The URL can be used to link to this page

2004 04-15 CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay O Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Recommend Denial to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for Denial `~ . 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the °<~r construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and ~~- residential uses to remain and the property for Mussell Corner ~'`; ~. Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, 2004 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~sv 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. n S S ~F~Y• # ~ ~ ~ . ~ V a; s , ; Y ~ G w ~'~ _: ~'~.~,,. t 5 4_. e a ; ~':' r ~ w ~f.- f }.' St 1~S 4. :. C t t~ i ~~C'J r~ ~7~ 2 A ti ' 'I ,: 4 .b"1 ~~x ~j. -,~ ~~ ~ t • ~ -- ? ~ ~3'` .H 3' ' ~ « ~ , . .~ > _, ~ . , ~_ t, . y~ ~~ +S. w _' ~ r 7 M ~ #_ ~' ~~ ~. t ~ * .=fit .:T ~_~ ~ ~~. ~ ~2> .. `,,. ,'ri -l'; <..: ~~ ~~~~ ~ j.., r F " f f i4 f t r~ ' I t r_ _ , 1 ?a r z ;r ^R „ c r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~. ~ ,1 :'' i :,r `. E° ~F ~r.. ~k a • • ~ Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Recommend Denial to City Council F~ 7. Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner ~~ ~' Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 '`~` commercial buildin lots on 3.06 acres in a g proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner =~~ of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council ~? 9. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- y~` 4 to L-O and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 "' 10. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by y Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 ;~>~! 11. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a <<~fi~: Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L- O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 ~~ 12. Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 °~ ` acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road <~°~' and east of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City =~z' Council ;~z:,: `' 13. Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 - single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in `4'` a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by _~~~ Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~4.' 14. Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: :;;; Continue Public Hearing to May 6, 2004 `' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, 2004 ;~: 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. -, r .. ,., I I I~ ~ 4 ~~ ., , .,{ ~ Fc~ $ X ~ rk.. ~'.ee~'+~.ii /.,'. .iY% ~ 3~v ~:i. ru't~'Lk A~ {~i5~'c;°Y< I ~.=n5 ~'7' °i ea AV. ~ ,•'.: "A'!~+'~ey~i~'~'~f{~~ # 3)'~r ~'.3: ~ '. ., , SFr , ~ ,. .., ,.~ .,,, .„ . - ;:f; ,.,~,t s .~ .,' _ h r 9 I' ~ r' ~' •`[ , '._ ~`'"~ ~.•.a ~ n ~ ~~-'.: ~ wri.G: ~ ~ '~1' I f ~ i~ , .~e. P-, rT. jj'fr'.i".,. I s :s { . ~ I { ~ i `•r ~ F 4e, 1 ! #Y`i;r'. a;~~:a' it ,;: ~4? ~. ..~ y .w..+ , f' a ~ J '~'lIM h:: 4kt,~5'itwy: R^rf#>z„' x ~'t~k rc :~ ~wv. n t >w~`a Vr ~'r ~~~ wx a. -'w.t<f~ "• , x; ~i ' l I '. r. ` 3 'r ' ~ 1 ~ ~I { '~ 7.~ p 'Y ~, .M; ,rt n~/ t i. . . I y 1 .. : ' k . ~ , .713` &~ ~ °• ~ , 'G ~ ~~;' 4,.+f , ' I.I III { " li; t~ / ^' a ~ ~ I I 'l I ~ ' I , I . k t 1, ) ,p ~ ~S~iil. 1: ..', "Tr k ~X a T ~ ~` ~,` ' z.~ I '. (.~'Y v.y , , <' ~ ~ it ~ ., :. w r ~ Y v"'+ 'I ~ ~ . I ^ I . ~ iC { A ~.. +* ,~ ~ ` ` ~ q ~ 17i'K~: '~~'~°-`"'',;^~ ,r, f.~`?w . ~' .. :'a• 1 -:t •;.~~ .i ~"%' ..- ~~ ~ l ; T. 4k ~. L°:.~. .`, ;~' .~ +$i„ 7~rv137: h:i~.r4~'ws t~ r:'. ' Te' '.2 y. ,. L°,'"~: F.' c .~" y~ I g `; it ~~ ' y ~~t ;'~N:'i!r ` ~ ~ '.1 " r ' 3 i.~.T .'~ n' i S ' s u '~ ` t4..n, 3y .~, i., , <..~„ •.:~«~ :. ~f'td• ' ~~ . r ~ L~L''~~i y, { .lid` .':P:'4 I ' ~ •I r ? A I ~ -'~'~'a.r '~ ~1. ' ffM1f ~y':"•S.'r ~:.~F, '}' " ~•. i' ~ ~ II t. i I vi ' ~ z .l. `e' ~. I i% N,ia,. ,', ri ,'t. r:: '.~t: ~I ~ I i.: ..i. .~ ~ r ~ i d• ~ ~~'~] i }~~'> 't 'i ..t v .''1i:"'%S±•~.'~' z.~ .'c., ..y~:c 7=;,;~ I I , :?~:- 'J ~ { • 1... ~~ ai ~ ~ 'st'S'• ~~.t i` ss34 i is • , ~ I . l . r ~?~~' ~ ~ ` ~ it I , ' I ~. I ~ ~ ,~ ~ -s_.> ,. ~att -.y..^ ~ti`ht;}.: ' Y•,~ .f4'.y' ~~:ai~,~'.ti::«~~-.a TAY nsr,`, R l~'.' ~r a,; tea`.: w4 ~.~ :a~' ' t' ~f~~' I ~ I aM'C ''~ ' ~ I i~q, ir~ ts; ,y.s.~;.~ '~".~F~~~~'r4,'2~' ~ ~ •'%''d 4''~: { .i .:7ce~..~ .ea.4.~:. I • 5{; .Y . ,~ . ''.~ is ~. 'r •.I .~ 1 Ytr .. ~x"=~Y~i.;t56,a!•y=:,3x?~~ :.. 'k `r3?~.~'-,u f : ~ ~ m' P :f. ' ' tom'.{.; ••:1. .: s J' t' 7 ~ ' + .1 :.y A•.~~. Y4j r•'•.p I I 'I . r ~ i 'C I { r. F' I ~~. i I I i,: x 1 ~. . ~ ~ ': ' .~ - - i ~ •~~: y ' ..i•: I C •"4 ~'~ 3 ~.. t I I i~ I :di ; ' - ~ "A~ :~ x i .`~1~%.~"~``'#.~".rz42r..~xak",.~ „i~. 15. Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by r Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east `` Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6, 2004 A~ 16. Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the .Yx~ elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in ~;~~ addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 RF; single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request for "~- reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road ;;~ and north of east Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6, 2004 s,=. '~ f t<~`_ :;<, ~_ j ~r~ ~: ;,~ 5 >;: ~:. ~~ r ~,~ ,Y, :.i~'. ,. - s Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, 2004 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 ~'°t~' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~, ny., ~: •; N , S',' y 4, `} ,~ ' ~ ' y j ~: _~ fib; ~ 1, ]En. f Yj- l,, 1 ]~ , ' t. 'i =} ~ : ~, ~ i~ ; ~• -',_ a _..~ CITI' OF MERIDIAI~T ~,., ti ".' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, Apri115, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers ~'~'"' 1. Roll-call Attendance: {~° -- ~, David Zaremba ~ David Moe ---~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ,,,_~ Michael Rohm Y ~ ~_Chairman Keith Borup y ~'~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: +;, ~= ~~ ;y 3. Consent Agenda: ~, ~, ''~' ~ A. Tabled #rom April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 h ~; ~~ Planning and Zoning Commission Spgcla~I M_e_ sting: B. Approve minute of February 18, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission R lar Meeting: ~ ~ ~~~~ 4. Continued Public Hean g #rom March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed ~- Mussell Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast ';j comer of Eas ictory Road and oath Meridi n Ki~a Highway: '~~'~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-00? Request ~`"~ ' ~ for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building tots on 21.38 ``~^ acres in a proposed G-G zone for proposed Mussel) Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of East Victory Road and ~~~ .- South Mer"di n Kuna Hi hway: ` ~.~ ~ 6. Continued ublic wring ft-or>ri March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit far a Planned Development to allow the ~A construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience fir,:; _ =w store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the ®xisting commercial and ~~ residential uses to remain and the property for Mussel) Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, inc. - northeast comer of East ~p,~ . ~_ Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: } c y, ~ ~.Co ~ ~'VIfL~'i ~, ~yl l`a~. ~ C~ ,. Meridian Punning and Zoning Commission Agenda -Agri! 15, 2004 Page t of 3 t All materlau presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cfty of Meridian. } Anyone desiring acxommodatlon far disablllUes related to documents andlor hearings ~''~~~ please contact the City Clerk's office at 888.8433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~. ~ ~~ ~ } - '~ YS '~i. a ~~ y';~:~ t.': 4; s ~1 1 ~, - R ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , , ~ ° i ~; ~ 5Y .~ ~ Y?f j ~S i. ~ -- .. Ht r Y ~ `~3-4C~4 M I ~ 3+ V K . 1- Y s. ~.. .:'.-f ~ ~ ! r _ S . '- ~~ !r itt 5S 1~~(i5+' a rr+07 ~n ~ ~ .~ l 'mod.?{.a a` ? : t ~ .x ~` -f i i{ T~ ~~ii~~~ it Y: ~ 3`~ f ,. ~ ! , p R- ~ ~ ~~~4~ Si E ... hf-' i~ f 1 ~ Y~:.:~ _ 55 ~~ ~~ " '~s {~ ~~ , ~iisb~7fit~ ~«;' ~~ i~ ~ F r. Rti < y ,_.~. 4, . i ~. ~ t z < ~' : ' .._..k -~r,x3/~ i . 1 ` ~ f' x ~~' h ,. "~= 4, ~~ R"w,. ,;s.: ~. ,._~ ~.v, ~~ .~,. t ~f ', .:~~:.: '; t r h1j ~~~ -~ ,r ~..,. ^~ ,. . ,,, Aj ~, :` ~'~ r? =~ 4i ~ ~ 7. Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeas# comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: o~~,~. ~. (~-~ ®~'~. ~ Gj~, 8. Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: 9. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- 4 to L-0 and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 10. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 11. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L- 0zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to Apri129, 2004 12. Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of N h Locust Grov R d: 13. Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Req e~t for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Lo st Grove Road: ~~e~~~~~ ~-P~~~'~~. ~ plc, 14. Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. - eas of South Eagle R ad and Wort of east Victory Road: 15. Public Hearing: Pi' 9 Request for Pr®Ifminary Plat approval of 79 single family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: ~ b ~ ~ ~ U ~ Q~ ~~' ~ ~ ~ , ,~ A+lerldlen Planning and zoning omm on Agenda - AprN 15, Zd04 ~rl' Page 2 of 3 ~~111111 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabllitles related to document and/or hearings please contact the City Cleric's (~ at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C f :, 4:;:: ~ 7` J r.r„ t C: ~. " 41v ~ Y t f: ~. y/ ~, ~` 4v~,: b.. i Z IM w. -~. i.Z;. ~ ' ~, • 1 ~,t .. S"~' , , • • y. t F'_ x ~ 5 16. Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original s h, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single family lots in ~} ~1 ` rv" addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 r'"N,~T~ single-family lots for Su#herland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request for t ~.~~ r®duction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and `'` front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road ~k' and north of east Victory Road: " ~ / ~` ~I V1lUU~ P/r~ `~ Uri ~~~ r ~ ~~ «:..:r ~;•;~: 4t =r f~~ r'~~ Meridian Plannlrtg and Zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, X04 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at publM meetings shall become property of the Ciky of Meridian. Anyone desiring accarnmodatlon for disabllmes related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 898-4433 at feast 48 hours prior to the public meeting. y. >` /ry l~ Lt' ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 1 C3 t h't~t a 11 i. Y~i ~~.~Y-kMU ~ i ft, T ~i'~~: ipF " ~~~'- i ~ ~ ~ ~'3 l p ~ Y-:3' ~ ~ .I ,~'"jf ~.~.i~Y ~'* ~ ~ ~~ ~ y. k ~ ~ , ~l \ k gip, ~~ 33:, ; i! i i QYy' -~ a ~~ i ~re ~ ~'~`4 ''~~~ Y ~ w t ,. 1 fG H4. ~ ~~} ~ ~~ ~ ~ f .. ~t ~ Y ;. ,a; ; ' ~ > zry _ s`y, ` i '~ j i ,1~; :, ~Nti-23'~~+Q1 . ~~ ~..~ dh ~ S 1 •y ~ F £' a ~ ; ~ n?~_ ~ (~ ~k-i ~ y ~ ~' _ ~"s ; , ~; J.' ~ ~~ ,~ >, R:~.. e]~ rl ~ M~"fA 3 ~~ ;~ '3:Tyw ,~:. . ** TX CONFIRMA~ REPORT ~lolc AS OF APR 14 '~0~13 PAGE.01 ` CITY OF MERIDIAN ~- ..; F:t `~~~" DATE TIME TOiFROM MODE MIWSEC PGS CMD# STATUS ~'~.f,.- 09 04114 10 12 2086729111 EC--S 00'57" 003 202 OK ~5"_ r~ ~~.: k CITX OF MERIDIAN r;~T , _;. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ~ ~;` ~~,~ AGENDA ' Thursday, ApN115, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Ghambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~''~ David Zaremba David Moe ~, ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm _-~<;.- Chairman Keith Borup `,~ 2. Adoption of th® Agenda: ~', 3. Consent agenda: ,; r , ~~~, A. Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 y'''`~`s€ Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning 4:• Commissio I n Regu ar Meetng: ~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for ~~ ..~ ~ annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from G-2 to C-G zones for proposed ~~ MusseU Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: px.~:,, F ~,. i ~" ;. 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request s '~ for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 ' ,~' ``:. acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussel) Corner Subdivision t~ by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request .~ ` . for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the `~ _~vy construction of a combination f eed store and gas station /convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for Mussel) Corner ~>.~~; Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: r ;;, :,;;; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, 2004 Page 1 of 3 ;:- ~ Alt materials presented at public meetings shalt become properly of 9re Gty of Meridian. ;ic ~; Anyone desiring aocornmOdalton for disalrili4es related to dowunerrtS and/or hearings p ~ ` please contact the City Clerk's OfBrs at 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. } ~ ~'~`~ ~ ,~.r. ~ rru*as ~~ y: t,s, ~" ~ ` ~ . : . ~n !~ ,,~ f ~~~~,.,''~ K_ ~t, ' t l rf• ~~ ~ ~ ~ R ~'hh'J~~ r, ~ ~ ,V I ~~ A pS" .. d~i ~ t ~ L _~_af 1 k 1 ..4 ~ 3" 3~ ~ M,~ r t ,a+kxt~ ._ ~~ ., .:.~ . ~ +; a J } ~; ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ I `;f' ~ST h~ ~~ L~~ J ~4., ~4~k~a~a i a> '~~-= a I' ~ ff ~~ I Ja 4-~: aR, ,i , k. .. 5 ~ '~ r - f > 'I ~~C .. ~ -. I iF fr ~ ~~'~~ . ,, ' ~ ,_ ~u _,-- z ~: .~ t ~- 'a ' ?~' x i~'t r c^. ~ ~ c ~a S~ r r. ~~~~,; *~ TX CONFIRMA~ REPORT ** AS OF APR 12 '04`i'6~5B PAGE.01 "' ` :°' CITY OF MERIDIRN 1~ DRTE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS ~`' _; ` 28 04/12 16 ~ 50 3810160 EC--S 01'38" 003 173 OK ~ ` `"` .` 29 04/12 16 52 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 00' S8" 003 173 OK ,f,-; 30 04/12 1654 12084664405 EC--S 00'59" 003 173 OK 31 04/12 16 55 8841159 EC--S 00'58" 003 173 OK '~ ~ ~ s~,~ 32 04/12 16 ~ 57 20840744 EC--S 00' S7" 003 173 OK u . `$ ~'~ CITY OF MERIDIAN k,.~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ~" ~~`~ AGENDA ~- " ;~ • ~; Thursday, Apri115, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. . City Council Chambers ;, 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba David Moe ~~~~~~`I Wendy Newton-Hudcabay Michael Rohm Chairman Keith Borup ~.~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Ag®nda: ~'~ A. Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 ~,;,~;:'I Planning and Zoning Commission Speaal Meeting: '~F` r ,~:.5~ B- Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 R oast for e9 ~ ' annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for ro osed , p p MusseB Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast ~, , ~ comer of East Vic#oty Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: 5 ., : ~ . Continued Public Hearing from March a, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 Commercial building lots on 21 38 's,g,; . acres in a proposed C-G 2one for proposed Muss~eli Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle En ine ( th g ers, nc. -nor east comer of East Yctory Road and ~~:: ~ : South Meridian icons Highwa : y ' ~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the ~ ~ construction of a combination feed store and gas station !convenience ``} ~ store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and ~ °' _ residential uses fie remain and th® property for Mussell Comer f=~ ::= Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast comer of East x"~ -, vdory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: ~; ,~.` - ~~ .. i Meridian Perming and Zorimg Commission Agenda - ApN 15, 2004 ~ _ All materlale preaeiq®tl at public maetlnQeahell be00me property of the Cfty Of Merltlian_ An one deaUi ,}, ?., . ~._ -` ` y ng accommodation for dlas[>rptiea related to documents amtlor hearings Please eontaci the CBy Clerk's Ofl'ke at 89gg4S9 et Isast A8 hours prior to the public meetin ~.. . g. I; , °=t~ .: ~, ,^Y_ i' ** TX fON REPORT >~ RS OF RPR 12 '04 17~ PRGE.01 .; . :.i~ CITY OF MERIDIAN F~~?~ DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtS STATUS r ~<_ ' 01 04/12 16:58 POLICE DEPT EC--S 00'57" 003 173 OK r 02 04/12 17:00 8985501 EC--S 00'58" 003 173 OK 'ti'p 03 04/12 17:01 LIBRRRY EC--S 01'15" 003 173 OK '"'~'~~? ~ 04 04/12 17:03 92083776449 EC--S 00'57" 003 173 OK T,~; , ~r-::~ ti-.= _, 05 04/12 17:05 20f38t~6B54 EC--S 00'57" 003 173 OK ~''' 06 04/12 17:07 RL.L AMER]CAN INS EC-S 00'58" 003 173 OK '~ .. 07 04/12 17:08 208 895 0390 EC--S 00'57" 003 173 OK 4; '•• 08 04/12 17:10 128300040 G3--S 01'15" 003 173 OK ~:'~~ 09 04/12 17:11 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'22" 003 173 OK 10 04/12 17:13 RDA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 00'58" 003 173 OlQ 11 04/12 17:15 8885052 EC-5 00'57" 003 173 OK ~ 12 04/12 17:16 CHERRY LRNE G3--S 01'58" 003 173 OK ' ~( 13 04/12 17:19 POST OFFICE EC--S 01'39" 003 173 OK ~~~ 14 04/12 17:21 IDA}i0 RTHLETIC C EC--S 00'58" 003 173 OK 15 04/12 17:23 887 0816 G3--S 01'58" 003 173 OK '~'''' ' '~ 16 04/12 17:25 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'59" 003 173 OK "~ r-' : 17 04/12 17:27 2088886701 EC-S 00'59" 003 173 OK ,,, _ ':>:'~ 18 04/12 17:35 208 388 6924 EC--S 01'14" 003 173 OK ~. ~~`~~ -,,>. CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ` AGENDA . Thursday, April 96, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. -~;;.. City Council Chambers `.;; 1. Roll-call Attendance: r' ~~' ~r~ a~t` I David Zaremba David Moe Wendy Ntawton-Hudcabay Michael Rohm Chairman Keith l3orup 2 Adapbon of the Agenda: 3. Consern Agenda: E ~ ~ Y, ` ' A. Tabled from Apri11, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 ~ ~?: ~: Planning and Zoning Commission Spet~al Meetir~: ~- <<~ > B. Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning ~ =' Commission Regular Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for ~; ~ annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C 2 to C-G zones for proposed Hassell Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of East vc2ory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: -~ 5. ConSnued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03.007 Request for Preliminary Frndl Plat approval of 4 commeraal buitdng lots on 21.38 ` ~ ':'` acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed MusselB Comer Subdivision t ,{ ` by Pinnacle Engineers, inc. -northeast comer of Fist Yctary Road and "~-~ South Meridian Ktma Highway: ~' ' 8. Continued Public Nearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the construMion of a ~mbination feed store and gas station / convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for Hassell Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engin~rs, Inc. - northeast comer of East vdory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: fi ~'tv~ ti~d'mn Plaroting arW 2orrutg commission Agenda -AprU 1s. 2aoa N._ ' ., Page 1 of 9 All matettala preaeMed at public maetlt>ga ehe8 become property o! the Clry of tderkilan. - ,.._ ... p~e~~tedetl+e~ soeommodatlon for dlaabfkies rotated to documents aMUor heerlrgs Wly Clark's t3fflea at / et laa~ 48 hwne pdortome Pab~ meeting. ~~"~~~l~t ,. tt ~ ~y~++~ '~ 3 ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF APR 15 '04 23 03 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~:; ~'. ;;? f .:~ DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDt# STATUS 0? 04/15 22 20 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01' 03" 003 219 OK 08 04/15 22 21 12084664405 EC--S 01' 03" 003 219 OK 09 04/15 22 23 8841159 EC--S 01' 03" 003 219 OK 10 04/15 22 24 2088840744 EC--S 01' 02" 003 219 OK 11 04/15 22 26 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01' 02" 003 219 OK 12 04/15 222? 8985501 EC--S 01' 01" 003 219 OK 13 04/15 22 29 LIBRARY EC--S 01' 20" 003 219 OK 14 04/15 22 31 92083??6449 EC--S 01' 01" 003 219 OK 15 04/15 22 32 208 388 6924 EC--S 01' 19" 003 219 OK 16 04/15 22 34 2088886854 EC--S 01' 02" 003 219 OK 17 04/15 22 36 ALL AMERICAN INS EC--S 01' 03 " 003 219 OK 18 04/15 223? 