, then, the alternative compliance becomes more of a real reason to look at it more seriously now, because we are saying across-access is good enough to go north, why can't we get an alternative compliance to move our building a little closer north, acknowledging that it's going to move that way. Traffic. We could start now and not finish for a long time on traffic all over town. We have only a few employees that come in first in the morning and leave right at 5:00 o'clock. Most of our traffic that we would come -- all throughout the course of the day with delivery people and runners and stuff like that, this isn't -- you know, that's afull-time staff that's there that comes first thing in the morning and leaves the last thing at night. It's limited. So, I do agree this would have more traffic than a residential home, but I don't think the traffic impact that we are necessarily going to bring would be that significant to what the entire development in north Meridian brings down with this, so our little impact would be minimal for that. And I would acknowledge that alert-hand turn at 8:00 o'clock might be a little bit difficult. Me, personally, would probably make aright-hand tum, go up to Fairview, and go down to Meridian Road and head north of town, if that's the direction I chose to go. This is -- and if you could go to the map which shows the -- all the properties. Thank you. Doris sub. Doris sub was this down to right here. Everything that was inside of that is part of the original Doris sub. Walgreen's, Idaho Athletic Club, these other little two businesses here, and Office Jet were all part of the original Doris ~~.., Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 64 of 90 sub. So, in the course of time -- Doris sub was originally platted in 1959, through the course they have had changes to the CC&Rs that have allowed these commercial uses to go on and if you go to the aerial map, I think if you look at this -- I guess this is the biggest that I can show is -- you see Fred Meyer, you see Walgreen's, you see a little commercial, Idaho Athletic Center is right here. You see the Key Bank here. McDonald's here. They have the TCBY. I think there is a Take and Bake store here. Across the street a video store. A Winger's over here. And it goes on and on and on. You see all the retail there. Obviously, anything along this corridor is naturally going to flow towards some sort of professional office and it would, actually, offer a greater buffer for that residential that wants to remain. Unfortunately, the Doris sub only has one access. It was designed that way. It was limited that way. I don't know with any of the development over here if there is a potential that there will be another access to Fairview for the Doris sub. Possible, but right now it is what's limited there. So, I believe that this is -- I know this is a good use and a good place for us. I think we would be a good friendly neighbor. You know, we would operate a real estate and development business there. We would use the shop for storages of some signs, you know, marketing signs, real estate signs, some of our small equipment. If we were to renovate the house -- and I don't know if you have a picture of the renovation that we were planning. I do have one that you can put on your overhead, if you can do that. Hood: I can get one. Jewett: Okay. We were planning a pretty extensive remodel to the existing home and when we are done it will have vertical walls, with some awnings, all stucco, not to look anything like the house. So, we were going to keep the existing home and just take the existing composition shingles off and put these -- a metal -- colored metal roof in place of it and, then, use some vertical flat walls and this will all be stucco. And, then, these will be a metal awning that would probably be painted the color to match the roof. So, we are using the same footprint. That's the front of the house facing Carol. So, we are going to use the exact perimeter, we were just going to go in there and make some drastic changes on the ends and the colors to create something that would look professional and would fit in with the other retail businesses along Locust Grove. I don't know who made the mistake of putting west in there for us. I saw that in the letter. It was a mistake on our part and we certainly will correct that, if it's not west. I know that a lot of neighbors have some questions, so I will try to take as good of notes as I can to answer them, but I would answer any questions that the Commission may have right now. Zaremba: Commissioners? I would discuss one and that's probably the visibility coming out. Can we go back to either a site plan or -- Jewett: I did -- and I had that written down and I did forget the visibility coming out. Zaremba: I just -- I'm not sure. I have made the tum out of Fred Meyer several times and I, actually, don't like it. I now prefer to go up here if I need to leave Fred Meyers, but -- so, I understand the difficulty of this intersection just the way it sits. But what I ~~,;, yv~. ±~, ~- >r s:`~,~, ~. y '~ dry ._w, r ;.,4;;,. ~~, ~: 'tk ~ 'A ~-w ,~, ",;~;;` `-:{~,- s, AA.~.i.-linn ~Innnin.. p. 7nninn July 21, 2005 Page 65 of 90 don't remember is -- there may be some bushes that you could -- I know we are asking for landscaping, but now I'm suggesting that you remove some. Jewett: Actually, our original landscape plan -- there is a row of -- a row of Arborvitae that was actually requested by ACRD or required by the previous owner -- or at least current owner when ACRD widened the road to shelter them from the road. And, yes, it is an obstacle. I pulled out and made alert-hand turn the other day and I noticed that I had to creep out into traffic. So, that very afternoon I called the architect to have him remove those and send a new plan down to the staff showing that those Arborvitae to be removed and that there would be low hedges in there or low growing plants. We left the one taller tree, just trimmed it up so you have the site distance. So, there is a problem with creeping out there. I can see on this map, too, you can look at it, because there is five lanes here the sidewalk doesn't exactly line up with this sidewalk. This sidewalk is pushed out a little bit. So, there is a little bit of a -- the road itself makes you want to creep out a little bit to see traffic, but the Arborvitaes do definitely make an issue there and we do on our landscape plan show those being removed. And, actually, not -- yeah. This row here -- those are R's that says remove. We are actually relocating those along here and along here, because they are very healthy, nice Arborvitae and if we can transplant them over, then, we won't have to start with one down here, we can start one that's already seven feet tall. So, these are -- these are planned to be removed and you can see them very clearly there, the Arborvitae, back in here, leaving this existing tree here, leaving it here -- actually, there is a very nice one right here, we were going to relocate it over to here. Again, it wouldn't provide any sight distance, but it would offer a little bit more landscaping. So, yes, that was the plan I had written down that I had forgot about that. I apologize. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We will move on to public testimony and the first name I have is Dennis Ray. Okay. Actually, if you're going to be a spokesman, let me have you start first if you would, please. And we will give you ten minutes. McRoberts: I didn't know I was coming up this soon. Okay. Here we go. Keith McRoberts, 1490 South Carol, which is, actually, what everybody has been calling West Carol tonight, and I live right to the west of the property that we are talking about. Right here is our property. And this is South Carol, West Carol, East Carol, and North Carol. That's what the signs say, anyway. I could be wrong. The first thing we had 24 people sign a petition. Now, that's more than the majority of what it takes for -- in our covenants it says that we have to have more -- the majority to change the covenants. So, really, I can't understand or -- what we are doing here, because it's not up to the city or the zoning, it's up to the homeowners to change that. Maybe you can tell me different. I don't know. Am I right on that? Zaremba: Well, the CC&Rs are -- the enforcement of CC&Rs is not an issue for the city, it's an issue for the property owners, a legal issue. There is an encumbrance on each of your properties that everybody agreed to in your CC&Rs. That's totally separate from what the city uses, which is the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances and we don't get involved in enforcing CC&Rs. Something may be very legal in the city ~, ~:~~:: ;, 3`: _.,r; ~~~.'; ;;':~Q~ -..;;, `:%i; r-'k-~.' ~:. i,'1~k ~~a .,x. :~ ,r,_ -;~. ~:~~ =,, ~.< ~v.: 3... << ~~ -x F, ;~: _~; =,f~ ~~ ~~> ~::. :~: -~. r.~:._ '~_~: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 66 of 90 that isn't agreed to by your CC&Rs, but that's an issue for you to deal with lawyers and stuff among yourselves. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to help you or hurt you. McRoberts: Okay. We will look into that, then. Another problem I'd like to get into, too, is with commercial so close to our residential properties, it seems to hurt the value of our properties when that commercial becomes involved with residential areas and, you know -- but we have already got -- on our street where our property is we have already got commercial in right across the street from us and this just adds onto the side of us, we will have commercial there, and, then, it really hurts the resale of a home to try to sell it as a residence -- to try to sell it to even replace it at the same kind of building, we would have to sell commercial to get to it, so it's just like a domino effect, one building go after another and, then, it all goes to commercial. And I heard him say that they would be good neighbors. We heard that here a few years ago in this very room for from when Walgreen's went in, promises made that were broken. The lights -- we don't -- my wife -- in our house we need to even -- haven't turned on the lights in our bedroom, because we got light from the parking lot across the street. The only time we turn the lights on in the bedroom is when we read -- have to read, our reading lamps. The garbage bin, the dumpster is right pretty close to us, and they are throwing stuff in the dumpster all the time. The drive-up window -- they don't need adrive-up window, because they tell them it will take 15, 20 minutes to fill their order and they are just telling them to come inside and do their shopping and they will have it. So, they don't need the drive-up window, which we hear on our patio anyway. The traffic is another thing. That's our only way in and our only way out of our subdivision. We like it that way, it cuts down on the traffic, but we got also in our CC&Rs to not have commercial, should not impede in our residential roadways. Well, we all went through that just this week when a truck came through and knocked down power lines, telephone lines, and we were out telephone -- some people were without telephone for three days and that was areal -- what can bring existing problems in when you get extra traffic coming in and out. Another point I'd like to make, we all bought our homes in a residential area as a residence in a residential subdivision and we'd all like to keep it that way. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. You mentioned in the letter that you and -- I'm guessing it's your wife -- wrote, which, of course, is in the record, that there were promised changes on Locust Grove that have not been kept. What -- McRoberts: Yeah. Zaremba: What was promised for Locust Grove? McRoberts: When they put in Walgreen's, they promised aright-in, right-out only, and the sign was up for awhile until they widened North Locust Grove and the sign's gone altogether. There now is a stop sign. And that didn't really stop it, right-in, right-out, the sign didn't stop the traffic. Zaremba: That's the Walgreen's Driveway you're talking about? ~= 'r bF`~ - f :~: t~Cla <1?fr: ~~, ,T ~~ ;:,~ ~; ~~ ~,, .