208 895 0390 EC--S 01' 02" 003 219 OK 19 04/15 22 39 128300040 G3--S 01' 20 " 003 219 OK 20 04/15 22 41 208 387 6393 EC--S 01' 01" 003 219 OK 21 04/15 22 42 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01' 00" 003 219 OK 22 04/15 22 44 8885052 EC--S 01' 01" 003 219 OK 23 04/15 22 46 CHERRY LANE G3--S 02' 03" 003 219 OK 24 04/15 22 48 POST OFFICE EC--S 01' 44" 003 219 OK 25 04/15 22 51 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 01' 01" 003 219 OK 26 04/15 22 52 88? 0816 G3--S 02' 04" 003 219 OK 2? 04/15 22 55 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01' 03" 003 219 OK 28 04/15 225? 2088886?01 EC--S 01' 02" 003 219 OK 29 -------- 04/15 ------- 23 01 ------ 3810160 ------------------- EC--S --------- 01' ----- 44" ---- 003 ------- 219 ------ OK --------------------- CITY OF ME~IA.N MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 20NING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 15, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. ~`' ` ~ + City Council Chambers } _;~ 1. Rolt-call Attendance: T,,,~_ David Zaremba __ Cam, David Moe - X Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ Michael Rohm F ~~.~:a _~„Chairman K®ith Borup ~. °~~{'~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: k'r•_=y: ~~ ~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February b, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission S~eting: ~~' ~~ A-~ Para ~~/ -fl. tlT' '. .i '~':~~ Fry~'di Fq~xp ~~~: ~. {, ; x:: s F}'; ., l i „x y,~ 3~ 1 L ~.y 1 . V I,-". f',` ' 4 Zti ~1~ _{~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, Apri115, 2004, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers ,;s 1. Rotl-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X David Moe ;. X Wendy Newton-Huckabay 0 Michael Rohm :~,;- X Chairman Keith Borup '~`.: 2. Adoption of the Agenda: - ~ 3. Consent Agenda: -~4 A. Tabled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: Approve G= B. Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning ''~ Commission Regular Meeting: Approve w6j+u 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed ~~ Mussed Comer Subdivision by .Pinnacle Engineers, inc. -northeast -~-' comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: - Recommend Denial to City Council "" = ~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2Q04: PFP 03-007 Request ~< for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 ,~ acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussel) Comer Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact '~'yr' and Conclusion of Law for Denial ~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the `` construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience „; a°'" store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the property for Mussel) Comer k.~-.,; Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, fnc. - northeast comer of East ~'~•` Meridian Plannin and Zonin Commission A ends - A dl 15, 2004 ~=~~~ g 9 9 P Page 1 of 3 .r x All materials presented at publk: 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 88&4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meetlr~ ~~ r~ ! ~ ~~~9~ f` ~~~ ;, ~~~~~ ~ ~n ~~ -t i a S ~e _ F .~ ~ ~ ~ ~k ~~ l~ zl r, ~ _ + ~y ~ l . ~ _t,~.,_ Y -. 7, ._ I ~ ~ i' f~~, n~,~~.~ .~~ h ~Q ;i ~~ € ~ {% . , +S 't1,M ~IfY'tiRl ~ ~. -t: ..I .: i. n ~ ' ~R r; Frrr y. ~4 a~'i t ~ ~ ~ }' "'kw ~c~~'J;~. ~+== { ~~: ~ .~~ ;Lf 'ya 4i , ~ , a ~ ~ , ~ S~h3; ~ _ _ ~q.q..n~rAt: i . ~~ . ~~~ ~ ~L i'~v~t F+ ' ,, a ~ w{ r iS ~ f5 C }1- } ~en~. f~^ i, r ' ~_ .A ~ ~ , J~ ~;- ~ i ~ a ~g;~~ryy 5t ~ i l~jt4 ~~~rt. h 1. ~1' ~~wK 4,~ w~ ~ ~ ,~ C k " ~~~s4 ~ 3Y ~ ~ y F t'~~x 3i ' ~'it a , ' t' f r ti ~- ~ ,• 3 ~ ~~ ~`' Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: Recommend Denial to City Council ~~- 7. Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 ~`~` acres from RUT to L-0 zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle ~'~` Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner ~;f, 'Y°'~" Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council ,:~,F 8. Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-0 zone for ~~~`~~ Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer ~~ of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council . 9. Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- _~~ 4 to L-O and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood ~~~ Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, ~,.. 2004 ~" _ 10. Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 -+ building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres ~.' in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by ' Caldenlvood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to ~, {, April 29, 2004 ~~-;~. ;~ n: 11. Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a <,~ Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L- i: O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Caldenwood Community, LLC - .art 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 12. Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 s' acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision -~-~~ No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City iT~, Council ~,-~~.~~ 13. Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 "~`~~a, single family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5,273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by ' Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east Y't of North Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council x„ ~..C =`<G 14. Public Hearing: i~ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 6, 2004 Mertdian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -April T5, 2004 r Page 2 Of 3 ;; AN materials presented at public meetings shalt 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 , _ .. ~i T ~ E'~ ~' ~" . -~ ~::; :. "' .z 15. Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in ~~ ~ proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by ~ ~ ~ Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east ~_ ~ Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6 2004 ,y ~{.1. , 16. Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single family lots in F~. ~ addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 ~i.. ~ ', single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request for ~-' -` I~~ ` reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and . ~,:. _. ` front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road ~~;r. ~~~._ and north of east Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing until May 6, _ n ~. 2004 r, ._ a~ ~_ ; , ~.<~ _5; l~ '' ;, Meridian Planning and zoning Commission Agenda -April 15, 2004 ~, Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 3 ~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabil~ies 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. _ ,, z •~~ ,, Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 15 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe. Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson„ Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: r.~;, x."~ Roll-call ~'~~'~' X David Zaremba X David Moe '"'' X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm ~~ X Chairman Keith Borup .,~,. Vii` Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for April 15th. ~~rv` Start with roll call attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: First item is the adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would -- I don't know if this affects the agenda, but I would point out to the audience that Items 9, 10 and 11 tonight on Southwood Subdivision have been re- noticed to April 29th. That means we will not have any discussion on those items tonight. And, then, we have been requested by the applicant to continue 14, 15, 16, which is Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 4. Is it expected that we will do that? Borup: I would anticipate -- Zaremba: Anybody in the audience that's here for Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 4, we are likely not to discuss tonight either. Borup: Was there anyone here for Sutherland Farms that wanted to testify? Okay. Zaremba: That's my only comments on the agenda. n N ~, ;~ i~ ~t~ -. 1; k~" t; ;- :, : ; ', . ~~£;~ ~" < r.; ~, 5 ~t ~ Y ~'''. t",'!r. r rc _ ':5 r _ .. ... _ . w ';~~»~, ~ ~ { ,; ~ '" ~: ,~;~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission __ April 15, 2004 <" -- " Page 2 of 60 ~; '°1~ ;*++' ~- (~' Borup: Okay. : _ . ;4t ~` `~~ Moe: Then I will second the -- ~~ .. ~~ ~*`~ Borup: Adoption of the agenda. Okay. ~, Zaremba: Move that we adopt the agenda. "~4 ,, Moe: I second that. t.. ~ ~ ~_~ ~x Item 3: Consent Agenda: g A T ~ . abled from April 1, 2004: Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 ~~~-' ~-;~ ~~:_,, ~,.,_~, Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting: ~` B. Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning ~~~ °~ r.: r= Commission Regular Meeting: ~~, 7i. ~~., !~~ ;y - ~` N ~~ Borup: Okay. Consent Agenda, which consists of minutes. Do we need any other ~~;;,> y discussion on that? >g a~ Zaremba: Yes. I have an amendment to Item A, the minutes of the special meeting of ~' '~ February 5, 2004. On the very first page, on first line, the special meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by myself David Zaremba. :N ~,~. Borup: Yeah. I had noticed that. ryi Zaremba: Okay. And on Item B, the minutes of February 19, 2004, on page 43, the first line down from the top of the page where I am speaking, I am quoted as saying: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that this meeting has been educational, but we are -- the word >~~ should be straying, s-t-r-a-y-i-n-g, not strained. Straying. Again, my mumbling gets me. Those are my only comments on those two minutes. z; `'k<~ Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion? '~~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes of February 5, 2004, as amended and the minutes of February 19, 2004, as amended. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? ,, ~~ -~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,~. f ,~~ r „' ,, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission` April 15, 2004 "`=~ Page 3 of 60 ~' Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: AZ 03-038 Request for '~~`'~ annexation and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast ;~ corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: ~~. :<; Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: PFP 03-007 Request ~~~ for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 ;,:~~ acres in a proposed C-G zone for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision - by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of East Victory Road and ~,~.~ ~~ South Meridian Kuna Highway: ~Y ~ ~ Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004: CUP 03-071 Request ` ' for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the 4 ~ construction of a combination feed store and gas station /convenience ~~ ` store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and ~~ ~ residential uses to remain and the property for Mussell Corner ~3.;~ Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - northeast corner of East z Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway: { °~~ Borup: Okay. First hearing is Items 4, 5 and 6. This is a continued Public Hearing from ~ our March 4th meeting. AZ 03-038, PFP 03-007, and CUP 03-071. All three are ,~ concerning Mussell Corner Subdivision. I'd like to start with the staff report, an update ~ ;'': ~,: on this application. ., >-.. ,: '~~~i ~r. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'll just briefly try to i ~~`' refresh your memory. It's been about six weeks, I guess, since this was before the board. The application is for a four lot commercial subdivision on the northeast corner .Y, ~~, of Victory and State Highway 69. There is an aerial view of the subject site. There are 3, _ ::`A~ currently some commercial uses on the site on two of the proposed four lots. There is a ~3 ,~: landscape nursery that takes up the majority of the site and also an irrigation sprinkler ~ . `;~i ~f ~~;~ business and an expresso shop currently on this site. This is a copy of the preliminary `~ ~~ ~ ~s~-~ plat site plan and Iwill -- hopefully, that kind of jogs a few memories. I will let you know that at that last hearing the Commission asked the staff and the ap licant-owner t t ' p o ge together to try to address some of the issues that were originally raised in staffs report ~ '~ and through the -- the letter from Ada County stating there were five issues that they ~ specifically called out as being issues that the had had in the ast with thi Y p s property. I want to i I FT . g ve you -- apologize, I thought the letter -- I just realized that it's addressed to _{ a: the owner of the properly and not to this board, so I had the clerk make some copies -- ~.:~: and I thank you, Jessica. The letter dated April 7th to Mr. Mussell from -- it's from Jerry f-y `~ Armstrong, but I got it from Mike Williams, who is the Ada County code enforcement - officer, after a meeting that was held, I believe, a day or two before it's dated with the 1 applicant trying to get some of these things addressed. I can let you know that staff ._~~ also went out there and did a site inspection. The day before the memo that you have a in your packet was drafted, just to kind of see what was going on out there and as the ~{ , memo states, they have taken care of a few of these items. There are still -- at least ~- ~~'' there were at that time still some outstanding issues, in addition to the other issues that F ~.. Meridian Pl i & Z ann ng oning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 4 of 60 weren't addressed by the county in the staff report, more of the city -- the lack of design issues that staff had with what was being proposed. I guess just to touch on those a ~~~~~ little bit more, in the recommendation for denial of this project, due to the fact that the ="` access to State Highway 69, that that still has not been resolved with ITD, I talked this r:~~ afternoon with Dean Golden at ITD and asked him if they had a chance yet to review the traffic impact study that the owner had done for this site and if their board had had a - " ~`-r, chance to address access points and had approved any other access points. If you . remember, I believe there is three deeded access points to this property. They were showing -- with this PD they were showing two access points to State Highway 69 and > three to Victory Road. We got two correspondences originally back from ITD stating that no access -- you have a thousand feet of frontage on Victory, basically, you don't ^~;;x ' ``" get any access to the highway. The applicant will maybe be able to give you a little bit r more of an idea of where that is in the process, but when I spoke with Mr. Golden today, he said they hadn't -- they didn't -- he didn't have a copy of that traffic impact study or the safety analysis that was also required by ITD. So, you didn't have any update from me on that. And, again, one of the other things that was still outstanding as far as ,- wh at s bein r 0 osed -- I ue g p ss one of the stick P oints for staff is th 9 y p at the a ticant is pP °~s, ~~~,::~ only proposing to landscape adjacent to the Double D store that is proposed right on the `z=t~ corner and leaving the remaining portion of the site unimproved at this time. Those are {~4: a couple of the things that I just wanted to touch on. They are outlined -- all of the °~`''~ ~ issues that still remain are outlined in that updated staff memo. There was some good - faith effort, I believe, on the applicant's part, just the timing, there was not enough time, ;;~s~'.r'~i don't believe, to address all of those issues, and for those reasons staff is still recommending denial of this project, just the design and for those outstanding reasons. ~,' There weren't any conditions of approval included in that memo. I guess I will leave it at ~';`+1 that and if you have any questions I can answer any questions, but, hopefully, that did a decent job of kind of explaining what's happened in the past five or six weeks. Borup: Questions for Mr. Hood? Okay. I had one on -- concerning the traffic study. There was a traffic study done by the applicant's engineer, is that what you were ~'" sa in ? Y 9 ~~ Hood: I spoke with Mr. McKinnon on Friday, I believe it was, and he was reading from ;'~ that over the phone when I talked with him and there just wasn't enough time for me to . ~; do anything with it, even he would have gotten it to me. I believe he got it just that day `J,~ or the day before or something like that. ~. { j 'F- r. - .. Borup: That was my question was when was that delivered to ITD? Hood: And ITD said they didn't have it anyway -- Borup: Oh, they said they didn't even have it -- Hood: It was in Mr. Golden's possession. So, like I say, maybe Dave knows whom that was submitted to -- ;a ~'fi~ ._E~~. ~!~Y-37s V.:v47' i i .~.y x I ,~~~~~5~44, SFr ?. `~~t'~'' ;'l! s `p C k ` ~ 1 p ~ ~ '' r ~ ~,~.( ~ f I s~ n ~ ~a' Meridian Plannin & Zonin Commission k ~ April 15, 2004 g g k~~-f..~~ Page 5 of 60 L „ ~~ -~ Borup: Okay. R. .~ ~: '~' ~~F ..,E ood: -- but he couldn't find it, so -- . p~ - .~7 ~' 4'i I`° `~~~ Borup: Okay. Unless there is an other Y questions from the Commission, Mr. McKinnon ~~ F~.;:, . ~' McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission Dave McKinnon ~? , 735 South Crosstimber. I'll just address that last question that you had Commissioner ~ ~?}; Borup. It was submitted on April 7th to the Idaho Transportation Department. I have z ~4=~ got a copy of it if you'd like to see it. I did receive it that same day that Craig and I were w, talking. Actually, I received it the day before Craig and I talked and, essentially it was ~~ ' , done by Pat Dolby, who is a traffic engineer, and he went through and included the . '~ ~_ ~ three deeds, that we have deeded accesses to State Highwa 69. He went thr Y ough ,~ ,_. traffic counts and through the different right turns and left turns and it's all in here if you .~=4 want to review it. It's traffic engineering to me. It means a lot more to the guys at ITD n° ' than it would to me. So, I have been through it and just talked with Craig about it. If you : ~~a want to have a chance to review it, I would be more than happy to hand that to you. ~} Borup: My question is when did ITD receive it and why they haven't had a chance to look at it yet is what I was wondering. ~ ~~ McKinnon: Well, in talking -- I didn't talk to Dean Golden today and I don't believe it's r ` submitted directly to Dean. There is three separate people at District Three. It could have gone to Matt Ward, Dan Koontz, or Dean Golden. Dan Koontz is Dean's boss ;~_ and, then, above both of the -- and below both of those is Matt Ward. So I'm not sure h ~~~ , who has been assigned to review that. It doesn't mean that ITD didn't receive it Pat ~ _ 3. . Dolby submitted it on the 7th, the same day that we received it. I'm not sure who got it ~ . But if I can just address a couple more things about the access on the 69 before we .M, Y , r jump into the rest of it. As you remember, we talked last time about another application ~.~,~~ ? that you had recently heard called Southern Springs. It's -- would you go to the bigger ' vicinity map, Craig? Go ahead and go back. ~:-: ~ ~ , ~<; ~ ~ Hood: It doesn't go all the way up. ~, , '' ~ ~ McKinnon: Okay. We can go back to that other one. It's located right here. It's a trian l h gu ar s aped piece off of Overland Road and the only access that it has besides a ~ rc,~! ~` ' , small sliver up onto Overland is State Highway 69. That project was approved by the ~ ~ ' ` city without any access to ITD State Highway 69. The Commission approved it and the Council approved it. There was never any correspondence with Idaho Transportation r Department. When they went to the Idaho Transportation Department to get access for ~- =~ their project, they were denied access at that time, just like ITD has requested denial of this. Just last week they met with the attorneys, it's Mitchner and Ross are the attorneys that ITD met with. I talked with Steve Holliday about the -- from ITD about that meeting and he said that they did grant them the access to that site, but they are ~: still in negotiations, because rather than just the two deeded accesses, their traffic ,:; ~~; r _~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ,~,~ April 15, 2004 Page 6 of 60 >:a; ~~,:~ ,:~ ~~ i ~, R y? yt ~_. engineer wants to have three and says that they should be able to have three and that three is more appropriate than just the one that they would give them. So, in talking with Steve, I said let's talk about this site and let's talk about Double D and the access there and he said because you have three deeded accesses and because of the length of it, he said I agree that, yes, you probably will receive one access, at least, for this site with the deeded accesses. He wouldn't give me anything in writing, it's something that has to go through their process, and so it has to go through the process which we are in right now, but his opinion was from ITD that we would receive access for this site, whether it was one, two or three he wouldn't say, but he said he felt that we would receive at least one access to this site, so that's what we are asking for at this time is to just have the opportunity to approve this with an access to this site. One access could work, as long as it's located in the center northerly location where people can come back to the gas station. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, when you say one access, you mean one access for this whole stretch? McKinnon: Well, for right now we -- you know, this can work for the development we are trying to do -- Borup: Yeah. I realize this is all that is before us tonight, but when you're talking about one access, you're talking about the whole property? McKinnon: We are talking about the whole property. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: And, like I said, Steve wouldn't say they could give us all three, but he said that he felt that at least one would be given to this project during the appeal process, because they are three deeded accesses and those three deeded accesses were granted at the time that State Highway 69 was widened. So, that's -- I guess -- I wish I had a direct full answer from ITD, but we have to go through their process, just as we are going through this process with this body at this time. So, we are working with ITD on that and we are staying in constant communication with ITD concerning this project. So, if I could get you to just -- I'm just going to follow Craig's outline that he had, rather than go through the whole staff report again, just the most recent staff report that you received. It's athree-page memo from Craig Hood. Just start and address the issues that he's brought up and, then, just ask if you have any questions at that time and go into discussion, I guess. I'll just go ahead and start on page two. We have already talked quite a bit about the access to State Highway 69 and if you have some questions about that, I would be happy to answer those. Onto the landscaping issues. This is an interesting discussion. We have a nursery, essentially, on the large area here and it's an existing nursery and we are not planning on increasing the nursery at this time or doing anything with the nursery, other than annexing it and bringing it into the City of Meridian. It's a landscape nursery, which is one of those things that how do you landsape a landscape nursery and provide a buffer for that. This property will not ~~~ ~t,, ;~; ,..T r, r~ ~' „: ~. ~ ~ . r ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 r LL ~. ~~. Page 7 of 60 ~~ ;: ` ~ always be a landscape nursery. Eventually, it will be developed and as it redevelops :4 , then, the landscaping would be installed on the remainder of the site, but as it is right ' now, it s somewhat of a rural landscape company and they'd like not to have to do that . Temporary landscaping can be installed there, but that's an area for sales and the landscaping could be moved back and forth on that. Landscaping across Victory Road ;: ~ , again, the only area that we are redeveloping at this time would just be the area in front ~x°° of the gas station. There is some landscaping in front of the single family home right now and as you go further back it becomes the landscape company. There is a large .: ~4 ' driveway currently located -- do you have that aerial photo, Craig? If you could go back ;~;¢ ~ ' , that would be great. You can see there is a wide driveway and parking area for this ; 4 metal building that's right there. It's a sprinkler irrigation, well drillin Th i ~_ ere s a large driveway. That driveway will be narrowed down and made mu h S- ::y much smaller in accordance with ITD requirements, but there is not a whole lot of room ~ ~ for landscaping out in front of that and we'd ask that as that redevelops or redevelops ~~; that they would be allowed to put in landscaping, rather than take out the parking that's - currently there. But the remainder of the site is part of the landscape nursery and as ~ ~ that redevelops you will have the opportunity -- oh, wow. Thanks, Craig. So it will .~ , change the look as it redevelops. Craig, can you go ahead and just tell everybody where these pictures are taken from. This is looking at the well drilling -- Hood: Yeah. That's the area Dave was just talking about. The irrigation sprinkler shop _' is right here. They have parking that's in front of that building. This is Victory Road ~~ here. This is -- looking where this truck is, you're kind of looking back into this site now. This is in the north direction looking back into the site. And, then, these other -- these _;' remaining two pictures are looking down State Highway 69. s.. McKinnon: Okay. Thanks, Craig. As you -- if you could keep it at that picture. You can ~ ~ ' ~` I see the parking and the overhead doors for this site actually -- and the man doors are ~ ~i~ - facing to Victory Road and so to eliminate that and to replace it with landscaping would ~ x '~~~, be a hardship for this business at this time, but as it redevelops it would be something ~z~: I ~ that could be accommodated. As far as the building setbacks and right of ways Crai 's g ~ :~ I , third bolded item in staff analysis and recommendation, there is a little bit of discussion . ,;~ i that Craig has in here about State Highway 69 meeting a required 120 feet to center line. It's in the first sentence. For state highway, 120 feet center line. If you take a look _ at the ITD letter that was sent, it was stating that if there is no frontage road or interconnectivity, there is a requirement for 120 feet from center line If there i ?~!.~ . s a frontage road, the requirement is only 70 feet from center line. And I had that ~; . conversation with Dan Koontz and with Matt Ward. Actually, I had all three of the guys , . together down at ITD and we said if eve hin ryt g is interconnected and we have cross- connections for all these uses -- and that's the intent is to have all of these ~.~~= interconnected, they said that 70 feet would be appropriate. It doesn't have to be a publicly dedicated right of way, but, rather, it can be an interconnected driveway system. ,, ;; As long as you get from point A to point B without having to go back out onto the highway, they would be satisfied with the 70 feet as a frontage or backage road as their '~ `"`~` , letter suggests, rather than 120 feet. So, we talked about that and talked about how ~ .r landsca m would p g get together and ITD was saticfiArl that if thn.. ~..o~e .,u y ;. ' . ~ +~ .~ ~ A s , ~F 1 "r l~ `~ ` ~ .. r ~ ~ ~hn ~e C^ . ~ ~ ,~ t+3~{~15.k~~ ~' 1 , ~ ~~ ~~~ i~ ~ 4 ~ y e #,;~ ,: ;~ ~ L- ~ 1~•. ~T Y ... i t ~ iA_ ~T", - . {laffe j57 y ~ ~~. y.. Y !~{M i(fy ~~ ~i~# - * ~ tt t ~ t~ s (~ ~ ~ x ~': l ~t S,~H ' N~ ` ;~i t i. ~~ ~~ ~t ,y i~ ~ 6 ~+L, ~: i~~M { 1F ~Y ~~aii ~ . i~ Y 11 S ~ ~' ~e'~4PQ"' T'#~t ? 4 ~ ~ 7 ..~ ~ ~{ ~ .y ~ s.y(i. :. Tf is {`._ ~ j . ~, ~ 1 ~{p, 1 afa. ~~ ~ i I~ ~ • ~, tip': Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission - - ~ ~ _ April 15, 2004 ~~, ~ ;. Page 8 of 60 ~' ~~';; ~ ~ interconnected through the driveway system, rather than a public or private street that -`,rL~~ ~~ ''-~` ~ , would be acceptable to ITD. So, there is the room for that. So, rather than the additional 50 feet of right of way that would be d d i nee e , t works out with the 70 feet, as long as everything is interconnected. That's the reason they asked for that additional ~_ S right of way, so that if there is none provided, they can provide some in the future As ~~ ~: . we get into Craig's next issue, the open space and amenities -- if you can go back ,~ °' , Craig, to the overall site. Thanks, Craig. The area that we are really trying to develop ~ ~' right now is the gas station area, the area I'm highlighting with the laser. That is really rM ~ . ;1` , , the area right now that we are really trying to redevelop. And because there are multiple uses on this site and we are a i ' ~ , Y~~'~, ' . nnex ng it all together, it s being required to go through the planned development ordinance and under the planned development j : ordinance there is . a requirement for two amenities within the subdivision and we ~~ ,~ ~ } ~~ N suggested that we could do a 550 foot long sidewalk along the area that we are developing right now. It's detached. It's not something that's required by ITD or by the ~. :; ~~2 city or ACHD. It would be something that would provide a meandering sidewalk or pathway out there for pedestrians should the choose to th t ~~, ~;~ ~ , y use a . It does not extend the full length right now, because that is a large expense to go across here and we don't ~~{~ ~ ~ know at this point what the full use is up here and so there may be an additional curb ..; cut that would come through there and at this time we'd just like to develop this portion ;;: ' of the site. As far as the other amenity, there will be a gas station there and it will have °.,n a small food court inside of that. We could do some outside seating and benches for that, so that it would be a small amenity. The hard part about this site is we do have x ; " ~~ ~~ P ~ some existing businesses. We have a nursery, we have the well drilling, we have an existing coffee kiosk, which is going away, but to try to shoe horn two amenities into this r~ ° ~ ~ is something that becomes a little bit more difficult. We would be more than happy to co t t th ~ ~ ns ruc at sidewalk the full length, add some additional amenity someplace, you know near the buildin m b ,, , g, ay e some outside seating, and we do have a large amount of open space for the landscape area. One of the things that you can do a i ~~ °~~ ~ ~ s -- n approval of this project is place a condition on this that if there is a way to approve the ~ ~~ amenities, that if you want the ten percent that would be a requirement of the annexation, the ten percent open s ace i i ;. p s requ red within this area as the property develops. So, you would have the opportunity to require that should ~ ~~°~ t ~~3;1 ~ you approve this subdivision, because it's not approved right now or a recommendation, it's something that ou could ,;~, y recommend as part of -- to Council as part of the approval for this project ~~ ~' ' . So, we have some options there and if you have any suggestions as to what type of - ~ f amenities would be appropriate for a gas station and a nursery and a well drilling com ~ ~ pany, we would be more than happy to take those, because there is not a whole lot E~.. of things that really fit with that, what type of amenity works with that, and that's why ~ , there is some degree of give in the code saying whatever is appropriate for the type of ' ~~.:;, use that you re asking and so you have that authority under what is appropriate and ' ~ -.. what s not appropriate. So, if you have any suggestions, I'm open to those On the ~r;,- ` . third page of Craig's report is the parking drive aisles and we have addressed a few of . these and I think it probably needs to be readdressed. We spent a lot of time talking ~~= ;~ about Victory Road last time we met and what type of improvements on Victory Road ;~ would go in, because originally this site that you have right here, there was not plans to r? improve all of Victory Road and after meeting with ACHD and meeting with you at the t;,; rs . . v., , ~., ~. ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 9 of 60 .;~-. 1 ;;~ j _: t '# ,~ last meeting, it was agreed at that time that we would do all the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Victory Road and limit the amount of curb cuts along Victory Road. And if you can go back to that aerial, Craig, you can see the number of curb cuts that we have got right now. There is one, two, three, four curb cuts and that's going away. The one curb cut going directly into the nursery for the single family home that's located right here, that curb cut's going away. That's where a lot of the parking is. If the parking needs to meet code, make that a condition of approval and that's something that we can deal with. Part of the problem with the landscape nursery, however, is that they do use a lot of skidsters and heavy equipment. The heavy equipment does chew up asphalt and so a large portion of this area with the dirt roads that you see will not have typical transportation, but they will have heavy equipment moving across it that gets ripped up and so we would ask that none of that area be required to have additional paving, because it would be paving that would be hard to maintain, it would be very expensive to install and continually maintained. So, if there is a need for the parking to be asphalted and that's a condition of the annexation, that's something that can be taken care of, with some limitations as to the amount used for the nursery, because it is somewhat of a rural type of use in this area. Down to the public services portion of the comments and these comments I find interesting that this is outside of the fire department's five minute response zone, but the interesting thing -- the reason why I find it interesting is that right now the fire department is responsible for any fires that happen on this site. This is in the City of Meridian fire's department -- it's a rural fire department. It doesn't follow the city limits. The fire department already has to provide service to this site. So, the idea that not bringing water to this site through the utilities and just leaving it as it is is better for the fire department seems odd to me, because we could bring water service to this area -- I'll show you where the water is coming from. The water is coming from Observation Point, dragging the water main -- it's a 12 itch inch water main, dragging it from Observation Point down to this location to provide fire service and to sprinkle the building, will make this actually have better fire service than what's currently provided, although it's outside of the five minute response area, it's going to remain outside of the five minute response area if nothing happens, but they still would have to provide service to it. In talking with Joe Silva, if the building is sprinkled, he has no problem with that. Additionally, the fire hydrants that can be installed off of that 12-inch water main could provide additional fire protection that currently does not exist for this site. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, maybe while you're on that subject, are there any other fire :`'° department sites south of the freeway, other than the one on Eagle Road, that you know about? Are they -- in their long-term plan are they designating any other sites? McKinnon: I haven't seen their plans since I left the city. I haven't talked with Joe about any additional sites. Borup: I wasn't aware of any others. That's why I was wondering. McKinnon: No. No. And jusfi for point of observation with Observation Point, is that this is actually further away than this is for the five-minute response area. This is, actually, ~~~, , ~~ $~ k jy4_ Y. ~ ~ ~tl s 2 f'~S~j ~ U .E`,~ '~~' .~ ~c '~ L`+J , ~ ~~Qtr ~~~l ' ' r ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 < < 7 ,. i ~7~YJ~~.~. t `~ ~~7 ~~ ' 7 . ~ ~ , ~- ^ Vii'. z ~~ ~ fi~~~~r,~~ '. '~.~fY ~w~t ..~.«i ~~-'a'd t ~:a i ~v~ + ~~ i53 ~ i S ~'~ ~ ' 13 ~ ,,,.~,•, r ~, t. ~ t i i ~£ ~~ ~ ~' r r y~~`ri'"~'f a t 7i3xc~ ,~~r~ ~~ .~ ~: F"r. nj~ t . ~, ~,. ~ ~ , ~f t ~~x,~~ ~ ~t. ~ , ~ _ ~y. T ~ y N~`. ,C' I ~' ~~n ~ S r ~{(]} 7, ± t r ~ Y ,r ~g Sh~lr :. rX; "~ , ? ,,~_ 's - - ~ mY @ 1 l ~Y~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ,:y~: April 15, 2004 `r~ Page 10 of 60 ti,.. :,; ,.r: ;, ~~,~~ :~ # .;,~'~ ~- ~' ~', ti~:~ ,: z:>.~> ~I closer than Bear Creek or Observation Point for a fire truck to get to. It's a more direct route and those are things the fire department has okayed and has allowed construction to take place in those areas. And, finally, the -- we spent a lot of time last time talking about the sewer service and where the sewer service would come from and whether it should be a pressurized irrigation -- a pressurized system on a lift station or if it could be a gravity fed system. I have talked with Bruce Freckleton, you see it in your memo, that they would be okay to bring the sewer down from Elk Run and bring it down to a distribution -- or -- what is that called, Bruce? The big -- Freckleton: ®iversion structure. McKinnon: The diversion structure. Thank you. The diversion structure at this location and continuing the trunk line down to Victory and State Highway 69 as a full trunk system and the City of Meridian is okay with that. It actually falls in line with what is -- who is your consultant on this? Is it JUB? And JUB has found that that would be the way to go for the future of the city. And so the sewer problems have been worked out. That's something that would have to be installed by our client. So, basically, the City of Meridian would get, by annexing this property, is to have all of Victory Road curb, gutter, sidewalk, widened to its full width. You would have basically an eighth of a mile up State Highway 69 completely -- completed with curb -- not with curb, but with sidewalk, landscaping, and a new access off State Highway 69. You would have additional water and sewer lines that would be brought down to be able to provide service for this area. You would increase fire suppression systems by bringing the water system over. So, you would gain utilities, you would gain improvements, and you would bring a large commercial piece of property into the city to have additional tax based for the city that currently sits outside of the city. So, there is a lot of advantages to bringing this into the city. And it's unfortunate that we can't develop this whole site right now, but the owner of the property does not want to develop the whole site right now. He enjoys running his nursery, but, eventually, the nursery will go away and take place -- and it will be replaced with commercial development. So, there is good reasons to bring this into the City of Meridian right now. I guess it is unfortunate that that whole site is not developing right now, but there is a great advance for the City of Meridian to take this in at this time. Should it remain in the county those improvements would not go in until it develops and it may wait and sit until such time as the whole site can be developed. But there is a comparative advantage now from the status quo to bring it into the city, because a lot of improvements would be made that otherwise won't be made. And with that I will ask if you have any questions. Or if you have any additional questions, I would be more than happy to answer them at a later time. Borup: Questions from Commission? Zaremba: I do have one main question. It's been known since the hearing on March 4th that tonight is about annexation and that decision would be based on compliance with outstanding deficiencies with the county before the city would consider annexing. Who either suggested or accepted that compliance would be five days after this meeting? ~.. ~+ r Vii!': -'t' :~~ 1 `: C .1 _` ~ t i •~,. 