~~:;`! ,,}: L_ ~~_ F;~ Y ;' t, ,. -, ~.Yy`(. ~~ ~fW °..7.,: ~.;. ~~~_ .y--a, r~ s ~: ~ !,'~° ,:. :,. .,L , ;~ n ~~~' ~- H. :~~~; n} ~~, :~ rr ,}}., ~; ~: ~~'- 1''D"%= r7`s~;<j, o. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 67 of 90 McRoberts: Right. Zaremba: Yeah. McRoberts: So, we get -- you know, they make all kinds of promises and once they are in there is no way to enforce it. I mean the city didn't -- they promised us stuff, like shades for the lights in the parking lot in Walgreen's. We didn't get them. Who really checks up on these people to make sure that they do all these promises that they make? We haven't had that. Zaremba: There, actually, is now a code enforcement officer. This is a new thing as of, actually, a couple of years ago now, but by calling the police department and asking for the code enforcement officer, they can come out and make sure that the lights are -- McRoberts: But we went into that, too. One neighbor has the cover, but we are so close, the lights are so high, it doesn't make any difference. Zaremba: They are not supposed to bleed off the property. They shouldn't --and that's the way to handle it is call the code enforcement officer. McRoberts: Okay. Zaremba: That may not have been possible several years ago, but it is becoming possible now. Okay. I will go through the list and if Mr. McRoberts was speaking for you, if you will just indicate that, please. Dennis Ray already said that. Okay. Wanda -- - is it Waters or Walters? Okay. She has been spoken for. Betty J. Ray. Okay. Has been spoken for. Dale O. Ray. Okay. Spoken for. There is two Betty J. Rays. Okay. This is a different Betty J. Ray? Okay. And spoken for. Thank you. Charles Stewart. Come forward, please. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Charles R. Stewart. 1870 West Carol. We moved to Carol Street about two years ago after living for 37 years on West Pine, which, you know, is quite a thoroughfare nowadays. We have lived in Meridian all of our lives. We looked for two years to find a place that met our criteria and something we could afford, because I wasn't lucky enough to make lots of money through the years. The traffic in there is -- it's very nice, because most people that come in come in for a reason. If I could see the overhead map for a second, please. That -- where it goes from four lanes to five lanes, these people come down the street at a very high - rate of speed and it's 35 miles an hour right there now, which is nearly too fast and most -- very few people drive the speed limit, as we all know. If you stick your nose out here, out there, you do nearly get it clipped everytime by these people coming down to get to this corner to get somewhere in a hurry. That's -- and nearly half the people in this subdivision are retired people. So, we usually aren't in a hurry to get somewhere, but we get run over quite easily. This is marked here as a no parking zone for the people coming south, but the left turn lane, which is phasing clear out now, they started using that clear up here and it -- if it's marked clearly, it starts clear down here. So, it gives us Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 68 of 90 room to pull into a protected area. This back -- this backs up waiting to turn left this way clear passed the intersection. They did not leave us an opening here, so we sit in traffic right here with people coming across this way just flying or around the corner and here we are sitting there. And this traffic here -- I have been sitting here making alert-hand turn in to my own subdivision and had this person over here think, well, I was here first and as soon as it gets open, pull right in front of me to go in. So, all this other traffic is just going to make this situation worse as we go. I can't pull into this protected area, which -- I thought -- it's yellow line on both sides. Should be a protected area, because these people coming down here, they take -- they take an angle about like this for that left turn lane, so that's my concern about traffic. It's not going to get any better and if we make this across-access through here, it just adds to the problem. Now, I'd like to see this closed and we will cross-access to them and come out up there away from the traffic problem. I stepped it off. It's approximately 400 feet up here to the -- on the back side here and there is one, two, three, four, five accesses in the little short 400 feet of area there and back through the years somebody else has gave all of us this problem and so I guess that's my main concerns is the traffic and the commercial just keeps encroaching on us. Pretty soon I guess I'll have to go commercial and, then, what will I do to my neighbors and that's not being a very good neighbor. And I don't know how to turn this off. Zaremba: All right. McRoberts: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: If I could make a comment on the traffic issue. Meridian recently passed a law that prohibits cars from traveling more than a hundred feet in the center turn lane. I know it's an enforcement issue, so I encourage you to work with the police department to keep that intersection from being blocked and to, you know, have them start to enforcing that law to give you the access that you need. McRoberts: Thank you. And that has been discussed and I have been told how many officers there are per capita for our city and that is not one of their priorities. Baird: More are on the way. Zaremba: Thank you: N.K. Steward. Spoken for. Thank you. Gilbert Tuning. „~u~ Tuning: My name is Gilbert Tuning. I live at 1830 West Carol. And I have lived there ~~>~ for 13 years and I have some of the same sentiments that the people that spoke before ~`, me have. I would just ask that the Commission and the staff consider the danger that ~~~' `ti there is at that intersection. It is there presently and I feel that with any type of increase that we can have control over and we can stop, we need to do that. It is a very dangerous place for myself, my wife, my children that come in and out of there. You know, I have seen people drive down that road at a highway speed -- and I realize it's ~; =~;~; ~;; ~ :' e,~~,~__ ;_ ,~ - .. ,, ~~, ~~,, ~.. , , .. ~w.> ,~ <r ~~,~ `''"' Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 69 of 90 an enforcement issue, but they can't enforce, they just cannot be every place. We have the ability to stop some of the traffic by not allowing this to happen. People come down :*Fr that -- I leave early in the morning and I pull out onto that intersection and people want ~~}~ to make that light so badly, if they were just going '35 miles an hour, I could probably pull `; ~.~ "~ ~' out in front of them and get to the light, but some of them are doing 55 and 60 miles an hour to try and make the light. It is a very dangerous situation with all the other ' guideways that access Locust Grove and I think that the staff probably needs to look at - it a little harder, instead of just driving in and out of there, look at it a few different times `~ during the day, see the traffic backed u p, you know, a hundred feet passed our ~' intersection and I would just like you to all very seriously consider the danger that there '~~ is at that intersection. Thank you. '" ~ ~~' Zaremba: Thank you. Lynn Tuning. ~ ` L.Tuning: Lynn Tuning. 1830 West Carol. The only comment I'd like to add is I, too, , ~~ am concerned about the devaluation to our property by just commercial business going in and I'm not sure from the picture what it looks like -- they propose it to look like. But we did buy that as a residence and that's where we live and our grandchildren come ~'~u ~ ~ and play and ride their bikes and it's a quiet neighborhood, it's contained within itself. ' We feel pretty safe there that there is not a lot of traffic coming in and out and I too am 4 *~~ , , concerned with additional traffic and the difficulties that we already face with the traffic , problems getting onto Locust Grove in all directions. Thank you. ; w Zaremba: Thank you. Jennifer McRoberts. `~'r-~ {, J.McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts, 1490 Carol. I'd like to add that we have all assumed ~'-sk the homes in Doris Subdivision facing North Locust Grove would probably eventually all ~~:~` ~ '` go to commercial. This home does not face North Locust Grove. As the business they `'~ were pointing to as a comparable down the road, that had an exit onto a side street, it's facing north Locust Grove, it's not facing into a residential subdivision and that's -- and we don't need the parking lot next to our property and if they are allowed to keep the shop, we don't get the 20 foot -- r~~~~ _,r1h _, Zaremba: Buffer. ~ ~~~ J.McRoberts: -- buffer zone. And it's just not -- not a good fit for our neighborhood. We ~, , realize there are commercial all around us, that is one positive. We have an acre of ground. We still feel like we are in the county, but we have businesses close to us. Just because we have businesses close to us doesn't mean we want one right next door. s ~ Zaremba: Thank you. Debbie Woodall. ~ta> ~~ Woodall: Hello, Commission members. My name is Debbie Woodall, and I live at 1950 _ ~ ~ West Carol. And there is several things -- this is the fourth time that I have been before .. , ~ the Commissioners since we have moved into our home almost 15 years ago. At that v~~t ;: ,.. ~ : H =:~: ~~ ~~ i,^r; ~ii r ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning J l 21 2 _` =:~ h.; u y , 005 Pa e7 g 0 of 90 4 ~;-~~ time we were told that Fred Meyer would be a compatible neighbor for us and that we were assured that the city would help protect our values that we have in our neighborhood. We, then, also were in front of this board -- the planning and zoning for ~; Idaho Athletics. At that time they told us we will make sure that that business is compatible with your neighborhood and our neighbors are now -- that business opened _~ ~ with windows on the second floor that looked out over our other neighbor's yards. They r~X . ~: couldn't even sunbathe in their own yard anymore, because they had people working out in front of the windows. Again, the planning and zoning did not look after our `Y~ neighborhood. We came before you again for Walgreen's. Again, we asked you to, please, keep our neighborhood in mind when you make these decisions. We were promised that there would be a concrete divider, so that there would be no one coming out of Walgreen's making alert-hand turn. I sat here. I listened to the developer even tell the City Council that, that there was going to be a divider there, so you could not m~= rF ~~ make alert-hand turn out of Walgreen's, because that was going to be a problem. t.~ have seen accident after accident.. I have seen cars go into the very chain link fence ~~ ~:~~ N ' that's on that property, almost going into houses because there have been such bad ~ ~ accidents there. And I would like to know how much footage is there between that stop - light and our street? There is not very much. And in the midst of all that is our school bus stop for our children that's on the very corner that this gentleman is wantin this '°"~~` g commercial development. I have a daughter in a wheelchair. That's where she will - ~ catch the bus. We have little kids in the neighborhood. That's where they catch the '~~ " ' bus. How are we going to handle that? There is such little space. We have choices here toni ht. We can sa g y, yeah, we are going to have development on Locust Grove, ,_ <<~~_ you bet. We all accept that. However, let's make it a reasonable decision to protect our neighborhood. Let Doris Subdivision have the subdivision that's been there for years. We have accepted all of the commercial around us. We have tried to work with the city in making sure everything worked, but, please, don't abandon us now. Help us protect our property values. We were here long before the commercial development ever started, so no one can tell us we should have been buyer beware, because when that ~6.