1 Y i ,F ~ t l Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi April 15, 2004 Page 11 of 60 Borup: You mean the 20th? You're looking at the date of the 20th? Zaremba: The letter that you're going to do it all by the 20th. McKinnon: Okay. The light's down. Zaremba: Why didn't anybody insist that it needed to be done and inspected? . Borup: I believe that came from the county. McKinnon: That was from the county. Yeah. It wasn't -- Zaremba: But wasn't the applicant able to insist, no, I need to have this answered before the meeting on the 15th? McKinnon: Oh, I know -- okay. I know where that came from. And that was -- we are at the meeting -- okay. I'm sorry. We were at the meeting with the county, we met with Mike Williams and the person the letter came from, actually, wasn't in attendance at that meeting, it was the interim director at the time, and the owner of the property, the applicant for the property, the developer as myself, and we were sitting in the meeting and they said when is the next hearing and I said, I don't know, because we were just sitting -- I didn't have the note pad with me and I said I think it's on the 23rd, which I -- that was just my mistake and, then, afterwards we -- Craig called me after we got that memo from the county -- after he got a call from Mike Williams that, oh, actually, it's on a different date and so we called and talked to Tim Mussell and we talked with Dick Davis and said the date I guess you guys was wrong, everything needs to be taken care of, and so those issues have been taken care of. The light is down. The power pole is down. Slats were purchased for the screening of the fence around the water service i area that we saw pictures of. The slats have been purchased. The signs have been removed and those were the items that were to be corrected by the 20th, which are already corrected. And those are the notes that you see in Craig's memo. Those things have been corrected. And Craig and I have talked and before Craig wrote that memo I had written him a memo saying those things had been done. The slats have been purchased, but they hadn't been installed when I drove by. And so the slats for the fencing for the screen area -- that was my mistake on the timing for that letter. We said we will do it a few days before the hearing. And so we called Mike and said these are the things that -- you know, the timing was off on that, but that is -- those things are done at this time. And that was my mistake at that meeting and that's the reason why the letter says what it says. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? So, the light is down? McKinnon: The light's down. The power's -- ~': Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • April 15, 2004 Page 12 of 60 Borup: The screening is being started. McKinnon: I didn't drive by it today, but -- Borup: It's in the process. ~~ McKinnon: Uh-huh. The signs have been moved. That was the large -- oh, gosh, the }~ storage container that had the Victory Greens painted across it, that's been moved from ~~ the prominent location on Victory further inside, so it's not used as signage. Temporary ;~~ signage has been removed as well. So, the one thing that was left outstanding was that ~~r~ same item that was left outstanding at the previous meeting was what do you do to ~~' screen a rock area and I talked with the owner about that and he said I would be more ~~x than happy to go ahead and put some of my trees out there that are for sale to hide that F ,f` and so that can be screened. He just needs to be told that that's what needs to be E~ ~ ~ done. Just one further item. The owner and the applicant at that meeting that we had ~`'' with the county -- I think it's detailed in that letter. It talks -- from the county -- about how F<~~ that property has already changed hands somehow and there was a subdivision that ~ F ~ ; was performed legally for that and they have agreed to do a one-time split for that, to have that taken care of in the county and that's a process that's already started. The ~~~ subdivision itself would alleviate that as well, but that was something that they agreed to ~: z t :, do, if that was something that needed to be done and Ada County felt that that was a ~~-'}~ r good faith effort as well. `'~ Borup: And, then, what did -- you say that process is started. What does that mean? F ::, ' McKinnon: What does that mean? A record of survey has been prepared and a legal description has been prepared. `n~ Borup: That is done at this time? =~~~ McKinnon: It's done. It just hasn't been submitted to Ada County yet for approval, because if you guys agree to annex it and subdivide it, the final platting of this project would do the exact same thing as the one time split, it would just create the same situation. So, we have it done, we just haven't submitted it yet. Borup: Why don't we go ahead and see if there is any other testimony, then, I think there may be some more questions for you and staff. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. - Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? That was short, Mr. McKinnon. We are done with public testimony. Do we have -- I have got a couple more questions, I think, for Mr. McKinnon and maybe from staffs end. So, what you're -- you are asking for approval tonight; is that -- I~ f ~~ ~ r~~ ~~~ ~ ,~ r ~~?` a _ ' ~Ir~ 5 ~` F ~a iii a. x ~wjf }f~ ~ _ . ~ ~ .. § n rn j ~~, ~ ~c i; .. Kt~A~~°~~ ~ F ~~ ? ~f` ~k' ,, ;~ ` l x ~ la ; ~k 4.. i .14.: S-.. ~~ ~.. 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ n y 31~nR .. ..i !~. . .m 6 `: (~X~~ggv,r.`f~ ~ ~, -r '1' 1 ~~ Y~..~,5i ~^i., ~ l y.. µ- IN '1 a4f I 1~ ;+. ~' ~k ~~ ' ~~" k s~~~~ ~~.~y,~j~9i M ~ ~- ~~~ t~~j ~ f."yp ~~~~~ d f~ J F .. ~. ~, j ~: ~ ~ t E ~ ~ r ~ , ~ t ~~~{ G 4 f ~§'. .~, ~. S.U.f,ls. 2'S/ ' L~ 1 I . ~i~ !~S~r ~'<~ = Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 ~, ,. „1, r Page 13 of 60 ~ R; ~, McKinnon: I would love approval tonight. One of the -- ;_~~; ~~', Borup: I wasn't sure if you had ever real) formal) stat - Y Y ed - ~K,` r McKinnon: I understand that we don't have conditions of approval yet and those are ~ ~, ~; something that would need to be formulated as part of the approval. I would love it if ;,y~. you had the opportunity tonight to formulate those, but I know there is other hearings '~s ` ~' tonight and people for that. I think that staff has said that they haven't re ared an P p Y yet ' F ~` ~ , but that s something that could be prepared. I think that Greg's done a good of outlining ~ ~~}°` E '"` the issues that need to be addressed. I hav e tried to address those. If you have any ~ < r. questions concerning those, I could address that. But I do understand that without the conditions of approval formally being in front of you and having to formulate them right ~ now, it could take quite a bit of time to do that. I would love approval tonight, but if that's t A ;tt no possible, I understand that. But I would love to have some direction ~~ . ~ Borup: One of the main questions I have is ITD and lacking a report from them. Now ~~ >~ , understand what you're -- and that seems logical to me, that they are going to allow at •;,, `~' least one access point, if we go by what they have done in the past but that doesn't ~ , address the location of that access ~, . !„ 4~' ~;:; .~~ McKinnon: Central would be better. ~ , ~, '. Borup: For them. ;~ ,;~,, : McKinnon: Uh-huh. ~ r,. . ~/ a, Borup: Which would mean a redesign of your -- of your plat, wouldn't it? f :;: ~ McKinnon: We have actually had, I believe, a curb cut located in this location as well ~ _~«. , as one down here. We actually showed two on this original plat. ¢ ; . Boru So if it went to one, you're sa in p~ ~ y g you just eliminate the one and, then, just have -- ~~«,~ McKinnon: You drive down to -- '.: ~~~: z`'~ Borup; You just have a driveway down that showed -- other than -- that would be the only redesign. McKinnon: Uh-huh. Yeah. Borup: Okay. :.~yn .t ~.i~~.:~~ ~ e:l:•.:„ ~1 ~f".: SHR. ~ .~~~ , '~~ , t.K' ~ Lim'`. t: ..~;~ =~. !.' i,- Sri: • • { ~ ~... , .~:~t= P a P;~ I . ~.:.. a • b ,~ ~ r ° ~ 1 ' # ~ ea.~ ` ' j ~ t ~ w ",'r;: ? fit. Tyr `~ e ,Y I.i f,~i F I .f. ... ~ :~ ,.. _ SxJ t ~I,T 4, yy ~ I Y . . v I • ..,. . I sa ~ % I I .a . 'N •' ' ,:z ~ Y: ,{ i. i.'~~. .'t I ,Y 4+... M •U L k 1 ~~ I g ,~; .v . f T:' 7'&vi . x ~,. ~. '•Y. s s"• r R°. .~.. ~;~,' v 1 k ~/, ICCI '•1~ I ~ ~ .V ':b. i f 1 ~ ~ ; ~ u 'a~r r x} ~y' I, ~ 1 t{ . I •(. WA ~• ,y 1 ! ~H ~y~ Y ~>~' ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~}~,y. al{dt J~4Lw~Y k. ~^'~':~tdrl+'~''' 'lf w'.• .~,~ • ~~ ti p , i, ~ ~ ' y . j ~ ~ , { .ter'. .'V. % ~ 3 k !2+v F~, !', ~P` ~ b• • ' rc ' >•x"~~';. ,rt.:,.•T. iii, ~, ;^•$. '; Ti ,~ •'~;,, J." ;. - ,. " f t • ; ~` ~ • ; '. ~ as i `~% ; I ~ 1":. .1 ". try <;, ire ~Mx z . ;'. kk I II { J I. i a ~ . y.5 '}'`'. ~+.~~. ~ ~t.l.. ' i , ~' ~:? F ~ ~ ' ;~;„• :i -~a,;s p: ~ s~ ' :Y ,s , s r i I ~ ~ ~ + ~ ' ~ ~ ~ <a : , ~~ 52 -y~ a < x t•~W..::`.~'.9'A ~ +: ,. i'Jg ~ . ~.`' '`€ ~ . ; . ~?,;1;~: sa ~ '.~ l' :t : '~ •i. ~.~- .S" s q; ^~' § FF ~:, . ; 4 , . ~~ ~i~ ' , .,. ,• , ' ! :; I S x I .I, ~ ':k ' ~'~ 'i .c . Cr ~ '~r.~ ,~~- ,^ -~ ~:;' ,~s . ~ -~ .~ .G. 'Y'~ .~~ S~ ~'ME •61 f J `! I ~ ~7:A•" f.`, a r ~..~a.~, ! aR3~`'tY'~ut' ~"~ .~.} fi~'~. rF A ~ F ia'~^ . I , ~ "i^ _ . 7• { 4 .; i ... Iii I . • • A :? ~ 4 "~ . .w. } . 1": ' •~~'` . .~ ~~:r 31 a~?,. :~:. v1 Y Is ~ ~ f . i LI I' ~n Al . :..[,.. ;°" ,•k ,;~~ ~y'vrfK S~ V~. iS 11+j i r ,. S R I d. •ry ~ I ..k e 1~ ~ ~I S ~` i~ !$~? ~.• ~'f il:. I¢F ~~ 1 hf ;5 r "w•~',i f ~~ e' 'i ~,' x.a "{.'}~pE,~/ ti'. ~i~ {zr ,~ L f 'Tif J.'~^~x i::~,': 3:T~ X~~~'~l ',n~`F l 67 ~~~~ 3~:~ w y , • . > . 1 ! ~, } ,- a . I i ...: ., . I : ,, ,M+~ Meridian Plannin g & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 14 of 60 ~. ~~w st . y - ;;: ~~ <'~:~: ~.. ~, ~~, .~. ~~~ ~:: ,.. ~:. ~ ~ n~; k` ~ '' :;1^, 4r. S;.-p-- +` ,. `~ .Y a~ -, ~_' `. `' ~_~ '`; -_ ~ .z= ~~< ~~,: ~~ ~;, n.. ~. ~ ~, ~:<`, .I Borup: Yes. Hood: I'd like to just talk about -- since we are back on ITD's -- regardless of what happens with that, this plat, if we go forward with this, will be restricted, you know, access points and if that future property develops -- if they get one from ITD, staff is still recommending -- they have 1,000 feet of frontage on Victory Road. They have adequate access to this site. They do not need a driveway to the state highway. Southern Springs, which Dave brought up, is a different situation. They have less than 200 feet of frontage near an intersection, so they wouldn't have adequate spacing to get a driveway on Overland Road. They had to take access to the state highway in that situation. Zaremba: I would add that I think part of that 200 feet included a canal crossing. Hood: And there was a canal there. Yes. So, really, it was triangular shaped -- and I apologize for not -- it's almost shaped just like this one is with their flag being their Overland frontage. And so access -- it was necessary to have access -- Borup: I understand that, but no matter now much frontage there is, the size of the access road is the same in either situation, isn't it? Hood: The size of the access road to be the same, but -- Borup: The driveway width is the same way. Hood: No, I'm not talking about width, I'm just talking about a driveway period. Access at all. If they had access on Overland, they wouldn't need access to the highway. In this case we have access -- Borup: Well, they did have access on Overland. Hood: I don't think they did. Zaremba: It was not far enough from the intersection. Hood: Yeah. They would be right at the intersection. It would make it afive-legged intersection with Overland and the state highway. Borup: Well, they had to build a bridge across the canal -- Hood: To build a bridge across the canal to continue with their next phase up and, then, eventually to Overland Road. Borup: Right. s.~ {- 5'.aFF:di:` k'.u~4 ~: _: „~ '::' 1 I zf '~ ~.~ ; ;` ::~ Meridian Pl i & Z . , ann ng oning Commission ~~ ~''~'; April 15, 2004 "~ . Page 15 of 60 a y' w ,= ~f fs~ Hood: But that would be like having this property stub across the canal and, then, ev t ll en ua y, come back out over to the highway. And I guess that's just -- no one really ~~_-r.'~,: knows how this is going to play out and I guess that's the biggest concern that I have. We don't know if it's going to be one, two, or three accesses that ITD approves, but like ~ .-' the highway district, I think that this board should have a recommendation from ITD :~ ~~ sa in it is one, two or three and, then, we make a motion to either approve that or we ~~ say, no, you get one, even though they approved three, or you get all three, whatever that case may be. Right now it's up in the air and that's what happened with Southern ' 1 ,r # Springs is the city approved a development prior to ITD and now there is conflict ; that . , -> applicant is using the city's approval to say, well, the city approved this, now you have r.,,° to. Similar to the highway district, I just believe that some of these issues, specifically `~ ITD, should be worked out before this site is evaluated. We are not looking at what is § r going to be constructed there. This site plan is inaccurate. What's proposed there, ~.-~=~, more than likely, is not going to be where the accesses are going to be approved. :' ~ ,. .. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, just one question for Craig. Mr. Hood, if the access was here R~ ~; or the access was here, would that be a significant change in the request? ; , ~ '~ ~~ 6 ° Hood: For annexation, probably not. If you're looking at your plat, I would say yes. ~~i 3 Your circulation patterns change. There are a lot of internal factors, I think, that we look ~~~~: at with a planned development. We look at the size of the whole and if you have got a ti; ` gas station there and you have one access that's 400 feet away say, you know, how is ' ', that going to be utilized by people using the feed store or the gas station. I don't know -- I think it would be significant in that fact. It would change the parking layout and circulation of the CUP. <:., ;~ McKinnon: Okay. Thanks. ~;~;_. i; Borup: Do we have -- go ahead. 4 • Zaremba: I know one of the other things that I would like to see is a better concept of ' what the rest of the property is like to be and my question would be would a delay k~ ~` provide anymore information to us of a concept plan on how the rest of the property is ~a ~ ~ ~ likely to layout once the caretaker's house is removed and the landscape and the -- Moe: That isn't being removed, is it? '~ ~~ Zaremba: The business -- well, it isn't being removed now, but, eventually, it will be and at the current time it's a constriction to how they can configure what they are doing. I _ mean this is a nice piece of property that could have a nice development on it and to work around the caretaker's house and keep the landscaping -- I mean not - landscaping -- -:, . ~~~;: McKinnon: The other existing business? ~, ~~~1 ~t: i kr - n fi t ~ ~;;;! 'e p {, 1 T 1 ~: 4 ~ i ~ d,, "., Y - 1 p~-, Y .y ~y~ 'y ~k y ^ ~ i R~ ~ ~A t' ~i4i ' i`J .h;j 1'~ ~ I I I =;•'~ l~ ~"~ .y. _ ~ • I . j ., . I R ' T ~ f , . F 'i x j 1(' ' ~ 7J^" +:..i.g ¢.: 9: ~ ~~ ':h 4 ...s I .,. 1 i t i.l' a . ~ s, f I '~" `19 r~ ~' I _~~ L~ ` ~ ~ i~y~ . sit I 'J I ti i `J _ i I y ^•„' .. 7. .F. I `..4•:n ' I T ~ i I i.,. e', :' 4 I r ~ . t "4 f f ' . f£' ! 'Y,,cv .C. -tF x~ ;'i8.';'•Y ~y"1! ~i'^~`. Q 4' .>~r', '" ~"f~+. a's3x~,. 3 ~tr'.~ ~~ l ~ iCv I ~~:~ ~ o r: qq T ~i~< =3~ dj:,' Y 1 s t { .~. x ~ f. ? { I r ~ f "{~,Y, 3 'etY ' ' 3 ~ ~Y+~r'~,6•~dY~3: .t ~.r(sa, :P~: E'+'.'~K~ ' ='. , ~~Sl, f}lfrH~..'/.~ .~` ~ I , a y e :. '., . 1 ' f rkY% - I' :f ' I ' > t , J r .4 µ++ 3 ~;t ;j ~S ~, i ~:. r:: . •. ,~ • . "1' "~"• I I r N :: j. I =x4,. t, ~b. i ~ 1= I ~ .. r7v'» k_ . .~, ` f r ~ . I~ l 7.; ~- . I Y f " . d 'ro:,'t' ^ ll. „1• -l1~~ ... " Y'~ - '1 `~1 J ... Y. I "=Y < I ^! "~ ~ '~ ... .. I 5~{ ~ i S . . , ~ ~ r ~: w • ~.. i. 'r t ~ t' ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ . ( ' ; . I li sy . I '~~ S' p ; ~, ~ e.,, s qS ~~ ...,,uX ~, j£., a i~ ~ L "'~ " " ~ '~s ' ~` -x" ~ t ' ~ ~ a + g xx c° la k n .s („, "' ~, •i F .k P ~e ; . ~ }„Y± 1 #3 4 •Fo k • . Y3'° U" '~ ~ 'z••q.;1~ y4.',:I':'tl YJ, ,Y ~ 4 -t. :41444••f «: 'I ~n :.i p ; n, T & ,',4 .'~ tiY~•:• ' , . 7!r 1 .1. ` . , . ..•• ~ ' ~ I ~ ~ .r . i • :1 1. ~' - %~T i I ~' ~ Y` • ~ 1 t. - l F s"' : I a~ I ,•I :~1 I :.,J I ' + ,.1 '~ "~ . n , , ~' 1 . t 4 • ~~ ! ~ ' ~. I ,. .y I; r . . I ~ ' .. r ~ 3 1 5" k A l'f 'K' i *; ' V :- r J F' ~ t .. ..... „ .. d' . 9r 1>~ 1 r ,.. .< ~~: ~ ~. , ..~ : S / ..: {. :2 ~ i f ..: _ A .u; •.'3'~.,~ Ja{.c ~. e{r..•w4.,•.:•.~> _ 4 P I F ~ sa "'4~~• ~ad Y ~ t~ ;:~. ~ie~ ";}:r.`:. ;'> z " .: . # r'. ,r<` I , r3 1C"e' r. ~ ~7Y 1 a I ~~~~ i 1 ,. tl~ n I ~ ~ ~ u,Y ~ ~f, ~ ^ .r • . ~k 5 M' k k ~ ' a. I ;, •. . ~,~ . A. . .i ~ ~' ' II I » r I .• +1.Ytrir:4 .{ Y '~ Y ~ f~. ~ 1 :1' I S :~ ~.i... IF F I. ` ~ F, x` .,J~:Y y '..N,: ~'~ .l: i I ~J1 `to ^4x ~'~••'•.,-{'~' ..a. . y } .~11 I ~ I t• •~h • • s; .. ', . ,~,. •. ~~ ~.~.. . `~ + ) : ll i Y _ ~ ~ ~;~~ ~ ~, Ski r ~~~~~, + . t .C ' ~ . h ' .F A ~. 1 .F ~' # •9.~ ' U f Y'%: 7 k 'ZW.1r < N ~ $ aG L• fi,~ K ~ 1 5' ).'1 ~{. '1'.~A .JZ ~. 1i _ ~ ~' : ~ '~ ' ' .5 rt . ~ ~ Y 1 9 '~' qq } .x '' " 111 ~ • ~ { t ' r i Meridian Plannin & Zonin C i ~''~'"" t= ~-;, ~r=;;.;i' . g g omm ssion April 15, 2004 Page 16 of 60 ~,,.^, Zaremba: The existing business going, we are going through all sorts of other ~ {~' ~` constructions and hoo s that are non-com I In with the ci and m p p Y 9 ty y question is would th ere be anything to be gained by giving you time to give us a whole concept? ''; McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I had a planning ball that ~~~,, was a crystal ball as well, I could tell you really accurately what's going to happen. ^:; ~~° could put together a quick, you know, site plan, saying this is how it could develop and it would only take me a matter of minutes to get some onion paper and overlay it and -~ draw it in. But there is no guarantee that that's how it would be developed completely ~.~ . The only thing I know right now is the area that is pretty much shown right here is that '" this area right here is pretty much known as to how that's going to develop. You know ~_ : ` , there will be another commercial building up in this area and, then, the feed and gas ~~ ~ station, that's the only area that I can really say for certain. As far as putting a ~_-~~ = ~ ` conceptual plan together, I could put one together and have that for you, but there Y~ ~ would be no guarantee that's how it would be developed. It's owned by one gentleman ' who has a nursery there and he'd like to run his nurse but in the future th ry, a property is _: going to become worth enough that the nursery will move off to some more rural ~~ ~~:.;: location and this ro e p p rty will be developed in another manner. It's commercial on the $~ comp plan and it's going to develop commercially, it's not going to develop residentially. ~~.:_,;t. It will develop commercially, whether that's one large building in the back or if it's ~~'-. multiple buildings, I don't know. But if you want me to put one together, I could put one ~~~ , together. -, J1 Borup: A concept plan wouldn't mean anything to me. I mean it's meaningless. I think `~~~ the things that are important is the access points, that -- that's going to have somewhat . ,"`~I to do with how it's going to develop. At least in how the circulation is going to be. I think _; ~ we would want to know where those access points would be, but as far as internal 4- development, I don't know what that would really tell us. I mean there is all kinds of ;,',-^~, layouts that could be done. ~µ;~i McKinnon: I was going to say, just thinking back to my experience of working in the 3 ;~.' f; city, we had numbers of planned developments that came through conceptually and r,, .l can't think of one that stayed very similar to what we originally came up with. You know, ~3 ~ there was the Sparrowhawk -- I don't -- I think you were here when we went through ~' ~'' Sparrowhawk off of Franklin. That changed a couple of different times and now it's ~~'~~ totally different than what it looked like the first time. We have got the Silverstone ~t :;< project and how that's changed with the inclusion of T-Mobile and Citi Bank. The ~.