-` subdivision was opened, it was a two lane road on Fairview Avenue. So, they should be buyer beware. .:~ rN _'~a Zaremba: Thank you. Dan Woodall. D.Woodall: My name is Dan Woodall. I live at 1950 West Carol. I agree with everything that has been said by my neighbors. I would like to add that is a very y~ dangerous intersection. We -- when Fred Meyer came in they said -- staff engineers came up and said we don't foresee any problems. We came up and we said there will ` ~.~ u ~ be problems. There were problems. When Walgreen's went in we said we don't want ' them there, there is going to be problems. Staff and engineers and developers got up _ and said we don't see that there will be any problems. We will make sure there is not. There were problems. We now see -- I'm estimating probably an accident every two months in that small stretch of road, because of the problems that we warned you about. We don't need encroachment on our residential areas of commercial. When that ~r~ house was bought, the CC&Rs, the agreement that they came to, that they abided by, was that it had to be residential. These people have come to you and said, well, we r ~, :'; '. sk, - ~.. yN'4 - - -. ~~(._ a:. ~ - Y~ ~.;~ ~Fh n ,~r ~:= ,, ~; ,, ;fit ;: =£i ~.:~f, ~-: ,, .,,< 't` ;~`::. .; ,. .. ,,t ..`.'; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 71 of 90 want to change it and we want to have all these -- all these variances so that we can. Don't give it to them. Make them follow the rules. They need to have their offsets from the residential. The shop needs to be gone. They need to have -- they need to follow the rules. There is no guarantee that those -- that those residences along North Locust Grove are going to go commercial anytime soon. They need to be protected. They need to have their offsets. If these folks can't have a very big office, they can't have a very big office. That's the wrong thing to go in there. It needs to stay a residence. We have been led down the primrose path along -- several times by land developers. I'm sorry, land developers aren't very popular in our neighborhood. You may have trouble being accepted there. And that's what I would like to close with. They need to follow the rules. Make them follow the rules. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Jay Jones is it? Jones: Good evening or good night, whichever it is. Jay Jones at 1384 North Carol. You guys have heard a lot of the testimony tonight and maybe I could just start off by asking a question. On what grounds can you accept a deny this application? You have to abide by the ordinances and rules; correct? Zaremba: The rules are whether it meets or doesn't meet the ordinances. Jones: And as far as I have seen, the only thing it doesn't meet is the setback requirements. Is that correct? You can't jurisdiction traffic; is that correct? Zaremba: We actually don't have jurisdiction over traffic, but we do try and consider it. Jones: But can it weigh in your decision? Zaremba: I will have to ask legal counsel for an opinion on whether it can officially be part of our decision. Baird: No. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: It's ACHD's jurisdiction Zaremba: Okay. ~~~: . ~~, ~~_: Jones: When all these came in, there was a lot of opposition in the neighborhood. We had several meetings on it and -- but we decided our pockets weren't quite deep enough and so we went up against Walgreen's with the idea that if we give a little, you got to give a little. And if you will pull up the aerial photograph, I can show you where they have allowed a 20-foot buffer and more, actually. There is about a 25-foot buffer. Those two cars that are parked there, right next to that is a six to eight foot -- that's six foot on our side, eight foot on their side, split face block wall that separates a buffer ~~~< ,y ,_ f3i`S .;~~, ~4.: ,~~~ . .'1~, y ;F-, ~~: ~. ~~ ~, ,. :r. =x~ µ,,_ ~._ ~;': K:; T~}y% ,` ~` ~.~~ ~~~, a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 72 of 90 zone between our properties and their property. I think any commercial that would abrupt our subdivision should have a similar or like buffer zone. I think the decisions that you can make tonight are basically on those, the buffer zones between commercial and residential. I mean the subdivision, of course, would like it to stay as a residential, because of the access and the problems that they have in accessing Fairview -- or Locust Grove and Fairview. But it doesn't appear that your decisions can be based on that. And so my recommendation to you would be to look at the overall project and strictly enforce the ordinances that are set forth in the use of that particular piece of property, how it abuts the residential neighborhoods and how it affects them. And if you can base it on that design of the project, I think that's what the neighborhood wants. But, otherwise, strictly enforce those things that matter. Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. That is everyone that was signed up. Anybody else care to add anything? Okay. We will ask Mr. Jewett to come back and comment on what he can comment on. Jewett: Try to follow traffic. First of all -- and I do appreciate all the neighbors' comments. I do understand what's happening to their neighborhood and I think it's -- you look at the aerial or just the assessor's map that's up there, you will see what's happening and they are an island -- an island here. They have all this red, which is commercial, to their south, to their east and there is some R-8 density in here. I think some R-8 here, moving up, some R-4 up in here. I mean they are surrounded by the city. They are an island and slowly it moved all the way around them. I wasn't here in 1959. I'm sure that in 1959 that was just a county little road out there with a little subdivision on it. And so I do understand where they are and I hope they understand where I'm at as well. There is commercial development there that is quite attractive to us for a business, because there is a visibility issue that comes with the traffic and so when you run something that has to have somewhat visibility, like selling real estate, the traffic count is a factor that we use. Accidents we don't like, though. But every person that could talk about traffic was not traffic coming out of the subdivision, but traffic coming down Locust Grove or coming out of Walgreen's or coming out of Fred Meyer, where my project isn't going to change that. What I do here and the impact that I -- the testimony heard that a lot of people that live in the subdivision are retired, meaning they don't go to work at 7:30, 8:00 o'clock in the morning. So, my people coming in or my people leaving at 5:00 o'clock, is not directly going to impact a large percentage of people. You know, the other people -- the other growth around Meridian is going to affect me more than I'm going to affect them. And there is really no -- you know, a whole lot of answers. I have heard some issues and I will go to ACRD and look into the center turn lane and some issues like that and see if I can help with making sure that it's properly striped and make sure that that's done. Another sentiment that Iheard -- it was the last one I heard, which I thought was a very good comment, and that's follow the rules. And I'll advocate that. Follow the rules. And if I'm not following the rules, I want somebody to point out that I'm not. You know, I'm asking for you to recommend approval tonight and I'm asking you to give me a set of rules to follow and I will follow them. I have asked for some deviation and I have also acknowledged that if I don't get them, I don't get them, and I will accept that. Another sentiment that I heard a lot of was .;„, ~~;, • _ f~ h,~F _, ~,, :~ ,.=-t-_' ~~~ .~- ~~ ~ ~_~' ~ ° ...`'a ~ ~. ~a ,~y ;,:- r~ ==z . ~~'..M,1 -~, 5 ,:r _::_: ,~,~:: `;l ~. ~,~~ ~~ ~,r- `. ,:~. ~~~,, ij ~~.; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 73 of 90 what all the other folks around me have done that somehow are going to come tumbling down on me, because I'm the last one in line here and I wasn't involved in any of those other projects, so I don't know -- I don't know if any of this Commission was even involved in any of those other approvals. So, I don't have recollection of what was done or not done, so I really can't have a lot of answers for the previous projects that went on. A lot of the projects -- it is hard to -- the word commercial -- and they kept using the word commercial. We are talking about professional office, which in a lot of realms is a better neighbor than commercial and that's why they use it as a buffer between the commercial and the residential, because our use is not 24/7, it doesn't have cars coming in and out all day, like a Walgreen's does. There was a comment that they had to put this split face cinder wall up, but they had adrive-thru over there and there was lights that would be constantly turning in there, so the cinder wall was an appropriate -- we don't have that, so I don't know what inappropriate to have a cinder wall in there would be. Secondly, there was the issue of removing the shop. Well, the shop acts as a pretty good buffer for those residents to our west. I mean it's probably about a 14-foot wall -- side wall on those. It goes along about two-thirds of that west boundary, so it acts as a darn good buffer from the parking lot and where the two stalls we are proposing right here, we will put some heavy landscaping here to additional buffer that. So, we look at it as an asset to that, not as a detriment. Our intention with the shop is remove the metal siding and to stucco it the same color as the office building. So, we would beautify and it would look just as the -- our renovation would be on the building. I heard several comments that -- can you go back to the Locust Grove map? The other map that -- yeah. I heard several comments that they acknowledge that they accepted that these would eventually go to some level of commercial. So, I want to play the devil's advocate. Let's say that I'm the last one with the application, so now I have all this commercial here, now I'm stuck here. Now, let's say I'm a 65 year old retired individual and I own that house, should I be told I can't go commercial. Is the highest and best use of my property to keep it a house? And that's exactly what these people that own that want to do, they want to move. They are a retired couple, they spend half the year here, half the year down in Arizona, and they want to move. And the highest and best use for their property is not residential. And I guess I would argue that if they did not sell this to my type of use, that it would most likely be sold as a rental and, then, you would have renters and, then, the property could degrade. A lot of scenarios could happen, if the highest and best use is not residential. Now, internal in the sub the highest and best use for those are residential. And a lot of people talked about their property values and it's hard for me, being in the real estate business in the last six months, to hear anybody complain about property values, because all they are doing is going up. Up increasingly. Dangerously increasingly, if you ask my opinion. So, I don't know how this project or any project of this nature along Locust Grove would devaluate their property. I just don't see that happening. I have no proof of that happening anywhere in Meridian. Again, a lot of comments about the traffic. I read -- I looked over all the paperwork that was turned in by the neighbors, the traffic reports, and accident studies and, you know, I didn't compare that to other accidents throughout the whole of Meridian. I live in Woodbridge Subdivision. I exit onto Eagle Road and at that intersection there we have aright-in, right-out, and how frustrating it is in the morning when there is a bunch of cars trying to make alert-hand turn onto Eagle Road and it's ~£: iy, ~::. It~ '~- ~°d14 ;~~~~` -' A~: ~, ~~ _,. ttr ,, v ~`-" 7 ,. ~2a: y°:. a ~~ ~ ~~~- ., ~, ,t. w:< x,,~„ ;,: M, ,~ ~~• ~~ "r~~; ~~~~° .-~~.