~~:~;~ market conditions change and it could change so dynamically just in six months that ~ ~ an hin that we re ared now, Yt 9 p p two months from now could be completely different. It ~, : - just depends on the market conditions at that time and who is willing to buy and who is ~ ~~ willing to sell at that time. A really good example would be Fairview Lakes. We went from 196 apartments, down to 92 apartments and adding, you know, several hundred _ thousand square feet of office and retail to that site. Things change rapidly on a ~_ ~ . commercial site and things have to be modified quite a bit. ia:,, '1~' J.9 f. i?:~, • • ~~ ~~ ~'" Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission :f 4= April 15, 2004 Page 17 of 60 ~~~, °_" ~~~ Borup: I think it may be good to have some kind of direction on which way we would ~r, f ~~3 like to move and maybe a feeling from the Commissioners what we'd like to do tonight. b~. t"' Moe: Well, quite frankly, I'm a little bit concerned to do anything but go ahead and -, continue this. I don't want to -- I don't think we need to deny it, but I do believe there is ~~ quite a few items in this application that do need to be reviewed and basically get ';;~~ conditions of approval on this project. I'm very concerned that what I have heard tonight is not so much that you're in agreement with staff on some items and you can work ,>:<:~~' '~ around them, as much as you have been able to kind of go away from some of the staff = ~r>. comment and, basicall y, give an explanation that, quite frankly, is -- I can agree with you t>; on some of the items, but I just don't see very much working relationship between staff ~~~~ and you to get this thing resolved. And so I'd like to see that it could go back and ,~ , basically, find out what we can do with Idaho Transportation to get that resolved, as well " ` " as some of the issues that staff has recommended and see if we can't work some of ~ ~~ :;~4.t those back into this project. Borup: That might be one of the first questions. How much time -- do we know how much time ITD is going to need? I mean so far it's been a week and they haven't even found the report yet, so -- >N, McKinnon: I'll follow up on that. I'll call Dan tomorrow and find out what the story is with ;,~ that and follow up with the traffic engineer. That's -- I don't submit those applications to ~~~" ITD and I will follow up with Pat Dolby as to who that went to. I can find out and I can ~~`~'~ actually get in touch with Craig tomorrow and -- :,;:r ~: ~x~#" Borup: Well, that doesn't help us on -- `'" McKinnon: No. I'm stalling, because I don't know how long it's going to take for ITD. ;_:`»; I'm trying to work it through in my head. It can take some months if we have to go :} through the appeal process, just like it did through Southern Springs. They have made, 'L`~ you know, the offer to Southern Springs to give them the access. In talking with Steve, he said, you know, that's -- a similar thing is going to happen for you guys, so the "~ precedence is set. It could go faster, it could go -- ~;~;~ Borup: If there is a precedence set, does that affect the time? McKinnon: Just because -- Borup: Or is it still acase-by-case -- McKinnon: It's still acase-by-case, but it may go smoother because of that. :~ i .:. Borup: Okay. :I ^ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 18 of 60 afl~ McKinnon: I would have to check with ITD to find out the exact time frame and I know their response is that we can't give you an exact time frame, so we don't know how long ~' it's going to take. `~ ~ Borup: Okay. The other thing I think that may be useful, if we could touch on some of ~~ the issues -- some of the items that staff maybe has an issue with and maybe express :. ,y. ~~ at least what our feelings would be. And I don't know if I have got good notes on those. -~~ Maybe you could help us, Mr. Hood. I know one of them was the landscaping along .~ "~~~` ~ Highway 69 and so maybe we start with any input on this that I -- go ahead. _~~;~ Hood: I was just going to say that -- just kind responding to what the applicant brought r r~: up in response to the bullet proofs just kind of to help lean towards approval, I guess. ~~z My only concern with continuing this to a date uncertain -- I mean we can't do it to a '~{ ` date uncertain and just for a reference point, Southern Springs is still in the process of :.~ getting their approval form ITD. So, it's several months, I would guess -- I mean no one kt ~~;;' really knows, that's the problem with continuing this again. Staff has concerns with just '~ continuing it and continuing it, you know, on and on, when there are these issues and '' s ~ there hasn't been a lot of -- you know, the access one is one that there can be -- there is J r:;~.w; going to be resolution to it. There are some other sticking points with what's been submitted, but there doesn't seem to be reall an ~., y y -- Ff g; ~ _ ti:~ Borup: That's what I was hoping we could discuss a little tonight are those points. ~.; r~ ,, -~~~' Hood: So, the landscaping, for instance, on Victory Road, you know, regardless of how ~. this develops, I don't see our ordinance changing. There is still going to be a 25-foot i w de buffer on Victory Road. The buffer requirements may vary a little bit but those -- s , The general landscaping adjacent to the right of way is going to be somewhat the same `.°, . So, installing it at this point should have no effect on what type of uses go internal to the y~ site. A tree of two may have to be removed if they add another access to Victory Road r in the future, but that would be it, basically. And this is a little bit different, too than ~ ~ ' , some of these -- it is -- I said this at the last hearin it's an existin commercial g business, it's not vacant ground they .are waiting for some, you know, business to come in there. It's in there and we don't know when it's going to leave. And if it gets approved ,:.r ~ '- like this, it may stay there forever and I don't think that will probably be the case but = ~„ , would argue that right now it's somewhat rural in nature as Dave has stated but it's E: , changing very quickly to a built-out environment and, you know, those improvements ~; ,: should be in place. There is a -- you know, as you get further south it definitely has a ;! rural feel, but this is becoming the city. That's what we are looking at is making this part _;{~ ~ of the city, so those improvements landscaping wise -- I don't have -- I mean I can just ° ,ji tell you what the code is up and down State Highway 69 on Victory Road for the landscaping, but that just seems to be something we -- you know that would b '.;: y ' requirement of approval and if you -- if you guys decided to change that requirement ' tip,: '~~ ~K ~ , that s fine, but the applicant is well aware of that, that that's a requirement that you landscape adjacent to your property , ~~-" . .-ej ~~ "' ;;; ;~ 1~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~_~ April 15, 2004 ;, ; r. Page 19 of 60 k'. ~~ Borup: It sounds like you're almost making an arrangement to just annex the portion of a,, "~~ the property that this application affects. Was that ever discussed? Hood: We actually did discuss that. There is a couple of problems. One is that the part that they are proposing to develop would not be contiguous to any part of the city, so you couldn't do that. Borup: That's enough reason right there. Hood: Yeah. So, that probably puts the kibosh on that. I guess just the landscaping, I ~~~~.~ don't really see the hardship with that. That building that's there near Victory Road, rv`=`~ just measured it; there is 80 feet from the building to the centerline. You couldn't get f .: your full landscape buffer in adjacent to the building, but there is over 400 feet of ~' r ~k c frontage that you could put a full landscape buffer in on. So, maybe, you know, a little { bit of a variance where that parking is there, but they don't have a full parking lot on P Victory Road. Some of the other things that Dave touched on a little bit, too, was the tai k; drive aisle internal. We are not -- staff is not so concerned about where, you know, the - _ fork lift type vehicles, heavy machinery, are going to be moving trees around inside, we are concerned more about people parking at the landscape nursery and the sprinkler "~" business having paved parking lots and drive aisles for those specifically. Service a drives are not as big of a deal I don't believe. Some of the other reasons why that b applicant has stated that this would be in the best interest of the city, the improvements , , ,~ ~~ •->~ to Victory Road that the applicant has agreed to construct were previously required of ~~_ this site that you see before you now. The existing business was supposed to do that a a~,~~~ t long time ago and it hasn't been constructed. So, that being a part of the city, whether this application is or approved or not, they should have had to do the improvements on ~,-~s t Victory Road a long time ago. And just so the applicant knows, too, if we are looking for ' compliance with county standards, that was the original at the last hearing that we ~~ ~ wanted something from the county. Slats are not approved material for screening, so if ~~~ you had something from county, that's not an approved material for screening anyways. ~ _:':I And, then, also the one time division, you know, but like Dave said, that's not a huge IE, ,~:J " one for us, because a preliminary plat would clean that up, but it hasn't been cleaned u p `# and that oes back to the on final oint that there is a lot of lin erin 9 9 P g g issues out there and that's why -- you know, I tried to touch on some of the landscaping things that I ~~~-~<~~ think we could get there sometime. It's not this application, we do not believe, and that's why denial is still the recommendation. _~ Borup: Okay. I, basically, had two issues. That's why I like to get them down, so we know what we are talking about here. One is landscaping, both on Highway 69, then, ~;~~~ on Victory and, then, paved parking at the nursery. And I didn't hearing anything else - that you said that you felt was areal -- I mean you mentioned the platting and that type of thing. Is that, essentially, what we are down to? Zaremba: Well, there is the issue of a residence in a C-G zone. We have several - ~ ongoing things that aren't resolved until the nursery goes away, and -- ~. l~~1~ ~I4 M1`..4.1~~: ~~ k ~ }y.~ 4 .>.R=B f"r`?~ ~W~ t . ~.~ .. _ Y ~` f3~. e ~~`~r~ U ?,fit [ € ;, t . - I ~. - a r ~ ; „~ ~ ~''~ ~~' u y ~'~ ~ ~~ i}C ~ ~ ,~- ; ta i,iY ~ t- t ~m fi~,~~, ~ ~`_. ,.~v1 - S s . 3 Y t Cs{S lCi~ ~ ~ t ~,~,:. ~ ~.~~ ~"~~w+jtt x ~r ~~7' ~rY.. . e~~ ~K; Vtk ~ '~}t~~.. ~' K~~ ~ fT ; ~+ } t ~' irV .1F~ t ~•y}f ' X57, ~ ~ ~a ! - K, 4 . 1!~. r~' 1.. ~ h S • a F , ~ f qq 5 S r I ~ 3n~ 'rygr ! ~°~L'~H ~t~'y~ ~ ~~' - l: ..{{yy t [~ f}YSj'~Li S ~~ `.~ ~~Mt ::fifi'^ k , r' 4 k ~~ ~, /A~ F ~c- r.:~~L 'lid 4 L ' ~ ~ A~ K~ p ~ G ~; ss~, y p~~alfPa ~;1~ ~~C~iL a S 1 1i- k ~ r 7,7~ s c{n; - 44f ~~.~.,C-;~ry Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 20 of 60 Borup: Well, that's what I want to get listed, those ongoing things. Zaremba: And who knows how long that is. I mean I have to be honest, my instinct is to thank staff for their due diligence in researching the problems that have come up with the county and seem to continue and to say that it's premature to annex this at this time. It's easily going to be months and uncertain dates before anything is going to be resolved. I think the application is premature. I think when it's known when the nursery is going to go away and what's going to develop on the site, would be the appropriate time for the city to consider it. The staffs bottom line is at the present time this is not in the best interest of the city to do and, unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with that at this point. I'm not saying that's true forever. Borup: See, I -- maybe I interpret the staff comments different. I thought as presently submitted it wasn't, but not saying that there can't be some changes. Zaremba: As presently submitted it includes keeping the landscaping business, the nonconforming residence, and a number of things that can't be resolved in the short term. {",~ Borup: But how is this any different than any other -- a lot of the other commercial .:a ; ~,.F~ projects that they are phasing in? The difference here is you have got an active business -- landscape business, the others you have got a weed patch. ;,,r_ '~`~x~ Zaremba: Yeah, but you usually have a plat for the whole thing, usually, and some ~'~. concept of how it's going to go and what traffic circulation is going to be and the answer ~~~~~ to what the accesses are going to be. ~~_. Borup: Well, I still think the access needs to be resolved. 4l Zaremba: And that could be months. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: My instinct is this is premature and we -- I don't think we can, in the best interest of the City, put it off indefinitely. Or the applicant. I mean the applicant needs a decision one way or the other. I mean they may be able to go to the county and apply for the gas station. I don't know. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, if I could jump in real quick just on a couple things there. We don't know where the access is going to be. We have a pretty good indication that there will be an access given to this site. We have talked with the county about going in through the county and one of the things that we run into in the county is the -- in order to build this we would need additional fire safety concerns for that and the only way we can get the water is if we annex into the city. And so the water is not going to be there, we can't do it in the county. This is a permitted use in the county. It would be much easier for us to go into the county. If we could, we would. ~~~~ ~ ` ~ i ~{ b f ~ '~ r s~ c ~~~'~ 4. ~ +~' ~' , .,. r g c . V`r } 1 ~ ~ s ~., r t~~ s..~ ~~R~~ 1 ~,,; s`1~ e ~ .¢ , t~,y~ ~'% ~~4 i*-F-'~~t.. .. rsil'2S.~l ~,i,'jd- ,.. ~ Y',ty~, +,.. t .f75.r f ~- cc,,: ~' tj.'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` l~sFr,.~: ',, . ~ , r: -: ~ - z ~ ~~ ~ . , ~ N ~ ~ ~ ' G U kt~ $ CaL tT: '~ 1 ~~* ~ -~ ~~~ r 6 ~ ~- i ,~ _~ k = 4i; " a4 ~ ~s ~~ ~h- ~ ~ ~ 1 1. ~~'~'4 1 t ..~ d ~.: ! ' Q~J ~5~ ~ 5 ~5~ A t ~-~l a h Y~ ; r~ ,,ari ..~~~ ,~ is ~'i ~:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 21 of 60 €~~,~. ":°`e But we need the water service and the sewer service would also be helpful, so we don't have to create a gigantic septic system for this area. You will get the water and sewer ~{. ~ ~ through the annexation and would be bringing that down as part of this development. ~`. The access issue is something that we can work out. I have concerns myself -- I have had concerns with these type four roadways on the state highways that run through ~~ ~ . When I worked for the city it was a great concern, we went through the same type of ~ ,~~~ discussion with Lochsa Falls with their multiple accesses to Chinden Boulevard. This „;.,t ~:,.. r'~..,~ was a site that was designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. It was ~, ;~ anticipated that this would be something that would have traffic. It's a traffic generating area and the city anticipated that in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's trying to s, r., ' abide by that and doing what the Comprehensive Plan says, this is going to be '_ commercial. It's like Chairman Borup said, this is something that has to be phased in. The applicant is not ready to develop the whole thing. Does that mean that you hold up _ ; ~ ~°~ development and the rest -- of the rest of the site until the whole site is ready to go, ' ~ ` because you're going to get what's there right now and things won't change until the site .. ' ~~'~ develops and we don't know how long that is. We have a comparative advantage over * ~ the status quo if it's approved, because we start to get those improvements installed. ~;# As those things move in, things ,start to snowball, people start seeing that there is :~ activity there and that's how things happen. You see the north Meridian, as soon as the „.~~ sewer and water went there, that whole area has blossomed out and there is a whole K~ ~ bunch of developments going on in there. As the water and sewer moves further south ",: into this area, you're going to see a higher demand for development in thi d it' =;~. s area an s probably going to speed up the transition of this if that's in there and that's one of the advantages you would see for the city to go through with this. I would love to have the } _': opportunity to talk with ITD again before there is a denial of this project, because I don't ~ ~'~ believe that it's premature for this site to develop at this time. I believe that there is a ~~.' need for the services that are provided there, it's something that people have asked for ` ~~-~ for having a gas station, other than having to go up to Overland where there is the ~'"`~ congestion once you get to the overpass. This is something that people would like to ~; see happen. Victory Greens is a very successful nursery right now, but as the ~4`t development starts to happen and the land becomes more valuable, it will -- it will snowball and things will start to happen there. So, as far as the existing residential unit that's there, it's very similar to those that you see for the people that run mini storage ~~ ~~ , it's an accessory use to what's there right now. It's also used as an office, it's not just ar`.. 6` ` caretaker, but that's where the business and money changes hands there and the ~{~ ~. ~~~ . owner just happens to live there, because he likes to be there and he likes to work . I there, so -- and in the county right now it's a permitted use. That's something that's ~~ ~ allowed for him to go there and I don't believe that that's a major concern of staff at this f ~; time. I see that there is a lot of advantages for the city to have this in the city. I don't _ = see an advantage for it to remain in the county, because those improvements aren't ~:~~ going to happen in the county, because they are not -- they haven't been enforced on by ~:,:,~,j Y the county, there has been a lack of conversation between the county and this ~~ ~ * developer and it's been instigated by this application. So, we are already seeing n,~~ benefits for the ci on this ent ty ryway corridor, because you're starting to see changes z ~~~ there right now. And so even without the approval of this, you're starting to see s .,:~; changes on this site, so you're already seeing an advantage over not having heard this. f _ }~ y, ~. -.. ia_ } L " _4. 1 I }`^`J ~~-{ "` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~x~s April 15, 2004 ~~, Page 22 of 60 ~~ 4F So, I think it is in the best interest of the city. I guess I would have to disagree that -- I Y C,`. !/. ~~ °'` think there is a lot of advantages to it. ,s s w°~~ Zaremba: If we were to continue this, would you like to offer a target date to which we ~~ ~ ,~ . ~, . could continue it? Borup: I was going to suggest maybe two months. Does that sound -- Moe: That would be June the 17th. ~ McKinnon: June 17th. Zaremba: June 16th. McKinnon: June 16th. Zaremba: Would be two months from now. Moe: No. 17th. Borup: Or you need longer? „~'~" Zaremba: Or 17th. I'm sorry. June 17th. =t~ McKinnon: I'll take June 17th over longer. June 17th I think we could have something and -- .; Borup: And if not -- I mean the comment I think Commissioner Moe made about ``~=''~~ continuing -- the next time it would just be a matter of continuing it, it wouldn't be a -- probably a hearing to -- or testimony that would take any time, so it doesn't need to -- ,~ can't remember who mentioned that, which Commissioner. But it's not something that c~~ would need to take a lot of time out of the agenda if there was nothing really -- ,~f,. ~ ~' McKinnon: I don't have an answer for your questions. I can come back and say we ~~:°' need another month to continue it. Borup: Well, there is a couple things I think would be good to work on in the meantime ~'°, and that's probably, you know, landscaping design on Victory. Some paved parking for :j the nursery business. And maybe some discussion from -- I mean we know what the :.~~ ordinance is and what staff feels, but -- on the landscaping and buffering on -- on 'i' Highway 69. I don't find it objectionable the way it looks, again, realizing that it's ~~~ temporary, but, you know, there is a lot of trees along there and probably adding a few `~~~ more would help even more, but what I'm getting to, I think the applicant would probably -- it would help to have maybe some -- a little bit of direction and feeling how this _,~ Commission would be feeling on that. Or anything else. I mean I stated landscaping on Victory. Maybe others feel differently. ':::'=a, `"''p`~" '~w~}` r ;> s -~i ' 1'~ ;~ ~ w •_, .. »x ~e: .~~ ~.' r7 L~+~l~ 3!~M~y~ ~~~ a RsxTXx~lI '~~g ~N r;1t'YE` ;~~. ;' i i y }~, ! .t' f~. ~~.:~ ~ ~,~ ~ r.1~} f ~f' >~ :~: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission '~' April 15, 2004 i~f, Page 23 of 60 ~:r~r: Zaremba: Well, I think that's important. You hit some important ones. E~. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to comment that there is so many issues that are F~= `= convoluting this application for me to sort out and -- ?i; } '` ~ Borup: Well, that's what I'm trying to -- ~~: `~~'~ Newton-Huckabay: -- make an informed decision. I -- ': "~ Borup: Well, that's what I say tonight, let's get those written down, then. That's what "- think we need to do. I have got three of them. That doesn't seem like so many issues. 5:-~. And one of them is ITD. ~~ ~_~ Newton-Huckabay: There is the driveway issue. There is -- Borup: Right. That's the first one. ITD. The other is the landscaping on both roads 'r and paved parking at the nursery. If there is another issue that needs to be added, let's get it on the record. Moe: Basically, the amenity situation as far as the sidewalk on Highway 69, as far as not going all the way through the property. And if we are going to be reviewing the "`Y landscaping to be taken care of all the way down through the property, I would anticipate we want to have the sidewalk do the same. Borup: Okay. Any other issues? ~,a Zaremba: I would think that the staff should have the opportunity to decide if there are more issues. Borup: Yes. i~~. Zaremba: And not necessarily on the spot this evening. °":` Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can let you know that I have tried to q~ `~ highlight the most -- the biggest issues with this application. There are other things that =.w ~,~; could be -- that are normally taken care of in conditions of approval, not -- you don't ¢, ~ $~ hardly ever see an application that there aren't -- there isn't something left out by an r ~~ architect or an engineer that needs correcting. I have tried to address in that memo, ~ "` you know, the six biggest issues that were still outstanding with this, that there didn't ~~~~~~~ seem to be enough of a resolution to tonight to have conditions of approval and, again, ~ ~,._ continuing this for another two months with a possibility of another continuation for another two months -- I have several applications in my office and if we got rid of this ~~ ~~~" one and they came back with something that addressed whatever you decide -- if you ~~ ~:~ want to give them some direction and say, you know, we don't necessarily think that ~~°~.JI landscaping is appropriate for the north half of this property on the highway. That's fine. ~Z ~ ~„ c3 ''~:t~1t ~,,,yyS~+j {"T~~ r. ~~ f fir;: ~.~:.- i W Q ;. ~.~ air~s'!~~ i~?vf. •: x » .. tt' f ~f I~ 4 ~~ 1 ,y ~: ... . . ~., p' t-~A 1 1 ,; „!` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission t „ T,~!; April 15, 2004 ~;1`;' ~ Page 24 of 60 ~ ,~. We can give them direction that way, I believe. But to take what they have submitted ~,~~~ and try to re-tweak that, we are looking at something different anyways. It is a different ;r application. It will be a new application. So, continuing this one just doesn't seem to be ~.. ~'` appropriate and baby-sitting this until these issues are resolved -- it seems backwards ~; to me. They should be resolved and, then, an application is brought forward. But, again, that's -- I'll quit there. . ~rf: ~ ~ s Borup: I think we are open for a -- maybe ready for a motion. ~ ~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items. ~. ~;_;:~. §:: Moe: Second. `~_ - ~:~::- Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. Any discussion? All in favor? ~~~~~;, ~~_ Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~ Powell: Chairman Borup, if you close the Public Hearin -- 9 r;' r ~ Borup: I know. Was that the intention of the motion? r Zaremba: Yes, it was. -~ Borup: That it cannot be continued? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending _~ denial of AZ 03-038, to include all staff comments. d r w~ _ ,', .~k! Moe: I will second. x ~r~~E~1 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? ~~ ~r ,,~~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~:~ ~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending '.;i~ denial of PFP 03-007, again, including all staff comments for denial. ,, { y~ ,v~ Powell: Chairman Borup, you actually deny it. You don't recommend denial on this case. f t Zaremba: Okay. I cancel that motion and I will make a new motion. t ;~,~ ~ p ' ..~~~~ ~~~Y .fir:, u ~ / t. SY. t ~ i `}i 1. -,- +,4~c ~i~~•f t 1. ~, ! , F(r fS~~iY S~- jf ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ r -',~'. ~ ° z s ~ ~ ~ ~.,! 0 o ~ ~. ~ ' _ ~ q .~c w~•p;~~ ~~ ~w,f ~ ~.. ry~~. rid' i i1 ~~Qi ( a~ .t t ~.. ~ h ~ ~ I i ~ ' _~ - } .'.5; ~ _ ..S f~'PJ'~P ~~ r~~ti~: r' l '~ ~ , yr, ~~~ z ~r~ ~. ~ ~+1~ ;' - ~,~ ~ ~- qq ~'''~ v '~'T Vr ~ • i i` ~ 5~ 7 ~ ~ A ,~ ~~f n _ "t S, 1 .~tnr P~#Xa ~ ' ~~~ ~ _ ~f r~~ t~ "'f . ~ ~ ..c 6~,.y~p ~ tv c. q~ $ ' ':' ~ 1 s ~~ ~A k :;6 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~'~~_ April 15, 2004 v Page 25 of 60 Borup: Now, you're saying denial for the preliminary plat. Zaremba: Yes. _ Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, move that we deny PFP 03-007, for the reasons stated in the staff memos and, in addition, we don't have jurisdiction if the land is not annexed. Moe: Second. ~~ Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Y''~ Zaremba: Is the CUP a recommendation or a final? 3~. v„ Powell: Recommendation. Zaremba: I thought so. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 03-071, both because we don't have jurisdiction if it's not annexed and for the reasons stated in the staff memo. Moe: Second. ~~`. ; ,; k ~~ ~~ `~' it'ra ~T e ~~ ~; >n ~~' :~i' ~~.-, r. ,~.:. ~~. 5 ;' . ~, ~. x^ F,:'. ~; ,, ,. ~; ~~~ =~' . ~~ ~,: , Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Mr. McKinnon, I guess you get to face your applicant. McKinnon: I guess I get to go to Council, too, so -- got to face both. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Borup: Okay. Next on our agenda is Items 7 and 8, pertaining to Southstone Subdivision. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-006, request for annexation and ~l~ ~ ~~ _ ~'",1 h.' ~.}1~ 1 nvd,~~~.- ,~b'r ~j l l:^:. c~.;l ~yv J - ~ S.' ~: 4 ~' ~'f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~r,,' April 15, 2004 Page 26 of 60 zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision and Public ~~ Hearing PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of eight commercial building lots on the same property. Okay. Both public hearings are open and we'd like to start ~~~~~= with the staff report. ,. ~.,: s° -- - f} . ~} ~:, .i. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, this is an application for a rezone of 3.06 acres. It's currently located in the county with RUT zoning. The applicant's proposing a rezone to L-O, which would allow light office uses. And there is also a request for a preliminary plat for eight commercial building lots. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Eagle Road and Girdner. I'm going to go through some of the surrounding land uses, because it's an important part of why we are recommending this zone change. Sutherland Farms Subdivision is located to the north. It was approved as a planned development and while there is R-4 zoning, the planned development allows light office uses. Sutherland Farms Subdivision surrounds the property to the north, to the east, and to the south. To the east of the subject property Sutherland Farms Four, which you will be seeing soon, is a revised plat, will be proposing some single family and attached -- attached single family home, but, then, to the south, again, to Sutherland Farms is R-4 zoning. Again, the planned development allows light office uses on that property to the south. So, the combination of the surrounding land uses with the light office uses to the north and to the south and the property's location on a major arterial and the proposed consistency matrix, which Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on April 1st, 2004, and is going to go to City Council April 27, 2004, the combination of those -- those factors of surrounding land uses and the compatibility of the matrix, we -- staff felt that this rezone was entirely appropriate for the area and we are recommending approval. Actually, the actual subdivision -- let's see -- is an eight lot light office sub. There were a couple of minor changes that were recommended by our police chief and the applicants conceded to go ahead and make those changes. They wanted to make sure that the access point on the southern part of the subject property did not line up with the access point to the north, so we didn't have a straight shot. The applicant's agreed to go ahead and shift that access point on the north side of the subject property to the west, so there will be kind of more of a circuitous route to get through the parking lot. And since the staff report was written, we have received a revised plat, so we now know that the drive aisles do meet the approval of the fire chief. They will be 25-foot drive aisles. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I did have one. ACHD made a comment about their proposed driveway on Eagle Road and your comment was that they do not have direct access off of Eagle Road. From the small drawing I had, I could not interpret as well as I can from the one that's on display now, but it does appear that they do have a driveway going to Eagle Road, which ACHD, apparently, is asking that they not have. Borup: I think that's an existing driveway. Isn't that what that is? Or am I misinterpreting that? Yx _ .. ~~ ~C i~ t• ~f - ; ,~,~ .~.~ <, - . f s~~ ~ w, (y1 7 ~~9f'f ITT t.,E ?4r ~ ~.~ ~~ ~~di t ' ~ 3 ~ _ ~'+`n ~`sF ~i, ~,: c s t' x yF Y7~y`~~ 4".`~ l~{'~~ ~~l - - ~~x? ;' ~:~:r. o ~t i 1;, ~ _ y~`£'r t~ v ~.Niy i. i ~~'~' r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~s ~f , l y~Yi rte: a ~s ~w c ~~~~ ~' '~'C~Z ~t, 1' F i r~} ~ i ~ ~~ ~, +i`~C.~Z~ a .Y. :. .Si2' I A 'a4, (~~, i ~~., i ~- ` ~ .r ~ ~ ~, t~ ,~~~+ ~ ~'~ ~tc,.q~t. ka.~~.t,: c .! , - .. r ~~r x ;~~ • -~ v Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -~ April 15, 2004 a-,;~ Page 27 of 60 ~ ~;~ Zaremba: We will ask the applicant. { Borup: Oh, there we go. You're right. It does. Okay. Now I see that. Did you have ` j ~_. ~ anything else, Mr. Zaremba? !~- Kirkpatrick: I did want to point out that with the consistency matrix not having been #y~ approved yet, this applicant is, essentially, following the consistency matrix through the { process. If the matrix is not approved by Council, this application will lose it's ability to ;,, _'$'`~ ask for the L-O zoning and it would die, essentially. So, just kind of keep that in mind. But the director's determination was that it was okay for this to follow the matrix through ~:; the process. Zaremba: Well -- and I would support that. I anticipate that the matrix will pass and it seems to me appropriate that this should be L-O. If that doesn't happen, then, we need to fix the matrix. But I'm agreeing that this is something that should happen, but I did have the question about the driveway access to Eagle Road. And the applicant is now here and that may not be what you want to start with. Borup: Mr. McKinnon. ~" McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Dave McKinnon, 735 ~~`' South Crosstimber. I'll just go ahead and address ACHD. If you can go back to the full >; ~°:a site, Craig, not -- just the overall vicinity map. Or Wendy. I'm sorry. w~' `~ Kirkpatrick: Oh, I'm sorry. '; `a.~ y~ McKinnon: You will understand a little bit better about ACHD's comments. ACHD ri ht y~;~: here at the Ridenbaugh Canal -- and that's the cutoff location for Eagle highway and this rl is -- it no longer becomes a highway at this point. It's no longer ITD's jurisdiction once it ~-~_~ crosses the Ridenbaugh to the south, it becomes ACHD's jurisdiction. And you see the '~, site there. They wanted to have a shared access at this site. Their staff report says ~~ ' * that it doesn't meet policy, but they would like to see this access at this location and >~ they asked for a waiver for that and that was approved and so they approved that for ~ ~ >~~ shared access for that and the site to the north, so that's how they have asked us to } `~, modify that. So, you can go back to the site plan, Wendy, the one we were just looking ~ .' at. They want this to be moved up, so that it's more towards the center, so that the ,~ s ~''~ roe to the north can have access, because the felt that there should be access to ~~ p P rtY y that properly between the Ridenbaugh Canal and the collector street going into 5 ~ I Sutherland Farms. So, that's the comments from ACRD and they were, actually, very supportive of this site and the location for the driveway, so that they could both receive 5' access for that. In addition to that -- .: _~ .;~ ~, ~ ~;' Borup: Could you explain that again? You said on that driveway access to be moved r, uP? ~- .. ~_ - S~'' rl rG: ~~~', ~l~ ~' i t I i~ ~ a~; ~ ~ y ~ ~' . , C Fµ k ~~# ~. D ~. KC~~r~~ E w~ l y i ~ .a , 1 ~ ~~~~? ~ 1 ~ _ 3• A t fra , r rsi ~_ ~` ~~ .-~- ~ ~ . a; !i~#~~ ~. r3. ~ ~ da~,+~ ~';n~ ~~ c~~~ ` ~~i~ '~ ~f4,. n ~ ~~y'~~y 1 ~ j _ Y . ~ w€~ ~_~" ~~ r. ~ I ~; r ,' yL 0 13I~~y~ I•~~f ~ i ~~t'TRA lY~l-, SI _ :«t,~x ~x~ ~ f ~z~.j >} .~ r ,~ 1yS~i 1u{I'~ a 1 ~r ~ IFS ~~ y1' ~,n:r'.. u , )~ M1~ ~ h` 4 ~ ~"'~ ~~ ~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~. ~, April 15, 2004 ~;, ,°~~ Page 28 of 60 K~ r_~ ~.~y ~,-;, McKinnon: Well, just to allow access to the north. }=."~; `'-''~~` Borup: On this application it would be eliminated. :,~~~yx McKinnon: This -- it's right here. They want cross-access to the property to the north. $, ,y ~~, Zaremba: It would be half on this property and half on the other property. ~~.~~ ~z~. McKinnon: It would be all on ours with across-access ~~;~_ Borup: Okay. It still stays, but there would be across-access? ~' ~ s McKinnon: It's across-access. And you should have received a letter from me stating ~ rytM1 that the only change that we had to the staff report that we wanted to see was on page ~~ seven, it was item number 14, and there was a requirement for across-access and ~ r~; cross-parking with the lot to the north and we don't know exactly how the lot to the north .~ is being developed and so we are more than happy to give them across-access but at y <~ , this point to require across-parking agreement seemed premature, so we would ask ~t;~ that we not be required to provide parking for that property at this time because we ' ~ , don t know why they would need parking on our property, because everybody is t ~ `' required to have parking on their own site, so if we can just have it modified so that we x,: , don't -- we are not required to have across-parking agreement with the property to the north, we would be happy with that. Just one other thing that came up. Just recently we found out that there was an application from Sutherland Farms to revise the office or multi-family to the east of this site. Originally when Sutherland Farms was approved ~.;``~ , this was to be office with multi-family and we designed it with that in mind and the F:~' reason why it's important now is because this ten foot landscape setback which is the ', = ; , dotted line you see running up through there, but all of a sudden, if it does single family ;j f ~`'' , it would jump up to a 20 foot setback, because there is a requirement fora 20 foot k,;,~ setback adjacent to residential. When we designed the project we were looking at ten ., ~y a,,, ' feet, because it was going to be like against like, which requires just the ten-foot buffer s~": . Now there is a change in that and I'd just like your opinion on that as to how to deal with '~ ~ that. Sutherland Farms has not come in to ask for this to be changed yet. It was N~;w. ~ supposed to be on the agenda tonight and they have moved it off the agenda so that ` ~ , would be something I would love to receive comments on, if we can continue to keep . ~; ~.~. the ten foot buffer there or not. We have some flexibility in here to maybe move this ~~ over. We have got a large landscape area between these two buildings. They could -~;~k~ possibly be moved, but we'd much prefer to see the ten, because we designed it with th i {~~I _ _ ~ e ntentions of this being zoned the way it was and now it's being modified as a planned development, so that's just something I would like to receive comments back , on. Zaremba: I would as k for confirmation from staff, but my instinct would be they have not ~ officially made the change in their request yet and if you go in under the assumption that ' it s going to be the way that it was, your requirement is a ten foot landscape buffer. If ~~F F ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~Vtl~~'i 1~-r}y~ ~~ t~~~ i i Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commissio• April 15, 2004 Page 29 of 60 _Y they change their impact on the area, I would think that the additional buffer would have ~_~~:~, to be on their site. Kirkpatrick: That's the director's interpretation also. ~~:~ Borup: Okay. ~ Zaremba: So, I would say regardless of what their application does, you're currently obligated to ten feet and we don't know otherwise at this point. tt }_' ~~ McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. ~~~ _ ~~ Borup: Iwould agree with that. The only thing that may change is if their application F; changed before yours was approved, then, that may put a different light. A~ . s;; p" ~ Zaremba: Well, I -- ~~: f, ``~ ~ Borup: But at this point Iwould -- -; =:~ Zaremba: Iwould still think the extra buffer would need to be on their side. ~~,~ ~..~:~ r= ,._ ~,, ~''- Borup: That seems -- I agree with that. ~~ McKinnon: Okay. ?~~~ ~ ~'~ -'~ Zaremba: But that's an opinion, but it seems to be shared by staff as well. f :: ~ McKinnon: And just so I'm clear this time, I am asking for approval tonight on this one. °~° ~ Zaremba: I guess a question to staff. Are you comfortable giving up the parking part of g Wh~^~>~ thA rmee_7rroce 7nr0~mr. r,~ .,+ ~~.:.. ..,....an ~5'; ~~ Kirkpatrick: If I would talk to Dave for a second, I 'ust wanted to clari ,.. J fy -- so you will just ~.~ _~: be doing this before the final plat is signed? Your concern is coming up with an ,~;~ agreement before everything -- ~ ^ y McKinnon: No, Wendy, it's just the cross-parking. You know, you're required to provide R~ '' ', r->, parking for your entire site on site and, typically, across-parking is only required if you - can't fit all of your parking on your site, but you need to use someone else's parking. We are not agreeing to let them use some of our parking, which is what across-parking ' <`~'~~ would be. So, we will do across-access, we have no problem with providing that. We ~; . , , '` ~ just don't want to provide them with parking on our site and so that s all we are asking ~:~ ~ for. -. Kirkpatrick: That's fine. ._ ~M- > ,:~f"r' Z ? t ~ ~: . ~Y,- ~Y '~,~ ~~~' ~~ ~ W4'r 1 f ~ R l ~ x ~ `- 3f~+~~ ~ A~~. ~ ~tfi 4~ ~ R H * z ' ~ "~#t ~~$' , f ~G# '~ -t ~~ ~Yz E~.:r + 7t~ K ~;, 1 ~... n~i~ Fr _ ~ irk r ^-: ~c~i h~ ~ ~ ~n~~~, ~d~~ ~~ ~• T t 3"' ~; s ; r Y ~ ;,;'' _ 4^ .`v ~,~ ~~s ~p t ~,~ 5~~ ~~IX~F, r ~~tirKj~ ~~~ +~~ ~7x 4 R x ~r~~st.~il ti •;;~ i1tf ~'~ ~Y ~ NC~ • ,::*'~i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~:~;~' April 15, 2004 y ffi . Page 30 of 60 yn McKinnon: Okay. Cool. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Comments. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: Do we have any public testimony on this application? Seeing none. ;~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? .:~~ `~{`' Borup: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to close the Public Hearing. ~- Borup: Do we want to second that? .:~~ Zaremba: I'll second that. On both items. ~; Moe: Oh. Excuse me. Borup: Yeah. That motion was for both Items 7 and 8? Moe: Yes. _~ Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And second. Borup: Motion and second to close Items 7 and 8. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. -~~ Borup: Thank you. Okay. It sounds like from what staff was saying maybe the only :::~.~ F: t''' staff report would be item 14 on page seven that would need modified. ~~~~ Zaremba: Well -- and the access point to the property to the north, which the applicant has agreed to move, means that a new plat will need to be done for the hearing. That's ~Y~:! probably a standard condition anyhow. Let me look real quick. k{'r °-'{~.