~~ ~:; ;. _ , ~- n~, , Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 74 of 90 frustrating there and so -- and I point it out, because throughout the -- you know, the town we try to make ways to fix traffic and people just don't follow the rules and that appears to be what's happening in this location, is a lot of people aren't following the rules. For the more global picture, you know, the Ten Mile off ramp is going to be a reality. Ten Mile is going to alleviate a lot of traffic that's now fighting to get through Meridian to get to Eagle Road to try to get on the freeway and so I just hope it comes sooner than later, because that is going to help traffic globally for Meridian. Whether it helps this particular intersection that much in the foreseeable future, I can't answer that. But from a total Meridian point of view, we are working towards getting better traffic patterns, better traffic two and from the interstate, because that's truly what people are trying to do, they are trying to get down here and get over Eagle Road to get to the interstate and move out. So, I guess I -- I think I've tried to answer everybody's questions. If there is one I missed, I hope that somebody would point that out. There was the one issue about the CC&Rs and I am an advocate for following rules and I have followed the rules and I will continue to follow the rules, whether it's the city rules or rules that were created for the subdivision and I go on the record as stating that. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? I'd follow up on that right there. You did see the CC&Rs? Jewett: I did. Moe: And in regards to what some of the testimony came in this evening was that in the CC&Rs it did state that no other use but residential was planned in that CC&Rs; is that a correct statement? Jewett: That is a correct statement. And it also states in there that with a majority of the vote of the property owners, you can amend those. And t have a majority vote of the property owners and I have recorded that document. Moe: Okay. Jewett: I understand that the property owners are also -- all these properties are commercial, all these property owners -- they are all property owners in Doris sub. Moe: Understand that. Jewett: Okay. Moe: Another question that Ihave -- as far as the shop itself, I'm just curious, what is your intended use for that? Jewett: As I stated earlier, it's our intent to use it for storage for signs and some of our smaller equipment, pumps, generators, hand tools. ,.- „, ;- ~rr~:. ~, 1 .lY y~r l ~<<:~ wa. . a=,z..- %~:'7 _ ~,; :z :=; -~:< ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 75 of 90 Moe: Okay. Thank you. Jewett: And I believe we are planning a couple of parking stalls in there. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Any other questions? Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Zaremba: Any further comments from staff? Hood: Just one, I guess, which -- we didn't really discuss it in detail too much, but some condition should be made that -- because the property directly to the west doesn't have the same opportunity that the other properties on Locust Grove has to potentially go office in the future. If the shop is removed in the future, that full 20 foot wide buffer should be provided along that west boundary line, if the shop is removed. So, that just wasn't followed through in the staff report and depending on the direction of -- that the Commission decides to go, I think that should probably be added in there as a condition. Zaremba: The existing shop could remain and be considered a buffer, but if it's removed, then -- Hood: Yeah. It needs to conform with the 20-foot setback. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I certainly am sensitive to the discussion about the traffic, because I don't like that intersection either. But as we have discussed, that's not our jurisdiction. Baird: Mr. Chair, after reflecting on your question, I think I want to expound on my one word answer. You do have a report from ACHD that gives specific conditions that they feel would -- what they are is assure the proposed development would not place an undue burden on the existing transportation system. So, they have looked at it and made recommendations. I do want to say, though, since this is a zoning issue and what you're looking at in the staff report is talking about reviewing the facts and circumstances to see if this would -- what's the word t'm looking for? When it gets towards midnight, my brain starts shutting down. Evidence that this is -- what's the word here? Canning: Chairman, if I could maybe help out. Baird: Please. Canning: If you're tongue tied. This is -- the amendment language that was put into the Comprehensive Plan regarding these -- these properties that are noted as residential, ~; ja, '~~€ t ~S ?+~A~i ~~: rtrr J Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 76 of 90 gets quite a bit more discretion as to whether it's appropriate or not for them to be zoned office, instead of residential. So, you know, I'm trying to find the language. Okay. We have got it. And the expression of City Council, areas with the residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office use if the property has frontage on an arterial street or section line road and is three acres in size -- in size or less in size -- some extra in sizes. But it -- when those were discussed, particularly with -- it was much more discretionary than you usually have on these things, because you have to make a determination that commercial is appropriate or office is appropriate at this area. Otherwise, the residential designation would stay. Zaremba: And it specifically says frontage on arterial, not necessarily access to it. Canning: Yes, it does. And we, actually, rejected this application the first time, because we had that it was access, but it does just say frontage. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: I want to jump on what Mrs. Canning just said and ask her if in the analysis, even though that's not a reason that staff would want to deny the application, it would be my opinion that that's certainly something that you can consider, that it does have frontage on an arterial, but it doesn't take access from the arterial. I guess what I'm getting at is when you throw that into the mix, is this compatible with the residential or is it appropriate to make the change. I think that's something that you can consider and I don't see anybody shaking their head over there. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm just saying when you're looking at that, it's certainly a factor that you could take into your discretion. Canning: The Comprehensive Plan is not codified law, like the zoning ordinance, so it is a discretionary matter. ~~:;_: ,~~,.. ~a~ ~~~ .;~:. Zaremba: I guess the thing that I need to consider, since there is the provision that properties that meet this description, even though they are surrounded by residential, can at least apply for an L-O zone, what I think about is what else could happen here? I do see the logic in that this section of Locust Grove, in particular, and some time probably the four or is it five properties that are north of this, will make that kind of conversion. If we were to deny this application, what else can happen on this property? I personally agree that it's not attractive as a residence. It's facing too much traffic for me to want to be in a house that's there. And I realize that transitions are sometimes difficult, but I -- I can be convinced that a different use is appropriate here. This sounds to me like one of the lowest impacts that could be chosen for this property, even as an L-O I can -- I can think of a lot of things that could come in and be a much heavier impact, both -- you know, both as being disturbing to the neighborhood and creating more traffic than I feel this would. My guess -- my initial question is how viable is this as a residence. It would not be attractive to me as a residence. That's a personal opinion. :.3 Meridian Planning & Zonin4 July 21, 2005 Page 77 of 90 And there is some logic that that whole row will be some kind of office or similar at the same time. I do agree that the interior properties are attractive residential and should stay that way. I guess my personal opinion is this is one of the lowest impact transitions that I can imagine. Canning: Chairman, since you're hypothesizing on possible uses, I did want to point out that, you know, one of the options we discussed with the applicant was, actually, he could have requested -- how do I say it? Okay. It is getting fate. It's getting very hard to articulate clear thoughts. But in other circumstances the -- the Comprehensive Plan, even though the lines are drawn on aparcel-by-parcel basis as a specific statement that it's not intended to be parcel by parcel and that those standards can kind of -- we call it bump a little bit or float. So, there is a commercial designation immediately across the street. So, it is conceivable that somebody could ask for a commercial designation on this property as well. He did meet the qualifications for the light office and only wanted it for an office. So, that's the route he took. But in the whole realm of things, there is -- there is a lot of things that could conceivably occur on this property. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess what Iwould -- based on her comments as well, I would anticipate that the office use would be probably the lesser of all evils and -- for this development. I really -- I really don't have too much of a problem with this project going forward, other than the fact that I do have a problem with the cross-access agreement, realizing we have other properties and whatnot, but I am trying to be somewhat sensitive to the traffic and I would hate to see that all traffic coming from the north of this property is all going to dump out into -- down into that street. I don't know what else we can do about that at the present time, but I'm not so sure I really would like to see a cross-access or agreement going to the north, because I just hate to see that much more traffic coming into there. Well, with no application on the property to the north, I'm not sure across-access agreement can even be accomplished. Iwould support, though, that in that one portion of the parking lot the landscape buffer be eliminated, so that a future cross-access could be done. And I guess my feeling is the opposite. It would be more attractive for them to move away from this street and exit at a street that connected with a -- keep wondering what the name is, but the street that runs behind north of Fred Meyers. Rohm: Is this where your cross-access -- Zaremba: Yeah. And I'm -- I'm just saying make that a future possibility. Not necessarily a requirement today, but leave that available by not having big trees and other stuff. Am I interpreting staff as -- or are you wanting to get across-access agreement with the neighbor? Hood: I was going to say, if you don't require the subject applicant to provide that cross- . access to the north and, then, when they do come into the north to develop, we will require across-access from him to be provided to this side, that's how you get it. It r ~~~.- ~~,; ~_ ~>:. 4; ~,:. ~~' .,5 :4 `" >; ;; ~;~~ ,;~; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 78 of 90 would just be an easement that he provides for and they don't have to use it until they develop, but it's an easement that -- Zaremba: It makes it available, but is there a legal document between the two neighbors that has to happen? Hood: It's between the two. I mean he can record it and -- he can give an easement to anyone he wants. He can just give an easement to the property owner to the north. They don't have to approve it, they don't have to sign for it or anything like that, it's just something that he's given to the north and, then, as a condition of them zoning to L-O like he's done -- Zaremba: It's a reciprocal. Hood: -- then we will require him to reciprocate that back. Correct. And to answer Commissioner Moe's question -- it wasn't much of a question, it was more of a statement, but just how I can envision it planned out is that you attach two or three of the lots and, then, you do have an access out to Locust Grove Road, so you aren't necessarily dumping all the traffic back on South Carol Street, you will have a tie out to Locust Grove, but you're consolidating those four other access points and there may be one or possibly two more. So, you're giving those people a location to access it -- Loop Lane, I think, is the name of the street across that side of Fred Meyer and TCBY that comes in there. They would possibly align with that and, then, you have some separation between all those access points and they are consolidated. That's how I envision it planned out, when they do go all L-O, if they all do go L-O, so -- Rohm: I guess at this point in time I think we have taken all the public testimony and have discussed it to the point that we could probably close the Public Hearing. Do you have -- Zaremba: I would accept such a motion. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-032. ^ Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Do we need any discussion? r~ ~~., ~.: ~;~.;: , ~;; Zs:.. ~" ~L.~ M ridi Pl e an anning & Zoning -~~ July 21, 2005 ~.--. t - ;;~. ~ Page 79 of 90 ;, F F=., ~,; ohm: Well, I -- Mr. Chairman, I -- after listening to testimony and this -- the discussion " ~: " that followed testimony, albeit that the neighbors aren't necessarily in favor of this °' rezone to L-O, in reality, this is probably the least obtrusive of anything that could be ~ proposed and the next application may be more offensive and even though there is " ,. opposition, this might be in their best interest to tie that just based upon the application ~_';F ~:,, that's before us. That's the way that it looks like it shakes out to me. -~ ° ` Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff again. In regards to the -- if the shop is removed, that's a 20 foot -- Mr. Chairman? ~` Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. ~., a. Moe: I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of -- let see, where ~~~a' am I at here? Of AZ 05-032, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July °~ ~ ,.t~,ti 21st, 2005, the transmittal date of July 15th, 2005, with the following changes: I guess ' ~' ~ on page ten, which would be towards the end of the special considerations, the annexation and zoning, item number four, I would add to provide across-access _ agreement to the property to the north and, then, an item number, if existing shop is removed, the 20 foot buffer zone would be required. End of motion. >~~~~~~ Rohm: Second. _ >,~ ~_ . Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ~ Hood: Mr. Chair, can I ask the maker a question for clarification? Are you talking about 'L ` r~> items four and five on page 11 or ten? It's -- ~?~ `x. Moe: On ten. Hood: And that would just be special considerations, so to actually make it in the ,~. development agreement, they need to be put on the next -- the following page. And we have the facts and comments -- because number three is ever thin that's i t b rr; y g go ng o e put into the development agreement. I can add that above as well as a special ~'~.N'~ consideration. ~t,~:~~ Moe: I just didn't ask you where you probably wanted it placed. So, I guess I would -- Zaremba: We can do that in an amendment to the motion. Moe: I would make that amendment to the motion. 3 ~ : .,~' Zaremba: That it should be included in the development agreement. ~~ ~, 5 {: .; ~_ ,yl, ~: .,, x ~.~~ C:t..;, ~;~~ .. ~: ~~`. ~~ ~' ~ ` I:~. i '~ :;P~ ';;xY ~_~~F:, ~, ~.~ <:. ~, ~,~. ,r .'.~x N, r':~'~'. *::~`x .,, ,:7, ~. 4'~, ~~~: ~:r,~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 80 of 90 Moe: That is correct. Zaremba: Does the second accept the amendment? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. Then, we have a motion and a second on amending the previous motion. And all in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all. It is after midnight and we usually don't start a new subject, but you all have hung in here a long time and looking at the sheet at the moment there aren't very many people signed up to speak on this, so I am suspecting we can probably continue with this tonight. Commissioners, are you willing to -- Rohm: Sure. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 22: Public Hearing: PP 05-927 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval for one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Zaremba: Okay. In that case, I will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-027, PP 05-927? Is that correct? Maybe that should be -- that should be -- let me correct that. It should be PP 05-027. And the Public Hearing CUP 05-034. All three of these relate to Maxfield Subdivision by the Land Group at 3295 East Falcon Drive and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the east side of Eagle Road and on the south side of Falcon Drive, approximately 675 feet south of Victory Road. It is within our urban service planning area and our current city area of impact. The property is designated low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site currently has a single family home that the applicant is proposing to remove. You can see it here in the aerial. It's on the northeast side of the property. To the north of the subject site are several single homes on large parcels similar to the subject parcel. To the south are single-family homes, also zoned RUT in Ada County, ~~Ss,: . `,,x>.: ti ~`~i ~~r`~; ~;, ,. ~~~ 3~} ~- `~: `,31;1 ;, ;~;;- rye, ~.:v yy..: r; 4~Y~ ~. ;~.; . ,,: ; ., -=' 'z :~-.f: y;:3.-.A~~~~ -,~; ~:- ~.~~ Y,a y,;:: a ~: ,. ,:, w ~.~ ~ ; ~::~; T .: ~ - ;.. iA '`.i4 r ~.,; :; n~ ~r:~. .~ ~, , ,. F;1 ~~,~~. ~;~: ~~-' ~~~- i~~; Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 81 of 90 as well as the east and the west, they will have single family homes, zoned RUT in Ada County. The point it has contiguity with the current city limits are to the southwest in Messina Village. As you can see here, the homes aren't there yet, but you can see that there is almost a point for point there and that's the existing city limits today, as you can kind of see on this map as well. Just want to point out one other development recently in this same area. Kingsbridge Subdivision was recently approved by the city, located just to the south in this area here. So, just to kind of give you your bearings a little bit. The applicant is proposing to zone the entire 4.7 acres from RUT to R-8. The proposed preliminary plat subdivides the property into two build-able lots. The existing single home will be on one of those lots. The lot lines don't show up very well, but there is a property line something like that and, then, Lot 2 will -- or the five retirement homes and a clubhouse would be on Lot 1 and the existing single-family house will be on Lot 2. In addition to the five retirement buildings, they are proposing a clubhouse and flower bed and gazebo area kind of centrally located within the retirement community for their amenities for the planned development and here is the landscape plan. They are not proposing any access to Eagle Road, which staff supports. There is one new access being proposed to Falcon Drive, a local street, which ACHD is making the applicant improve, Falcon Drive -- their half of Falcon Drive curb, gutter and sidewalk. Quickly, the elevations for the retirement buildings are single story. They do house 14 bedrooms and one bedroom is double occupancy. There is an oversize kitchen within the units and laundry facilities. There are garages on the side of the buildings as welt. And without any further adieu, I will stand for any questions that you may have on the proposed development. Staff is recommending approval with just some minor changes to the site plan. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Apparently not. We are ready for the applicant, please. It wasn't who I thought it was going to be. Maxfield: I'm Gerald Maxfield, CEO of Cottage Investors, is the owner of the property. I apologize for the lateness of the hour for what I'm sure is pretty much a thankless job, but I will be brief. We have done a number of these assisted living projects that are identical to this. The most recent one was in Meridian as part of the Bridgetower Subdivision. We are on Ten Mile. There is a couple of corrections that I -- corrections or questions that I should make. I just remembered I didn't give my address. It's 1920 South Mayflower Way in Boise. On page two -- excuse me. On page one, the first paragraph under Maxfield Subdivision, it talks about 5.5 acres and in the very next paragraph it talks about 4.7 acres. I think the 5.5 must be a typo, because the 4.7 is correct. On the next -- page two, where -- the first complete sentence it starts there with each building contains a garage. Actually, only one of the -- one of the buildings has a garage and it is an attached garage. The next paragraph, down towards the bottom of that paragraph, where it talks about phase one, includes two retirement homes and the clubhouse. Later on in the document is talks about the clubhouse being a part of phase two and that is correct. The clubhouse, actually, is not a part of phase one, which is the two cottages initially. A minor correction at the bottom of that page where it talks about the Kingsbridge Subdivision, it says to the south and west, that actually is south and east. On page seven down under special considerations number one, kind of in the ~~~;;: ~.,~: .,,fit= '. r, a; ;~ ~: ~ ~7~si .:.; :j ~r ;,;., r~ n~ ;;', t<, . ~;~` ,~..~. ~+4 z. N ,r ~:~ ~a ., s~ Y =rr~: '~~' ~ `y :. f;:: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 82 of 90 middle of that paragraph, it talks about a 12-foot wide buffer. t don't know where that comes from, because it is a 20-foot wide buffer that we have there, so I'm not sure what happened there. But, anyway, it is 20 feet, so we are not asking for any special exception there. Page eight, number five, it talks about the fencing and that's correct, we weren't showing any plans for fencing. We should have, because we are planning on putting a nice vinyl fence around the property. Under site specific -- under number two, that bullet under number two, I'm not sure why that's there, because we already have a 20-foot in all those areas that are discussed. Page nine. No. I don't have anything on that page and I think I'm just about to the end of my comments on the staff report. Oh, yeah. I just wanted to point out on page 12, down towards the bottom, number two, where it talks about the amenities, in the middle of that paragraph it talks about the clubhouse being a part of the future project and that is correct. That's the comment I had earlier. On page 13, under site-specific number three, as planned development amenities, construct a gazebo, a flowerbed of at least 800 square feet, and a clubhouse as proposed. Except for the clubhouse, which shall be constnucted prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning for the third building. So, the third building will be a part of phase two and the clubhouse would be a part of that and so I'm wanting it worded that I have to build a clubhouse before I can get permission to build building three. I want to do that at the same time. Is that point clear what I'm mentioning there? Zaremba: Wouldn't that just mean that you get the certificates simultaneously for the two buildings? The third -- your third retirement building and the clubhouse? Maxfield: That's what I want. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't saying that I had to build the clubhouse before I could get permission to do phase two. Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff. Can we change the word prior to simultaneous? Would that -- Hood: I would rather prefer that we change the prior to issuance of the third retirement building to the fourth. I mean we can allow it to go to a certain point, but I think at some point that building should be constructed before we issue anymore more building permits. I mean he can pull the permit and never construct the thing. We need to make sure it's up and constructed before we issue the last -- at least two building permits I would say. So, if you want to go to a third building, then, prior to the fourth you need to have the clubhouse up, I think that's agreeable. There is just nothing in the -- there was no proposal when the future was actually going to be, so that's what I proposed and -- Zaremba: Does that work? Maxfield: That's true. There was nothing specific and that would work if we changed that to fourth, instead of third. That's the extent of my comments on the staff report. Zaremba: Since you were going through it and you were approaching page 14, I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of some of them. I'm sure you have read that thoroughly, but I know it's your plan that all of your residents will be ambulatory, but you ~ ~ 4~ ~. ,. ,r ~~:. ,i ', ~~5~.:. _ K'` ~~..,; ~; ~~4 3~~b~~ ~` ~~ 7~ ,~ ;~~ ~ ~'~ ~L -~A' ._ ~.: ~~ .;nom: ~,~~ ~~ T. 