~~ ,~i Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, one other way to modify that ~_ ^; `; would be just to strike the third word parking and, then, again, the -- I think it would be ~. ~~ ~, the fifth, sixth, and seventh word that -- the phrase for shared parking. If we were to strike that it would delete that from the -- a;' Borup: That would be a lot simpler. That would be a lot simpler than to put in a new _~ sentence. £: rY ~~ t~ '~ ~3y1.~~~'~rx', t { S ~k4?~' r{SX($yi Y f Y i ~N`!G.k.JC» g~.Nj { .. ~s~t+~m 7"`y~ '.. ;LLa~~. i' ffY4F ` r ~' , {,„5~3~ ~ P ' r,y ~ ,r 3''- ~F++' u~ 'r~, ;~ r ~~ , ~' x;~~r~ . ~~.t~' t '.r , ~ a ~ 1 i `~~ ~ fey ti ~ a ,r~ ~ :~ 't ~~ ~ ~:Mw a a,,::~,~ ~~~~~itii i1:°, r~ h4.~~a sin f r~•±, ~ , 5*~ tY ~~~MNa *{ ~ try ~ zr ' y#~f t .~fLf] x r _. ~.- A'. ~a 4~~s;~ ~ 4s, i & IjV~ tr ~, 4 ;~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission :;i ~~~ April 15, 2004 ~~~~'~°~ Page 31 of 60 .~ _ ~p _~y` '~°n~ Moe: In his letter he had a recommendation. .:~ t4~ Borup: Yeah. But I like Wendy's recommendation better. She's saying just cross -- just ~. eliminate the word parking and, then, the three words for shared parking, which would -- h~ , the sentence would, then, read: Across-access agreement between the subdivision lots {~: and -- well, maybe that is a little awkward. Between the subdivision lots and for the ''~ property to the north, the subject property must be submitted. Pardon? `~. Y ~'. Freckleton: You could scratch the word for, too. '~ _~f,, ,, ~~`` Borup: I did it. Oh, do you mean -- oh, the second for. f~, Zaremba: But, then, we need to add -- ,,,-~~ ;.,~~, -~~ Borup: -- oh, right. And the property to the north. Zaremba: 1Ne need to add a paragraph 15 that says a new plat will be submitted ten "` ~,~ days before the next hearing showing the movement of the access to the property to the north; right? { ~N-~ Kirkpatrick: Yes. Go ahead and add that 4~ ~ Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending - approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 04-006, request for annexation and zoning of 3.06 ` acres from RUT to L-O zones for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers Inc. , , northwest corner of south Eagle Road and East Girdner Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, and I would just note for the applicant that there is an unlikely event ~~ that the -- what are we calling it, the zoning matrix may not be approved by the city before this, but we assume it will be and that this is a safe recommendation. End of :S~• !:. motion. Moe: I would second. ::;~ r,.; Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? X~ ,~~;~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~€~ ~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending ;,~ approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of ;: eight commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northeast corner of South Eagle Road and ' East Girdner Lane, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of ~~ April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes: ~.{ On page seven, paragraph 14, will be changed as follows: Across-access -- delete the ~r,: ~.; ~Tf i _ ~~~~~ ~~e ~ '~ ~ tY;rrM`S`. ~Ct ~~}~: i Z ` I~~ A q `. ~~ ~ ~ ;f Y ~[ 1 f -~`fa ~x zr,1i' a Ci ~~ - 1 4 X es r y t~~~ ~~rye'.' 2~ }'~ ° 4 Y 4Y's T'r ; t r ~. c _~ _ < s~ YYtkb rJ ~v ~~ - ~a~ ~ ~~ , m E 4 ~ ~ ~ t ~,~ : ~~ ,~ ~_ x ~ ~ , L~y~-~r~tF 1 U~' ,~ A l~ { y.E 1 7 ~, c -~~4~ rR ~ ~~` s~,ti~4ti :: c =}} ,rj~~r~ ~x+;th y ~ t y~ L r n,,,_ 4 ~ a ~ ! ~~fti~,~~ 3 jai i+ r sw:; i ~ y 3~'' s ?, rw~~' ..;; ~y,~ ~~~ i~_ . . f.~```~ ' ' ~f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission - April 15, 2004 ='~ Page 32 of 60 word parking -- agreement -- delete the word for shared parking -- between the i m subdivision lots and for the properly to the north of the subject property must be `~' submitted. And on a e 17 we will add a ara rah 15 that sa s Ten da s nor to the ~.-~- p 9 P 9 p Y~ Y p ~; next hearing the applicant will submit a revised plat showing that the north access to the ~`= . north property -- that the access point to the north property is moved to the west. End of motion. Moe: That was on page seven; correct? ~'~. Zaremba: That is on page seven, a new paragraph 15. r. ~~ Moe: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? ~. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~~I Borup: Thank you. Okay. ~r~~ ~~ Zaremba: I did have one left-over question. How did McKinnon get the first two items on the agenda when last year he was always the last one? You have moved up in the ~.A, world, sir. ~~.~ =~ Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- ~~ r~- 4 to L-O and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood rr Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 6.,.x:.< 2004 _ =~~ Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 *-: x' building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to w_ April 29, 2004 r<.. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~~"~" Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L- O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - r' 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 Borup: Maybe. He got denied. As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, the next ~~~ project, Items 9, 10, and 11, there will not be a hearing tonight. It has been re-noticed ~~~='~ for April 29th. And also as has been mentioned, Sutherland Farms -- are we okay on ~_:~; that? That's also continued to the 29th. I think maybe we will want to take a look at that at the end of the meeting and see if that works. =~~ Zaremba: We can choose adate - ~, k' '~•~ ij r+a ~.r ~bM ~2~'x:l Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission • April 15, 2004 Page 33 of 60 ~<~. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 ~~~;~~ acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision '"'r No. 3 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road z ~ ~ and east of North Locust Grove Road: ~:~~. _ ~~-~~ Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 ~~~ `', single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by =5 Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east ~~==~ of North Locust Grove Road: ~F 1 ~? 6~., 4 Borup: Okay. Our next item -- not only our next, but last is Items 12 and 13, Public r ~ Hearing AZ 04-005, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 ~,~ .~.~ zones for the proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 and Public Hearing PP 04- '~ 006, re uest for relimina q p ry plat approval of 20 single-family lots on these 5.273 acres. ~ ,;; At this time I'd like to open both public hearings and start with the staff reoort_ . ,~a, '~'` Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission On the first ~ . Item, No. 12, the annexation and zoning request, the applicant has proposed a rezone ~~ ~ f~ =~ , to R-4. The property is here on the north, the bold actually outlines two five-acre parcels more or less. We are just -- the subject properly tonight is just on the north ~ ~' ~ here. There is two separate Ada County tax parcels, both owned by the applicant and $ f both are the subject of the application. Ustick Road is here on the north art p of the ;. ~~.-;~ _~~"~ screen, on the top of the screen. Several Ada County undeveloped parcels on the south side of Ustick. Wingate Lane, private lane, does extend at the mid mile between ~ ~' Locust Grove and Eagle Road down to the roe Packard Acres 2 is to the north p p rty . Chateau Meadows East is to the west. The parcel on the south zoned RUT separate ` ~ , ownership. Packard Acres No. 1 is located here. Carol Subdivision has also had about ~ ~,. ' half of their properties annexed last year and, then, of course, you have an office park '. ° and River Valley Elementary School. So, that's generally the vicinity that we are talking ~_ ~7. ~ about. Packard Acres -- existing Packard Acres Subdivision is also R-4 zoning, so they ~ ~~ i are proposing the same zone for this five-acre in-fill parcel. The Comprehensive Plan Y.:~ does designate the properly as medium densi residential, dwelling units per acre and they are proposin the R 4 hi h d h t ~~ ;~~ g - , w c oes conform with tha Our staff report lists several other Comprehensive Plan policies as well as the ' ~;~,~:` F° , applicant s cover letter, a couple of -- that they felt fit the policies, particularly in fill is a - ~~ `~ , goal and policy of the Comprehensive Plan to get these annexed and on city services ~ ~~~ . So, the findings that we listed for annexation and rezone did generally find that -- that the application meets the required findings for that and there is a recommendation for _ ' approval. On item number 13 -- I guess this aerial photo zooms in a little bit and shows ~f =` ; you more or less existing conditions. I think this was taken about mid 2003 I believe It ':3 ,- , . does reflect the street construction that was part of Packard Acres that exists The ~; . parcel is outlined here and it does have East Challis that is already constructed here on F ~ the north bounds of ry the parcel. As you can see, there are some existing houses and ~~ a~.._ some out buildings on the site. This is just a photograph to give you a sense for the -~ ~--,. ~~~~ f t,~ 4 ~. ~. t „.~ t .~ , ~~~ ~~4 _, ~ ~~ ~ . t ~~ 4 ~~ E • ... e$ n, ~'`~"~~ ~a,Y. ~~I ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 34 of 60 intersection that is at the corner of this parcel, which is the intersection of Wingate Lane and Challis and, as you can see, it is fenced on, essentially, all four intersections. Here is a copy of the preliminary plat for Item No. 13 that was submitted with the application. It is a 20-lot build -- 20 building lots and two common lots. Generally, they are proposing to just extend the existing stub streets that are in the area. The lot layout is similar to existing Packard Acres plats. The existing house that I pointed out on the aerial is located here in the middle block and they are proposing to retain that house. They have an application for a variance for the front setback, which certainly the Commission as often does, gives comments to the Council on those variances, even though you don't have recommending authority under the code, but your input is certainly welcome. Staff is probably recommending approval. The required front setback is 20 and they are proposing 13.5, I think, or 13.6. The next slide shows what they are proposing for their two common areas. The one up here in the north -- in the northwest is an ACHD storm water easement that, essentially, receives street runoff and -- but they are also proposing to improve it, of course, and to plant a couple of trees there. That is a part of what they are proposing as their five percent open space. And, then, the other open space they are proposing is here on their east boundary, immediately next to Wingate Lane and this is basically the one issue that I raised in my staff report for the Commission tonight was the Police Chief Musser's comments, as well as staffs original concerns about the location of this being immediately next to Wingate Lane, which is gravel and immediately north of this there is a -- as I showed you, a six foot solid cedar fence, which the staff report right now recommends they continue the same type of fencing. That was our assumption at the time. This plan actually proposes to have a split rail fence, instead of a six foot cedar, along Wingate Lane on the east side and, then, they propose a five foot high wrought iron fence on the west boundary for the existing house to have view into the open space and, then, the new house as well. We did receive -- the applicant contacted Chief Musser and tried to get more information from him as to his concerns about the surveillance on the property -- on this common open space, which the application originally -- we assumed that that would become basically like a tunnel and patrol officers would have a difficult time seeing into it. After he reviewed this with the applicant, he did submit a letter for the Commission that says that he is -- he says it originally was a concern, but he believes it does now provide for guardian presence of the common area and he is satisfied that the developer has worked to create a beneficial amenity for the proposal. So, his original concerns about the patrol officers being able to have view into that is apparently taken care of with the fencing. So, I wanted to point that out. I think the other standard conditions are in the staff report. Those were, really, the two main special considerations. We are recommending that the same conditions for these lots -- I'll go back one slide here. There is three build-able lots that back up to Wingate Lane and we have recommended the same conditions that Packard Acres No. 2 has been applied to those and that is no access to Wingate, that the existing driveway be terminated here at the east boundary and that the Wingate easement be widened from 15 feet to 20 feet and that the developer have their attorney draw up a release of dominant parcel interest for the private lane easement, which, basically, just prohibits that access in perpetuity as it runs with the titles, so -- do you have any questions? ,J L K k~~~ ` a FYi Syy~~'~ T'f'1~7Z w ~~~' -~1~ N *iY; k 1. .l t~ * 1 • ttftt rI € ~ ~ ~ i + I,~rS w t n.7 F ~ 7' ~.~> r ~6 - {.',r a ~ ,. `t E ~ 1 ~' v 5 7'~%r 4 .Ji~ 7~ ~i?-~~~~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ c }F ~1y{A~y ~'1/ ~. fly G Sr' t ~ ~1 ~~ ~~ - t / i ~ f iJ~ ~ - - p L ~' Ypi Vh W ~ 1 7%~p ~`i N ~ ~ ' `} , ~ d l~a 7 ~ a-rte K'! 4 ~F:~i+,d ... ,., ~ ~`~'T~y ;,~~~ SV' Ri~S ,. ' ~ ~ ' f % .~ w ~x~~,~ i , y ,~ ~~t ~' 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ r 3 : ~ 4 t ~ , _ e +. ~~~ rt '. S, -~` ir. ! S. r.c;sw~• ~ ,~ f ~~ ~~~~~ 1 y td } ff ~ }~'f:f~ ~Rrl^~ it i vs ' f !'~ r y „, i~ ~~: ~ . s= f~'i~~~a ..~.. i .~ ~ ~, c ~; ~~ .. +~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 ~ ~ ; `~=:~ w Page 35 of 60 4 ~~ ~~ Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, while you're on that subject, has there been .A tr= 1 any _~ discussion of going the other way with that? Is the issue with Wingate Lane that a ' € property owner to the south still wants to drive straight up to Ustick, as opposed to using , . -~~~~ what are now other public roads in between? ,~_.,~ ,;~ . ~ fi HBWICIrIS-Clark• Tha+'c enrrcr+ ~ ~:zr ~; ~~~ .. ; ~. ~ ~w '~ ° ` Zaremba: And there is no way to work that out, to just buy this easement from them ' °~ ~'' ~~.>~.~• and have them use the rJUhlir. rnaric tna+ aro hoin~ ..,,+ :.,~ ~~,-, ~~ ~: ; ~ Hawkins-Clark: Well, the property owners to the south -- the Sharps are here tonight '' ' ~ and I'd ask you to maybe present that to them, but they, obviously, do have -- along with the other property owners there to the north -- and I can go back to the vicinity map that shows there -- as you can see, there are several properties that -- that, you know front ~. . ~~ F ~,,~ , on Wingate Lane and part of their -- you know, their deeds have the Wingate Lane +i ~~ easement and there is an association for that, so -- t7: ... 7 -. ~ Zaremba: Well, I'm sure have one to it, I'm not questioning that, I'm just wondering ' :~ whether that s practical for the future for them and I will ask them. ` Hawkins-Clark: Sure. • ~' Borup: Any other questions? I would like some more clarification on Wingate Lane #ri ~, ~Y ~_ ~`~~~ also. All this yellow is all already Packard Acres or Packard Estates or whichever phase , of the subdivision; is that correct? ~: ~- ~ ;.. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. ~; orup: And this is their subject property right here? i T~ ~`40~ ~~~~ ~ ~~; 3 ,~~ F r. ~.,'~ Hawkins-Clark: Just the -- correct. Yeah. The one you have vour rlnt nn Rinih+ , ,,.. Borup: Oh, just this little one right here? ;'~ 2 Y j~ `~~~ Hawkins-Clark: No. The -- not the one on the south. ~ Borup: Okay. ~ ~' i Hawkins-Clark: Not this one. j.4 y. f-~ Borup: So, what properties -- so what properties south of the road is Wingate access to? ~. ~; ~`~ "'~~ Zaremba: That lower. ~~,; §a;fi Borup: Oh, this whole half here. a. } w~ 5 ~ y~~ K'fii1 ~. ~d ~~ ~, ;Kt ~af `, ~ } r s ~` - Yy z }~'. .i } {~h{ ~ 1 ~ Yp!Fr~ F 4?~~i~ ~r as a _ f ~(# '~ ~' ~ ~. ~, ~ .r: r~~~ ~ Fri ~ r t .r; y ~ .~ ~~ti ~ ~ ~~ 11[,$t \ '~{~~' l l~ ~ Div-:' s~~ .g P k ~.;: ? ~... 1 '~~ ~ Y f ~ ~"~~~ ~~~ ~y r~l F W- d~ , 1 Fs x ~. C 1..'~'.' Y ~, f ~. ~~ f t ~J~ 7 ~~. . , rht .,e;~~: 4 .: r'4a ~ a ~;;, :~: ~~ 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~< =" ~~^:"t,. ~' 3 ' April 15, 2004 Page 36 of 60 ~,~ ,-;;~ ',max Hawkins-Clark: Correct. ' ~ ` ~~ Borup: Okay. Okay. .~;: :.3 Zaremba: But their easement crosses what's going to be several public roads on the ~~ :.~, way to Ustick. s s,,, rt....t;.~"; At,,~F' ° Borup: Okay. And those photographs you showed, you said it was gravel -- I thought saw some paving on -- wa f~u< k~;;., ~, Hawkins-Clark: It's approximately 30 feet paved on both sides. z~ ~~ Borup: Both sides of the public -- ~. ~ ~' ~ ~~ Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The Ada County Highway District does have a r ~~~ > standard policy that -- Borup: Don't track gravel on. Hawkins-Clark: No tracking for, right, about 30 feet. _:~ `'~' ~ Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their '-:~.' -_ presentation? ;~ Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey, office ;~'~ address 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, and we are here tonight to ask for approval of the annexation and preliminary plat for 20 building lots and two common area lots. We have read the conditions that staff has prepared and we have been in contact with ~, them in regards with the common area concerns that he had. I'll just go through this ;a ~; ~~ special plat considerations one by one and address those, so we can try to keep orderly ;~{~ and comment on each item. ~~~:~ Borup: I think the ones we are most interested in are any of those that you had any ;:y ~ i concerns or disagreement with the staff. Tealey: Okay. Just to let you know, item one has been taken care of. We did add an additional 220 square feet to that open area and Craig has got the -- or, excuse me Brad has got the amended drawing. We'd like to address the -- item number three of site specific, the fencing, that it be agreed upon here tonight will be what will be required in the final plat, so we need to go over that. We felt this open area was going to be a nice feature to the -- not only to this subdivision, but it's a portion of what will be the open areas for all of the Packard Subdivisions, not just the use of this 20 -- 20 lots. So, it's centrally located within the Packard development. Also, this subdivision will be eligible to join the swimming pool complex also. The developer is donating 1,500 dollars a lot to the association for membership in that swimming pool complex that they r~ .: <, ~~ ~J ra.. s ~`~k,~'AI j > y `~ F S ~ ! 14 ~d - l ~~" r ~~ F ~A ~. P.,L, 7 '?N~:'! c xtf~ t - a Z~., ~ i ~~_ y~y ~ ~ ~l +<< 1 f S 4~it ~~ '~i~f E~ i F~ t it '~ ;~ _ _:t: - -'~~';Li~-~Y f~ 4~H.~eFx.t - tt $ ,! i 'l `: ~ ~ .. ~*~~ '~<~` r i , 3y rra~b, "''~'1i"' _ ~i. r f ~~~~ ~~7T } ys.i.i" w -a~ ,~ ~ffi`i !Y d r ,~I ~t 3 Ad~lf iy ~ L z..F:' h. . ~~s . { 4 x_. ~~_ ~~ r r1 7 R€; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission - April 15, 2004 r ~ Page 37 of 60 ~~, have for all of Packard also. So, they, actually, end up sharing that open space also. °~~~~ We are requesting that we be allowed to put a three foot high two pole fence along the ;; ~ western edge of Wingate Lane in order to maintain that openness. It's a very low traffic }' road. There is only one person -- one -- excuse me. There is one residence that u `~~, accesses it and, really, the -- doesn't use it exclusively, he uses the public road system, ~~~~;ti believe it or not, quite a bit to get in and out of there, the travel along that road isn't even ,~,, used all the time. So, there is very low traffic, low impact, so we are hoping that you „ ~ see it as a good thing for the open area to maintain the openness of the area. So, we'd J ~~~ like to request that the two-rail fence and the wrought iron fence be approved. In item t-_~ ~, ->~~ number five, the developer does not want to widen the Wingate Lane private road ._.o.. r ~. ~~' , easement to 20 feet. The reason that Wingate road -- road easement was widened to ,: sy the north of this application was so that ACHD had access to a storm drainage pond .~,~ back there. This need isn't there for this development, so there is no reason to give an `' additional five feet to that easement. I mean there is no -- there is nothing that says this has to happen in order for it to function properly. It's functioned that way for 50 years, ;~.