'r ~: ,_ ~~..: ~..< ,y~~'~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 83 of 90 understood the fire department comment that if at anytime in the future that plan changes, you're limited to five nonambulatory residents per building I think that is. Maxfield: Yeah. I have been through that very thoroughly with the city when we did the other project. Zaremba: So you know that -- Maxfield: I understand exactly that. Zaremba: -- requirement is there? Maxfield: Yes. Zaremba: And, then, also a couple pages later on page 16, the police department wants to talk to you about visibility and you're willing to do that? Maxfield: Yes. We will certainly work out any issues. Zaremba: Okay. Just double-checking that you know those are there. Commissioners, any other questions? Rohm: No questions. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Gerald Mayfield is the only one signed up. You're welcome to speak. If you have nothing to say, then, that's fine, too. Turner: Sorry. I arrived late, knowing that this was last on the agenda and the sheets were gone when I arrived, so I couldn't sign up. My name is Brady Turner, I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Dartmoor Subdivision. I have spoken to a number of my neighbors about this proposal and they, maybe being smarter than we are, were unable to attend tonight due to various vacations and other prior commitments. I do have some e-mail letters here from them expressing support for the concerns that I will lay out for you very quickly here. Our concern was the -- we are not opposed to the usage of the property itself. Our concern is more with the zoning of the property, which R-8, that that is a two step increase in the zoning density above the current Comprehensive Plan in this area is currently zoned at R-3. In talking with Craig Hood, the planner, we understand that the zoning of R-8 is driven not necessarily by the density, per se, but by the schedule of permitted uses of the City of Meridian for residential retirement communities. Understanding that, our concern is more related, then, to if the property is rezoned to R-8 and for whatever reason the development does not go through, the zoning would still stand on this property and some other developer could come in and, then, develop duplexes with five foot setbacks on the rear property, as we have discussed earlier this evening. So, what we are asking for -- and I have met with the applicant and have proposed, is that we put in the development agreement a condition of approval that the gross density of this development would not be greater than _ ,.~~ ;:f:;_: '# ~~ -,: ~.- ~ii , YS_' ':`; ." ~, ~,:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 84 of 90 something on the order of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, being 4.7 acres divided by six, would be roughly around 1.3 dwelling units per acre. That would be a condition of approval. The second concern was that the Dartmoor Subdivision being to the south of this development, we would ask that the setbacks on the south side of the property be increased from 20 to 25 feet. That would be consistent with the setbacks that are being provided by the Kingsbridge Subdivision to help provide some increased buffer area surrounding the larger acreage parcels that are currently developed. And those are our two concerns and with those two concerns addressed, we could fully support this development. Zaremba: Thank you. Turner: I will entertain any questions. Zaremba: Questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Turner: Thank you and good morning to you. Zaremba: Yes. Good morning. Anybody else care to comment? Please do. 1 Forrey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wildcreek Way in Boise. And, boy, thanks for having the meeting after midnight. I wanted to say that my grandfather has lived in one of the communities -- in another one of the communities that Mr. Maxfield has developed and he's very happy and this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. I live in this general area and I think the R-8 or even R-15, if it would make a project like this work, would be appropriate, because these are nice additions to the neighborhood and we need more services like this for ourselves as we get older and our parents and grandparents. So, I think this is a nice development and I hope you approve it. So, I just wanted to say that I support it. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to comment? I was just kind of mulling over in my mind if -- there is no way to put a condition on it that if it does not develop as proposed that we un-annex it. You can't undo that. But the applicant will come up and speak again in a minute, but I certainly agree with the sensitivity as saying once it's zoned R-8, we probably want to have some other restrictions on it that it doesn't just develop to a typical R-8. I mean we -- I like the idea behind this project, but I might not like in that location just a typical R-8. So, it has to be R-8 to get this project, but I would support putting a restriction on it that -- I don't know how far we can go in saying it can't be anything else, but I certainly am sensitive to steering towards this. Hood: Mr. Chair, I may have a suggestion for you. As proposed, no development is agreement required. All the conditions are composed in the Conditional Use Permit and the preliminary plat. However, it is an annexation and you can have the applicant enter into a DA and just be that simple, that, you know, the only uses approved in the R-8 zone are as such, and you can limit it to whatever I guess you wanted to put in that DA. ~~: ,~~, ,>: :'' 1 ~.t; ~~: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 85 of 90 But that's the other mechanism and you don't de-annex, necessarily, but you can, for a limit, through a development agreement, uses similar to what Mr. Turner provided you or whatever you feel is appropriate there, to be no more than eight homes or whatever it is, to be similar to this -- eight -- or R-4 zoning designation, so -- Zaremba: And the result of that is that if some future owner or developer wanted to change their mind, then, they'd have to come back for a change of zoning. Hood: Yeah. Well, yeah, the zoning would still be R-8, but the development agreement will run with the land and so if there is a stipulation that says you're approved for retirement homes and they came in about duplexes, those are not retirement homes, they would have to amend the DA and go through the whole public hearing process. I mean anything's reversible, but that makes it that someone just couldn't plat an R-8 subdivision and go through it, because everything meets code. There would be a DA that would also run with the land, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Hood: And just a couple of other things to clarify real quick, you will run passed them, but just for the applicant's benefit as well, the annexation to the center line of the street if 5.5 acres. That's the discrepancy between the 5.5 acres that's being annexed and the 4.7 acres that's actually being developed. That's exclusive of the right of way for the adjacent streets. And, then, I just was going to point out to the Commission that the -- if you did want to require the buffer to be increased, the street buffers and the 20 foot wide that it is -- I just double-checked, it's 12 feet right now on -- adjacent to the drive aisle to the existing single family from the retirement home. That's site-specific condition number two on page eight, if you want to modify that at all, then, that's where that's at. I think that's all that I had for you. Zaremba: Thank you. Please return. Maxfield: You know, as far as the R-8 zone is concerned, I understand his concern. I wish I didn't have to have the R-8. I don't -- I don't want it, but, unfortunately, because of the language of the city, that's what's required. And just a side note, if the city would update their language that wouldn't be the case, but -- Zaremba: It's in the process. Maxfield: Yeah. {; 4. °~'~~~; ~ ~ ~ ~~` 1~` »~ s °~` ~;~._ ,~, '} ,% ~: ~~, ~ ~.r ~; ~: "~.'.t•1 '~f L ~[ 4 at ~, t ~' ~'t' ~:~ '~ r !,1 ~ ~s jMf ::. ~~; .,, Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ o July 21, 2005 Page 86 of 90 Maxfield: Yeah. Rohm: Great. Maxfield: And I'm aware of his request for the 25-foot setback, instead of the 20-foot setback. Zaremba: Along the south borders there is several -- Maxfield: Yeah. Along the south. And I guess we don't -- oh, here it is. Right along here is where he's talking about this building and that building are only 30 feet apart. And unless I can figure out some other way to modify the site plan, I don't want to get those buildings any closer than 30 feet. That's pretty close as it is. So, I don't see how I can meet that additional five feet, unless I can somehow squeeze it somewhere else, which I don't think I can. But even with -- I mean with the 20 feet and there are no homes close to us on the other property to the south of us that -- there is a considerable distance in their back yards, so it's not like we are -- we are very close to their homes. I would do it if I could, but I don't see how I can. Zaremba: Would you be perhaps amenable to throwing a couple extra trees in the buffer or -- Maxfield: Oh, sure. Zaremba: I don't know if that would help, but -- Maxfield: And there is going to be a -- Zaremba: -- it deadens sounds and changes -- changes what you're looking at from a distance. Maxfield: And there is going to be a five-foot fence. I mentioned earlier that, you know, we have not mentioned that on our site plan. That was an oversight. But we are going to put afive-foot vinyl fence along there, too, so -- I think that's the extent of my comment. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Rohm: Sounds good. Zaremba: Thank you. We have comments from staff. Are we ready to proceed? Rohm: I'm tired. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're being put on the spot a~: ~"`.i ~~ . ,~, c,-( ~-. ~r~: - ~u`, s~: ``x; ~t' ~: ,,y_, `~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 87 of 90 Moe: Okay. That will work forme. Question of staff again. Craig, I assume that we will put the development agreement language under -- as an item number three under the annexation facts and additional comments? Hood: You got it. ~~,,~ ~~~. -, ~~~ ~~ Moe: It only takes me a couple of these, I figure that stuff out. And, then, once again, someone want to give me a little bit of language for that? That agreement? Hood: There isn't much discussion amongst the Commission. I think the -- to summarize, what Mr. Turner summarized for the neighborhood is their concern for redevelopment or this present development, so just something to that effect, that this property is approved for, you know, the R-8 zoning designation for a retirement home community and any future development on it shall -- and I'm going to leave it to you guys to kind of -- to word it however you want to limited that. Zaremba: Most of the other development agreements start out by saying the applicant will get together with the city attorney Mr. Bill Nary. Hood: Yes. I will include that language that gives them the contact information, kind of a lead in to what the DA is, but the meat of it is what you're going to be -- Zaremba: That was a good beginning. It's being approved for -- Moe: I kind of got that. I think we just need to kind of discuss exactly what we are going to -- what we are going to bring it down to. I mean are we looking at any -- an R-4 type designation, if, in fact, it's not constructed as planned? Zaremba: That would work for me. That's what's so -- probably going to surround it at some point. Rohm: I think it might be easier just to have the development agreement run with what's being proposed. Just say the existing proposal has five building units and just this development agreement is -- limits this R-8 designation to this -- these five structures. Something to that effect. Because that's what the developer's wanting and what the neighbors are concerned that it doesn't exceed. Zaremba: That's fine with me. Moe: Well, we'll try that. Hood: A couple more, maybe, to help you along. I just wanted to make sure, so I didn't have to ask for clarification after the motion, so -- Moe: Oh. Okay. r .- .. , ~~< 1~ ~-q ~~ 4 i ' Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 88 of 90 ^,f;.: Hood: The fencing that the applicant has talked about, I imagine you have got that one ," 4 = . down to add as a -- since the applicant's clarified that ~J , ~ . ~ 5 :; ~3 Moe: That would be on number five under the fencing, it would be a vinyl fencing at the . , perimeter. Hood: And, then, the -- Moe: That's on page eight. :; ~~~ Hood: And, then, page 13, the amenities prior to construction of the -- r ' ~' 3. Moe: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Let me mark these pages first. It's getting late. :='~.:,;; Rohm: Yes, it is. .~ ~~ ~ Moe: 13-F. The fourth retirement building. : : - Hood: Yes. Those are the only things that I had. You had it. I was just making sure ~ ; :-rY~~= . Moe: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-027, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21st, 2005, transmittal date of July 14th, 2005, with the following change -- or addition, I should say, under -- on page six, under the annexation and zoning facts and .~; {'~ additional comments, I have an item number three, that the applicant will enter into a v development agreement with the cit that the ro e u e t ~ not constructed as planned, and that any furthe pdevelopment wo uld be limitedt o fiv -:~~ - ,,; e structures only. . Zaremba: That could be five apartment buildings of 20 dwelling units each. Moe: Five structures no larger than what has been planned '`k~t . Zaremba: Okay. ~'~ ;: ~ `~ ~ Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. ~' MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ~ ;~ r, ~;~ _ Moe: Okay. Be right with you. Craig, just for clarification, the fencing situation under the preliminary plat, that s dust -- that s dust noted on the special conside ti ~. ra ons or do you want that under site specifics? ~,~ ~~ ; ,,.. ,,~ .. 3:h. ~;:. ~~ ~~' «:.. 'k,_~, ~:~~, ~~ ;~` t ~` ,. . r, ~~ -'~ ~~ ~. ;~s .~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 ~'` Page 89 of 90 Hood: There is asite-specific condition number six on page nine which talks about fencing. Moe: Okay. Okay. I got you. Hood: You can just add a sentence to the beginning of that, if you prefer. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-027. Is that a correct number? I thought I heard somebody say something earlier. That is correct? Okay. To include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21st, 2005, with a transmittal date of July 14th, 2005, with the following change. On page nine, item number six under the site specific conditions, I'd like to add a sentence -- a short sentence after -- in six, it says this fencing will be vinyl fencing. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-034, to include all stall comments for the hearing date July 21st, 2005, transmittal date July 14th, 2005, with the following change: On page 13, under site specific conditions, item number three, under the last sentence where it discusses the zoning compliance permit - for the third retirement building, I would like to strike that and put for the fourth retirement building. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all for hanging in with us. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: It's approaching early dark ~n~: ~.-, r~ ~., ~~;f ~: ~P 37. f% Meridian Planning & Zoning a~;',', July 21, 2005 ~~~' Page 90 of 90 ~~ i $~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. ;~~~~s: Moe: I move we adjourn. y-~__ ~ ~~~, Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Can we get a second? Good. I'm glad we did. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? -~' MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. cJ r ~= Zaremba: Thank you. We are adjourned. ~ «,. `<. _ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:46 A.M. ,, (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) ;a, APPROVED 7 ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ DAVI ZAREM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ` ~\`\`~~~u a rirrerr~`~ r ,: \` ~, ~ V ` 66 ti `~#' ATTESTED: ~ ` ~' .~ _ as. »_ ILLIAM G. BERG JR., SIT CLEF ~ - :~~; _ ter, :. ~, ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~yQ` ~rrrrno ninN~ -~~; ~~ `~ ,,:~ r k~: a. - :i'~ 1~ ~.~ ... ~s f.'r` Y; ;. r : ~: ~sX 'k :", .a <f; r 'F>, S `n.. 3: f ~-~.; ;"3 ~.. ?+T," ~ fir: -X3:;::;4 '~~r' :;:~.~ :-<:' ;~:: i, ~j s:r, ;. ~%~~ ~' r~~; .'ry,~, ~•, ``.jy'` ~ _>~' ;;!" ~~ >~,:: ~, 4t!f.:. . ~~,.... i~$"^ ** TX TION REPORT ~ DRTE TIME TOi~ppl 01 07/22 08 37 PUBLIC WORKS 02 07/22 08 39 12084664405 03 0722 08:40 8841159 04 0722 08:42 2088840744 ~ 0722 08:44 POLICE DEPT 06 0722 08~ 45 8%5501 07 0722 08:47 LIBRARY 08 0722 08:49 92083776449 09 0722 ~: S0 3886924 10 0722 08:52 P-RND-2 11 0722 08:54 895 0390 12 0722 08:56 128300040 13 0722 08:57 208 387 6393 14 0722 08:59 2088885052 15 0722 09:01 CHERRY LRNE 16 07/22 0904 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 17 0722 0906 I D PRESS TRIBUNE 18 0722 09:08 2088886701 19 0722 09:12 3810160 20 0722 09:15 ADA CTY DEUELMT AS OF JUL 22 '05 (~ PRGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIRN (1DDE MINiSEC PGS CMDit STRTUS EC-S 01'09" 003 014 OK EC-S 01' 10" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'09" 003 014 OK EC-5 01'11" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'07" 003 014 OK EC-S 01' 31 " 003 014 01< EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK G3-S 01'26" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'09" 003 014 OK (a'3.-S 02'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 O!< EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'57" 003 014 OK EC-S 01'08^ 003 014 OK REVISED CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN pl-ANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1• Roll-call Attendance: ~ Keith Borup D Wendy Newton-Huckabay _,~ David Moe ~_ Michael Rohm ~(,_David Zaremba -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 2, 2005 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; approYC Nci~h x4rr1P-r1d (~~~ 4• Presentation by Dr. Linda L. Clark, Superintendent to Meridian School District: prt's~nt_ed 5• Recommendation: VAC OS-010 Request to vacate 16 foot right of way easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of Meridian for Meridian Creamery by Zeke Jo nson - 27 East Broadway Avenue: ~ ~i ~YIYYt t'~ ~„` ~~ ~ ,~ i C~ s• Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2005: AZlJ~70~ 5-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from Rl1T to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: (~~-h~ ~~~~ laep,r~irt~ ~ ~US~. 7. Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2005: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare 8~ 1 pool / locker fatiliiy / 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 ~(~~-nU..Q (~~~ -hP +~ uS+ I g, 2005 8• Contin Public Hearing from May 18, 2005: 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 frorrtages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess All~mat vials Pr geeemed at publCc meetings shaUlnb~m a prope~y ~ the~ity of Mfdlan.3 Anyone tleslring accommodation for disabilitles related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's CMfice at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~:~:' , ,jr ^N" ~` a~~. k~ ~~ mom` . ~ ~. i ti~: •4 ~r kj'~ ':~ 'y r' I~ ~i .... ~, `r~r. ~~... ?~.'.pa: '.aw ,'~. '. ~y..;. l ~ r~~i '. F ,' r- __,'-, ~~'` ~~'s;-.. '~;.":. }~~N.... ~:1't.. =~ ~± P';k r `i' ~ .. ~?=~k:~ kH'i, k~ f . ~~:~ ~~~1 y~y...l Y ,~v~x ~,~ S(:f ~ ~kv '' xil ~;~: 4. !}{ '•~~. fy r;; ^.. -'T~L'Jtl ~', ~~~ - ! ~, `J-, hy` Ifi~~ (.~l ~ } 1 ,~~., i,~r: ~,'~ ` Y ~. ~ `~~~,jyy .y ~ f y~.. ~ i ~ ~ . i v1 ,YI f1 ~, t~~-,.y~' 5,: rt ?k: -~,:~ "' i ~w`=` '+.,: --g!~;:• FPt= ~" _ . ;tip y'.~ D.: ~~r ~FV F ~. _ ~~'... ~ LOOK ,4T GROWTH R « ;.: Joint School District No. 2 Dr. Linda Clark, Superintendent fi; ~; -~ri ._ ~;; ..~ - r.~ i' ~~' Context o District covers 384 square miles o Considered to be about 40% developed ~ o Forecast of 70 - 75,000 students with full development . ,~~.. ;~; ,~ Past ten years -average growth of 1,030 annually ~~:: :T, • November 03 to November 04 growth = 1,738 students • In-year Growth >~ o + 188 students during 03-04 (growth of 1467 in fall of 2004) `=~C o + 354 students during 04-05 (growth of ???? in fall of 2005 ~X -`~~~ j • More than 12,000 new home sites under development -approximately .~ 9,600 students (number of homes x .8 - 2000 Census data) '~ ~,, Building Permits vs. Growth $~y 0 2002-2003 (growth of 884 from 2,275 permits) `_~% 0 2003-2004 (growth of 470 from 2,120 permits) 0 2004-2005 (growth of 1,467 from 3,325 permits) ~` 0 2005-2006 rowth of ??? (9 from 4,396 permits) -; Between 2000-2003, permits issued averaged 2175; Last year , 4,396 singe-home permits were issued ^~ < ~. U • Issues Related to Growth .~ ~1 <~~~x o Patterns of Growth and Response o Land Acquisition o Cooperation r~°y~~> l 4..h ~1JpLIil -'~ l'.i Ali ~ _'' `-+,, - .... -~ ~~ - rfj r .,. v' ~~~:_ ~~ . F.~~ -: 1 ~ fi :; d~~., ~~~.4. ~~'z. _ '~~ r.. '`-~i ` r, ::;:,1:; ` ' ; .S;~fTTf~~ : = .. 4 ~tiGtTb. ''' VVVVVV ;~;~' _ , ;: ~¢ ,~: :, ~~ ~, ,;~-: 1T__~LL .y: ;~..Y s ~ h" ~~~` . _~_-~'' ref=.. e • VAC 05-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING .lUly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Zeke Johnson ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Recommendation -Request to vacate 16 foot right of way easement on Lots 1-9, Block 1 of the amended plat of the Townsite of Meridian for Meridian Creamery 27 East Broadway Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY. BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become properly of the Cffy of Meddlan. 0 0 AZ 05-015 ~,- :;ry~a~j -h'' J~v ~: ,, ~,:;>< . ," ~~ , ~~ ~' z° ,~ ~~: ° _ , c, '} ~?~ °~,. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,lUly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision - 2820 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments 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 Cify of Meridian. -.,:. U PP 05-017 i'>, ,. :~~, '~.(. ~: ~. ;~;,~; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8, ZONING MEETING ,lUly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (24 (244 residential units, 1 daycare 8~ 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: See previous Item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments 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. ~. ~~ ;. ~:; ti~' r;: `~f :~;~:~ ~~ ~~~ fir. ~.. ~- . i= _~~ i :.; ~ ~~ ~`}', ,. -,' -~.: a ~ s r-:, , f~: ~'~m ~;~ . "~ ~; U,.. ~z~; ~r, <~@. ,~; ~,,, ~,v;; ;? '~,~` ~vE~a- ~~. ~3y;:: , ~?`~:- ~1:~ ,~a., t s~F !.~. o;::,~; r,~ ??~~' ~~ O CUP 05-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. $ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 19, 2005: 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 Ave AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments 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. . .., , •.'C~ ~;~c . ~. ~el~.~r o-.~L AZ 05-026 r MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 .~ ~`' ~ APPLICANT HOllybrOOk, LLC ITEM NO 9 . ~> ~- REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005- Annexation and Zoning of 15.32 y, acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 N. Curt Drive 8~ 540 East ;~;; .~~ ~ Ustick Road ~~~ AGENCY COMMENTS ;, a{, ;; '.3 CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes ;,~~ ~, ,. "~ CITY ENGINEER: ,;~~~ ~~~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: w '~ CITY ATTORNEY ~~~: ' ' ` +`~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: a:~-; CITY BUILDING DEPT: ..- ,,;;' E;~.. CITY WATER DEPT: ~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~., CITY PARKS DEPT: ' MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~'~ ~::;, i' SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments ~.,:.__: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ':~:~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~ : SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~f ~ , :.; :"r'.'~i ;-; IDAHO POWER: t; -. ~.~ t. . INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: z_ . ' ~` OTHER: ;~. ... Contacted: Date: Phone: t r, ;~ ~ Emailed: Staff Initials: 1_ . -n' Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,,~_,, _3... .c. ,, t ~, ~_,, ~' {". u: .. _ ,n. 45y. . ~. s... ,y«.~ ~~; a+}.fie .. - rr~'7. . ° s•.v3~~i .. , _ t ids a- ~_ 6_-$ ^;~,. x S;` y~y $ x : ? ,. ~~. ~' s~~ ~ .. ^ f.~. ~:$~~< >~; ~:~.~; ~~ ~ >~ ~. ':> ;~; :r< ~~ ~`~~ ~' ;`~: v ,e , i~ :,. ~~' ~h` ~~ ~, '<~' .= ~,~~.=: """: x: ~~=` }F ~,..:. r,~'~;,, ti;;;,, . • l~ u PP 05-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Q REQUEST Contineud Public Hearing from July 7, 2005- Preliminary Plat approval of 56 building lots 8~ b common lots on 15.32 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hollybrook Sub - 3265 3265 North Curt Drive and 540 East Ustick Road 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: See attached comments 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 Ctiy of Meridian. k 1'. 1: ~:~'~" Y. . ~. ~ . ~ if 1 + :`.'::1. ^' CUP OS-033 a ~~-: ;~• MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,July 21, 2005 ~~ ` ~`` APPLICANT Hollybrook, LLC ITEM NO .~ . _,,~, -' `. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from July 7, 2005- CUP for a PD for single-family detached units 8~ single-famil s~, y attached units with a request for reductions in lot sizes, minimum street frontage & zero lot line side yard setback ;~ for Hollybrook Subdivision - 3265 North Curt Drive ~ 540 East Ustick Road '~ 5 :' ,; ~ - ~ AGENCY COMMENTS , ~;~ ~~;r t „, ~~ ~ CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes ''' CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY „~ ~~~ ~;~ t; CITY POLICE DEPT: '~ -~ ~ `~~ -_-, ~_ ~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~:~ 4% CITY BUILDING DEPT: •y~ CITY WATER DEPT: ~'' -„xy CITY SEWER DEPT: ,:~,r " CITY PARKS DEPT: „ IBC MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: . ` ~: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments `=~~ ` ~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~ ~. 3 ~~ ~ ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: :~ FJ ~~ ..5' ,4 ' SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~, : ' ~ ~` IDAHO POWER: ~,; _' INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: R 3- Jrvh' OTHER: ~'• • ~~~, ~;- Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: w' Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;ti `;s~+ ~~ '~~ ~~~, ~'~ ;'~" ~+~ ;~-; ~. ~. ~~'~~'. ~: ,,T. Y: yr f ;_ ~, ~ ~, F ~.'~; ;'. ~' ~ + = r~.~~~ 1„ ;, ;. -: g ~? , .,. : _. ' ~~ x-- 1 . , ;r.., ~x ~ N !'=~~ }$~. ;~= ~ ~ , ~:~'~ <: =i ~- ,~sr_ r; ~~~ w ~~+~ . ~~,. r. _; ~:F; ,~; f~' t.;.~j AJi. ,:, iL'~''. ~': -. l~ ` ~i~., • AZ 05-028 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT Michael Arnke ITEM NO. ~ 2 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 2.06 acres from RUT to R-40 zone for Amke Subdivision -2070 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached memo from Josh Wilson CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clfy of Meridian. 1~'ft: ~..:... .. T~. :- Via'. :., ~. ~. }_. 4..~. ~~ T~ 4;: { a F ~`' ~~~_ ~~~ . ww _" .f~. r<r;~ . i s:~! ,:.~~ .;n <~ _:~~; s,: ~,:._L,~ "s ~: .`,,`: 5~ O PP 05-028 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,lUly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Michael Amke ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 common lots on 2.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Arnke Subdivision - 2070 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached memo from Josh Wilson CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdian. ~~ T_S'; ~~~ ~r2 rts~ ,, asp ~~. ~` ~~~ 3 ~, r~,: ,1 ~.: -~,~ r ~ ~,, r~,~; lk~~ f r:;.~<. ~~.~_ .f ,7; ~,~ '~~~~ ~:. s~: .~ ;~; .;: ~z,~t ,x;~f ~; r; y.. ~, ?~~. s, --:,r: ~~: >~r~ ;,_ e ~ AZ 05-029 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,1Uly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Benchmark Construction ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 11.75 acres to R-2 zone for Sunstone Subdivision - 1155 and 1123 North Black Cat Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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 attached letter of concerned cltlzens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~. ~ ~~.. ,. t ~:;~: ,::, a~ • ~,~~; ~~ *. "- PP 05-029 ' f' MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 h, ~ t~; APPLICANT Benchmark Construction ITEM NO. ~ 5 s:, ~' REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 17single-family residential Y.;. =4 ` building lots & 3 common area lots on 11.75 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Sunstone ~.: '~ Subdivision - 1155 8~ 1123 North Black Cat Road >>~, <.. ~~~~~ AGENCY ~G ,~ COMMENTS '~r ,~ ~;.:-r_; ~.. ::`k~~ ~t :, F !. ~:r; ;~~' ~~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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 attached letter from citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~?~: :. _, ~,., > ::: :, ._ ~~r,< ,,y ~,. .. fx~r , .., ,~; , , . ;~~_~ ,=~ -~ ~~ ~, ,~ , . %, ; E~: ;~-: ~'~ ~.,` ~ <~ t np ~^i ' . t:iy~ ~~'?.~;;~~a ~i r T., ,;~~ .~,~:, ~% a t - ~.~, ~:. ,, ~ ~. . ~ K' _i .,; i u ~, x~T~a ~:~ ~;;;x,;. mss. ._. ~.a; ` f, z } ~£~w~ K-~ s-.; b'~~ ~~x: + '- ~: ,,. `.'7,.~. -~r'~ '_.;~i ~'pWi ti; ... ~. • AZ 05-030 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT Beckit Development, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision - 2770 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. 5': R;~ _. ~ :.~ 4' z ~~ f. ~~.,, ~~ti': =~ ' 5, , a ~;. ~~ ^~ "i ... ~ ~- Yij 4. ~~ ~; u. ~. ~, ~M ,; , , ;.;~ ~: - ~~.~ ~~ `~~ .. ~; ~'~' { ' ~-~ '- ;~ T°„ ~~. ~::, ~,~i ~~; ~~~~; • PP 05-030 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,lUly 21, 2005 APPLICANT Beckit Development, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 7 w~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision - 2770 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CffY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments 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 e ~~ ~~' ~ AZ 05-031 £~~: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING July 21 2005 , =~ APPLICANT The Enclave, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 8 ~~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 2.74 acres to R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision - 2620 South Locust Grove Rood ~"h; ~ AGENCY ' ~' ~.. -- N COMMENTS ~ ~;:v. .:,' CITY CLERK: { CITY ENGINEER: ,~, ,. CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report }~~`' -, :4 CITY ATTORNEY ,'S. r E 4 ~~ ~_ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ,;,; ~' y. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: 'x3t~" =~-~' ;~~~ CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment j ~ ~ .~ ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: r: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached comments ~_~ *~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: - :~; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments 6 ~ ~ `'' fem. ~: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: `*; .,~~~ ~' ~ "r' ,, ,~ . ` INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: , Yg~ ~..~ ~' OTHER: ~~~ ~,~ '- ~ e;„.' ontacted: -~~ Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: '' Materials pr®sented at public meetings shall become properly of the Cily of Meridian. ~~.: ~r:--krt ;y~~ ~~*x:~~y ~'. - $a. ~:V.~ ~;n, - ,..; r~! ~~~ :. .. - - - 1 - ~+ .., ,. ;. -, :; $~~ ~ ~ ~, J h> :;~_;, ~~~` "~-~ ~~; ~~ d ., . {,.. ~~=:_ >; ~ , ~' ` ' ~ ~ ~ 4 ." ~ 's {? ~, ' ~:. ::-~ t; .: ~%~ 7 ~~~ .ar . - . ~ 'jr ~ 1C?. `` ~~ ~' _ : ,i 'I~.,k~ t;~ .~' ~. ~: ~~% _-;;~: ' ` ~ , ~ , ;,~ ~~ a~ ~~~: 7t 7},~1 ;> t;~ ,:;,-:• PP 05-031 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT The Enclave, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 9single-family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 2.74 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for The Enclave Subdivision - 2620 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Matedcls presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~`~ t^;r aaF.'i'.. ~ S~\^Y~F~'. ~, `K ~;. . ;::r ~u~ «, ,_,~, _~;.~ ;., gym: kf.`., AZ 05-032 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 APPLICANT .lames & Carrie Jewett ITEM NO. 20 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of .56 acres from R6 to L-O zone for West Carol Street Professional Office - 1560 Carol Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letters of concerned cltlzens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®s®nted at publ(c meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~: s ~r s ~~: . ,~ AZ 05-027 ~a `~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 21, 2005 fi APPLICANT The Land Group ITEM NO. 2 ~~ ' REQUEST Public Hearing: Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for }~' ~" Maxfield Subdivision - 3295 East Falcon Drive ~f . ~; ~ ,Y ~~r ~ AGENCY COMMENTS ~_;; -' ~~''`-'~' CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: .~~ "~~ r ~ ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY ,F ~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: Fz;~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: tt Y~r `-~ CITY WATER DEPT: ~ k < _ ~,~ ;; CITY SEWER DEPT: 1p; °; CITY PARKS DEPT: ~;: -. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached comments <~~b; <. ;,. . SANITARY SERVICES: :-~-y:- „. f w' =~ ~ ~~ ~4~F~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments ~'; NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: `"Y ,~, :.r' IDAHO POWER: ~'~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: „'~= _, , r-: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: r ~ Materials present®d at public m®eNngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. y~ tit i" 1.~ r . .. ~: ~~ - .. ... ~. .. r s~h~~ ~. ,: .. . . 59 fg%,, .o-.. :~ ;-µt`: ri ~ti_ ,~; ..; PP 05-027 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING July 21, 2005 APPLICANT The Land Group ITEM NO. 22 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ma~eld Subdivision - 3295 East Falcon Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: 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 properly of the City of Meridian. :M1 is s r_, .~. • CUP 05-034 fit' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING ,lUly 21, 2005 t~~ ~~.': APPLICANT The Land Group ~~ ITEM NO. 23 ,~,. REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit /Planned Development for one '' '= single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for M ~ l a e d Subdivision - 3295 East Falcon Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ~` ` ` CITY ENGINEER: Y`T, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached staff report ~= CITY ATTORNEY T .x,a CITY POLICE DEPT: .F~ ' ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: '; `, - CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: `;~~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~~~~' a CITY PARKS DEPT: ~ ~ ,; ,~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached comments = SANITARY SERVICES: 'a = .: s ;ti ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached comments ~'~- { CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached comments ~'~` ~' , ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached comments . _. :; `, ; SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~`_i, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~~ ;.>: OTHER: ~~ ~, ,rte;; '`"'~ `°~ Contacted: Date: ~` `° Phone: Emailed: ., Staff Initials: '' `. ; Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meddlan . ;~; `s ~s= ,a-~, ~ "~_': ~E'"' A E'F~1 ,. ,z ~r. .... ~ - >,;~ ~~ ,,:. _