~_ so there is really no reason for us to give up another five feet of ground. In item number .~s ~ 11 -- ~~~ Borup: So, that would be -- in number five that would be items B and C is what you're contending? ` ' Tealey: Correct. Then, item number 11, just to -- as a matter of information, that pressurized irrigation system will be owned and maintained by Nampa-Meridian ~:: } Irrigation District. It will be part of the overall Packard irrigation -- pressurized irrigation system. Are there any questions? ~', ,,. Borup: Questions from the Commission? { "~ ~_ ° Zaremba: The existing house on the properly, which, apparently, originally had access to Wingate Lane and probably has the same legal rights as the other people, they are ~~, ~~ willing to give up that access, I assume? '~~ Tealey: Yes. The owner -- Zaremba: According to the drawing r ~ Tealey: According to the drawing. Yes. The owners of Packard Estates and Packard Acres had access to that Wingate Lane all along and we have agreed to not access that ~;: ~°r` in the future. .:,,. ~~~ =~ Zaremba: Have you had any discussions with the people to the south, apparently the ~~ Sharps, about buying out their right to use that portion? I'm talking about this area right here. Tealey: While that would certainly be nice, that's been a sticking point through the a ` whole eight years that this application has been running, so -- there has been several r~'~a.~ t~rw;b'-e s y,.s, ri~~'~, r ;~ c, P~F ~Y~yL'.CI 4 ~' ,T~~~~1 ~ n.4^ 1 ,q 1?i, . .Y 3 ~ L i - i~ }. ~k 55 ir'3~pp#'#,~`` ~ ~.~ ~ s ~`' . i Y ~,. 1~'~i r 1 ' ~ 8 ~ !.. k ¢' r:}~y t w ~~yZ~ 3 b 'rp- 1a- ~~ 1 _ ~~ ~ 'F2 ~` ~~3 cs = ri ~l~ ~ti ~ ~ , ~ ; ~ / ~~lt~fi~~ j ~`: }~ i'v', a t t? ~ s ;~'tr.M'~h N~- k4I is ~~` ,<:~, <si~ ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 38 of 60 F' discussions, to answer your question, but no resolution. And I don't believe they would ' ~ be willing to give that up. ;a ~~',`°a= Zaremba: Offers have been made, I take it? Tealey: I don't think so. Given the discussions, I don't think an offer would be worth 4 presenting. k~, w ,_, ~h.~~~ iz;,..= Zaremba: Okay. That's enough answer right there as well. ;3 ,t. ;. ~:: ~~ ~;, ~~''_^ Tealey: Yes. b:, ~~ `` Zaremba: Those are m onl ~~,: y y questions. q `` Borup: Okay. And item number six -- or maybe you -- you did mention that on the .~~ fencing, but that would also affect that. On page eight it says that the fencing construction would be the same material. `'~ Tealey: Yes. ~:%-: lr. ~ ~7' Borup: And that would go to your two rail and your wrought iron that you had mentioned? ~:. i~ - Y~ g -~= Teale Yes. That's correct. Ri ht now there is an existing fence along that western boundary. ~ i ~~ ~ "~I Borup: There is you say? ;~. ~ s .c ~1 Tealey: Yes. And we'd like to -- which we paid for to put up, but we'd like to take it `Y down and put in the split rail, just to give that open feeling in there ~d ,' ~ Borup: Oka . Well I don't have Y any other questions at this time. I may later. `~ Commissioner? y tf~ ~~. .;~ ^p F $i' ~' Newton-Huckabay: I'm still a little confused on the layout. So, just to the west there is ~~ ~-~ ' homes that are art of -- ~-~. p _ Borup: I don't think that helped. ~:~~:: 4 .. ~ Newton-Huckabay: No. I'm trying to figure out where -- on the Wingate Lane -- I'm still t -~ not clear. To me it looked like it ends right there at the corner. j,. t~ ~,~ Borup: It continues clear down to access this parcel. i, ~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And that's the parcel -- hh ~ l 3:: a S, ~ ~~ - I+ + ~ R ,~1~ J # S.F~jij ~ ~. Y ~' ~ ~ 1~"i1J ~~~~ ~~~ ~s r* ~.k ~~"} ~ ~,~^ i [ t FT'""~~} T tf {- F2 S 7" ,~ ~ o ~x ~~ h.. t A.~.E H f j z ~-• ~'a. a~ ~' ~ l ~,~-"~'~~ih~ f '= ~ ~ ~, ''~ z'v h ~T?, v . ~±f.i • r j- - - '~~,,,, , xa.~,~ ,~~ <k: gib ~ ,~ s fir" ~~ ~.:~ .. z ~<~ , , fi1~3,~~~ f`i'r 1 y~~u w.~,.;rr I y - T r Y .- F tlYy,,, n ~y ~ ~ ~ 9 ~~"~ ` ; t; F, ~; x~#~' ~ ~~¢~:~` ~'~~~~ ~~ i .~..~ R F;F A _ 4 t - 1-~' t r~~; 4 .~-cif Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 39 of 60 Borup: And even though -- because it's an easement -- am I stating this right? Because it's an easement it's not shown on there as a public right of way, so it's -- it's part of these lots right here. ~~ ~ Tealey: That's correct. But if you go -- maybe if you could go back to that picture, that ;~~ 4~ intersection that you had, and you might explain -- right there. That's the Wingate Lane ~, ~-~ going north from the -- basically, the northeast corner of our subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And the split rail fence, then, would kind of continue -- -, Y.~ " k's _ ;~s~._. ~~:-> ~.YY%' y,r,rw 6G6,i ~. S" " 1 Borup: This is the property here -- is this the subject property right here? Tealey: I'm not good with these things. This is our -- this is what we want to replace with the two rail split rail fence. Right there. Borup: Okay. That's what I -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Tealey: And this right in here is the western edge of the 15-foot easement for Wingate Lane. This is Wingate Lane here that accesses that property to the south. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Borup: All right. I think we are clear. Do we have anyone else here that would like to offer testimony? Moe: Still have a question for the applicant. Borup: Okay. Moe: Could you go back over one more time as far as the widening Wingate Lane, why you're opposed to the 20 foot? Tealey: I guess I can use one of these things after all. This is the part of Wingate Lane in Packard Acres No. 2 that got widened to 20 feet and the reason that it got widened to 20 feet is when you go north here behind this garage, there is a storm drainage pond and ACHD needed 20 feet -- that's their minimum -- that's what they require for access to their -- they don't require that here, because there isn't any drainage structures and this part of Wingate Lane has been used in its existing condition since inception of the easement. So, there is really no reason for us to give another five feet of easement for that road. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. ~5 t ~f~~J} x Y:ll S ` 35R w kk'Tr4 'S Mt : ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ;. , ` ~ :~~ ~ ~. ~~~ ~ ' ~ ~y~~ ~r; , r~y~ ~~; r ~~ ~; G,~~a ~ ._:S n~ F ~M ~?+Y .. fyS' F ~: ~ t _,^~. WN ~17 F a ' ~'} ti .. . Q. ~r .i~ _ ~ i ,~ " ' F .,tag,ec~ ~ gip' :',i, a s y 2;ra tip' ~9 d~'y.~iw~ ~ ~t ,~.~r;~ta~ r!~ „ ~ , -: ,,~ C ~~ , ~ ax 1 s '•~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission '~~'~~_, April 15, 2004 ~>'? Page 40 of 60 `_h Tealey: Plus, right now as it's being used. this is nn tha 1 ~ fnnt lino rinh+ .,,,,., vqy SJ:-~' w :,; Moe: Okay. Borup: Okay. Does that conclude the Commission's questions? Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Now is the time. Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp and I live on the property south of the one that's in discussion tonight and we do have a private road agreement that's been in effect for about 91 `~~,'~ years now for the entire length of that half mile and we do not wish to give up our -- that =~~ easement, because we do have our sewer -- I mean our garbage and our paper and our =~`- mail and our friends and relatives come down there and use that and it is used quite a ~- . bit, regardless of what was said here. Borup: You're talking about this section here you use quite a bit? M,F<: ~. Sharp: All the way up. Borup: Right. Okay. Sharp: From our property up to Ustick and if you try to go -- explain to people how you get into our place and you try to say, oh, come in from Fairview, you'd have one hell of a time. Same thing with Locust Grove. And this way if we have an emergency or something, those people -- emergency vehicles can come right from Ustick straight to our property without any problem. And we are asking that they widen that to 20 feet, so that we do have -- if emergency vehicles need to get in there, they have that. If you try to turn off of the public street there or what they are proposing as East Meadowgrass onto that 15 foot, it's going to be -- that's real difficult and this -- safety and liability concerns here, because we do have -- we do have people that come down Ustick and turn off onto Challis and -- or else come on down to East Meadowgrass or they come from both sides of -- on the east and west of Wingate Lane from Challis and go north or they come down to East Meadowgrass and turn there or they come from East Meadowgrass and turn north and go to East Challis or up to Ustick and we do have a lot of kids and just people trespassing on that lane there and it is -- if you see that, it's a dangerous situation, because you have cars coming from East Challis or East Meadowgrass turning onto Wingate Lane and they don't look, they just turn on there, and you have a blind spot there. Borup: This is cars going to Ustick? Sharp: Both. Every way. Borup: But it doesn't go anywhere to the south, other than your place, does it? Sharp: All right. You come from Challis, you come from -- ilE 9 6v.~~r t + ~; ~ ~ , Y., ~ 7z ,ru~.vt ,r 3.a ~ ._ ~.$i. .. .... ~w ~,~~ ~ a: ef~E ~ ~' ~~. r; ~~~~• ~ r . ~ ~ ~. ~ ~s~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~'~, ~`~ ' ~ ,~ y ~~~ ~ ~ t iy~1 ~ S I H,'' 1tlf~ r:t 4~ ~ t"t'~r~ ) ~' I >~y J Y~F .Fy i •t ~~= F~y~~~ ,. F ~IC a.k~ V a 'n~"~~ ~ tb~ Ea _ ~ r ? ;~"~ ' ~ rru fij,~' i ~. t1 s f< r~ ~ . ti~ `. i I 4;'y` i M ._. J_: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 41 of 60 Borup: Could you back up one more -- yes. Right there. Okay. This is your property right here? This is your house right here? ~~ Sharp: Yes. Borup: Okay. Sharp: They will come -- I got to see where -- okay. Here is Meadowgrass. They come here and turn up here, they either go up there or out here or this way or they come here and come down Wingate Lane and turn here. And the kids and walkers are also going through there and we are -- when you say two rail fence, if they try to park there, they are blocking our easement and this happens, too, a lot of times and -- ~ - Borup: People are parking there now you're saying? ~' ~ Sharp: They will. They will. In fact there is a fellow .;~ .r that lived ri ht here on the corner 9 , ~~A~: he was -- parked his pickup there, because he was doing some work over the -- into his Y/ property. That was just yesterday. And that blocks our easement. And if you have a~~ - maintenance or something on that common area here, I'm afraid that they will come and try to block our easement there, too. So, safety and viability concerns is a real concern here. When -- before this is all developed, that -- they have ditches -- they have ditches ~~~ ~~ on the east side of the lane right across from where our roe p p rty is and, then, right at ~ ~ the property line of -- just north it crosses over and went up and fed the properties to the ~ ~W,_ north. I mean we had -- and that lane was wider than it is now, because people would `~.~~~ come down there and do the maintenance on the ditch or have to access the ditch -- the t ~, { T,I ~'*~ `~ water from the lateral down right on our property. So, it was wider than it is now. That's ~~ ~;~ just the way it was. It was that way until they started developing. And Jerry -- u...-...~.~... _:~ :~i Borup: So, you're saying it was wider because you were encroaching on someone *.r'~~ else's property? r s=': ` "'~ ~ Sharp: Well, that's just -- that was the way it was when we move there. That was 30 ~~,~ i _-_-~~ some -- 36 years ago, because the farmer back then, they just -- you know, they -- '~ Borup: They just kept widening the road as they used it? ~: ;- Sharp: Yeah. They worked it out. Now, Jerry Kirkpatrick said -- he lived just the -- ~:~;~ north of East Challis on the west side of the lane there. He thought there was a ten foot Y` additional footage there on the east side of the lane, but he couldn't find it and I do have a letter saying that he thought there was that ten foot. Borup: That's probably not pertinent to what we are -- Sharp: But, anyway, I'm just saying that, you know, it allowed for people to access there relatively easy, but -- ~~ ' ~~: ~.~,~ ~ ,~_ ~~4i ~ ~' } .t?~` b~" ~ ~-z .~ t ~ rid' nr +* ~~ STS +~ c : :~=+. ; ~ t y~E ~ ` ~ ~} < ,~~ ~~~ ~Y~, r H ~ ~ , ~~a ~4j ;~ ~' Y ~~[~'~ ~ ~ 4 " f i F r:: i • l 'til. ti K' ,(+ ~,~'~c ~ 7y ~~~: - ~~~~4Y ~T ~~,' y ~ ,- E~ P j1~ \' ~£ yh ~.. ~~,"~ m~ .: ~s ~.~,~ ~4~`~ri ~.. ~. ~.~ 'G , ;y - i .",5~ p ~ ~ ~,~gf+.yW~ ~ WHj Z J~ y .. . Fit ''S v4, ~:z c~ ~~ ~ ~~' , ~~...w ~ . L'~ ,h ~•.1.~:~ ~~,;.~~ ` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission A ril 15 , ~ ~, ' p , 2004 Page 42 of 60 ':~ ~u~ ' Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Sharp? " Sharp: Yes. . :'-~. ~f t ` -- Newton-Huckabay: What was -- I didn't get your comment on the landscaping. You _ ~r,, s ~~kr, approve -- you -- F Sharp: We don't -- you know, as far as the common area, I'm just concerned that ~r~:,. n®nnlo rlnn~++r.i+.. ...... aL...• 1...... LL...-. -_~ ___~_ i~_-- ,.- -'- -- _ .. area. i Newton-Huckabay: To mow the lawn? w~ . _~: Sharp: Yeah. Because we go through there. That's our -- that's our access. We have F~ used it for 36 years and that easement has been in existence for over 91 -- about 91 years now. ;~.~}; s. Borup: Is the current part of Wingate in use, is there any no parking signs on there at v~=~~,_.: all? ~{v:;~,~i Sharp: There is -- we have -- there is a sign on East Challis and there is one on -- that k ~~ would go -- as you're going north you can see it off of East Challis. And, then, there is -- ~k ~Y;',f~i Borup: There is no oarkina on Wingate? „T ;' I' Sharp: It's a no trespassing. Private lane, no trespassing. ~a ~~ a;~ € ~ i~ l Borup: Okay. s. Sharp: And, then, there is one on the -- on the west side of -- that would -- if you're ~,r ~;~ coming south there is one there and, then, there is one up at Ustick, but we need -- if ~~'-°~~' this is approved and you go through with East Meadowgrass, you need some signs _ there, too, to try to keep these people from trespassing and creating a hazard. It is dangerous for those kids. Every time I look down there and people will just whiz out M>= , ~- East Meadowgrass and head up north or vice-versa. Come down south from -- so that ~" was -- as far as the -- as far as the subdivision, we have -- I have no objection to that. I ~ ~, think they did a fine job as far as it looks nice and everything else, but our concern is the _ - safety and liability on Wingate Lane. Newton-Huckabay: Are any of those issues that -- did you work with the homeowners association in that subdivision? I'm assuming it will be the same homeowners >r association. Sharp: Pardon? ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , .- ~:,~ ~ "~ t~' '~}' ~ 3~i~` ~ ~~~~ {~ ~~ri ~~, f ?f . " t.`',...~ ~ ~u ~ r;~ 3 key K ~u'"~ l -.w; ,~~ F F 3 ~, Y ~~ ~' L,i~ ~~~ ~~~ 1~'~~ Y ~ ~ 6~ ~ h ~ ~~ ~, - i}.r - )., ~r {~6`r, ~' f~Rxx ~~ ~~ Y t - ~~ i~~ ~ 4. ~~,~~ ~~~ ~r ?~',~d L.4ff~~,y s } n ~ v; ~ ~ ~ y. r J`~tr~.N ~~~1 e.YI ~1 I.,d; .5 +LLL"LLL!1 '.. "~, y,: _ _ tii~A rY~f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 ;- u Page 43 of 60 ~'` Newton-Huckabay: On the homeowners association of Packard Estates, I mean could :~; they be involved in not parking vehicles on the private road? 's~ ,µ~,"'' Sharp: It's hard to control. I know that. .'~, Borup: Right. ~~_ ``,~ Sharp: Because there are people that live right next to Wingate Lane that have used it FM 3: ~~-°`-~<~ and we have gone over and told them that is our lane, you know, and that is a private lane and they are not supposed to be using it and a lot of them are real -- they say, oh, >:;,~, okay, we won't use it, but others get real mad. But we are the ones that maintain it, we >. pay for the cost of maintaining it, we pay the taxes for that lane and -- our portion of it. -~ ~ ~^ We do. And (suppose -- ,~~~, Zaremba: That's why I wonder wouldn't it be cheaper and less headache to sell for a ~~,:- ' profit -- Sharp: We can't do that. We can't do that. It's all the homeowners on that lane that ,.:w own that. ;` ~ Zaremba: Yeah, but you're the only one that uses it this far south. Sharp: No, I'm not. We got -- we have got people come down there and access their ditch water and everything else, so -- :" ~ Borup: Okay. Anything else that you wanted to mention? ~,~ f.j Sharp: No. I think that would probably -- thank you. ~~~ Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? ,~ ~~ H. Sharp: I'm Helen Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, to Chairman and the Commissioners ~x~`=r, and the staff. I'd like to show these pictures, so it would make it a little bit clearer to you ~'~ I where we are talking and what it looks like, if I may, please. `'`'. Borup: Do want to enter those in the record? H.Sharp: I'm sorry? Borup: Are you prepared to enter those in the record? H.Sharp: Yes. Borup: Okay. You realize they will stay in the -- `1 H.Sharp: They also have a copy of them there, too. :~ , ~~=~w~s~ ~>= ,. ` 1y ]4] '. > "~~ a '. ~N~te6 f t '~, ~w~!4~y c~.Y ~~~ ~~ r ,fix ~-'r 'yrr ~a ti i ~ f ~~;,. x ggg 4~ ~ri~~' rf ~ c,,~ 5' {' ~ . a. - '~.;~~~,M,yA~, - G :fit 7.Y r 7 ~,r-a 4" fiy~ 43 Ci ~~ .i~. ~ i. ^ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 44 of 60 ~'^`~ Borup: They have got them there? Okay. H. Sharp: They can look at them. And I have another copy. They can have these, because I have another copy at home. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, it's possible -- if the clerk's okay, we could put them on ~~-; the overhead, so everyone can see them and, then, you could point to them from the ?,,~; overhead, if that works okay. ?; H. Sharp: I thought this just might clarify, because, you know, you can look at fines on a ,~.,.. piece of paper, as we are doing here, and it doesn't make an awful lot of sense. You ' ~ can see -- this is Wingate Lane. The house here -- I'm supposed to use this thing. Let's r~~ ~~'~ see how smart I am. This one down here, the existing house that they want to keep ~. ~ .~~~`` , starting at this fence is ours, the southbound roe Over here p p rtY you can see -- right here on this one you can see where they are comin -- thi i M d ~~~"z g s s ea owgrass. You can see where they are coming off Meadowgrass, turning down and using Wingate Lane . . And, of course, then, it goes down further and you can see where Challis Road is too „ ~Y , . But this will give you a little bit longer view, because that lane is a half-mile long and ' . , ~ ' that s what I want to address tonight. We have one public road crossing Wingate Lane ' '' ~ , that s Challis, and if the subdivision goes through as proposed, we will have two public ~,? _ roads across a private lane. A private road agreement was written in 1913 which was , established for our property -- our first title to our property was 1913 and we would ~~::~ respect or hope that this body would honor that 1913 road agreement and I wanted to read one portion of it that says -- and I quote: Use of all the owners -- to be used for the ~~' use of all the owners. The developer does own part of that land, the lane. They don't -- they do own this, but when they sell it, they don't. So, then, why would the people want to use it? Ada County Highway District has a road agreement or an easement to use ~~~,~: ~"~ ~ that to cross there, but what right would the public have to use it, if they are not owners ~~ . We have a -- and if we are not going to abide by this contract -- it's notarized; it's a ;,, ~~~ I recorded deed. If we don't have to abide by this, why do we have to abide by any? Ada -,.;: ~ ~:.: t . County -- ~~ ~:~ Borup: Ma'am? Ma'am? Is there something that's not being -- v ~` H. Sharp: Well, they crossed Wingate Lane. They crossed our private lane at Challis and -- ' ~~ Borup: Okay. H.Sharp: They crossed there. This is my comment. Ada County Highway -- Ada ~k z. County says -- and I have a drawing here -- that a private lane cannot have a public ;' road at either end. We have Ustick and Challis. If it is done, then, it needs to be ~' `_~~ brought up to standard and improved. If you go from Challis into Meadowgrass, we ~~ ~~ ~, have got the same issue. It can no longer be a private road. My husband spoke to Mr. _ John -- a gentleman that was working with us on -- we have to take down the signs, 3 , ~~.~ r;~r~ ~ ~ , '~E,~ ~. ~~ ,_ ~;~~ ~~ ~ ,, F~~~ ~r M ~. _ , 4~~1~x~* ~ ~ '~, ~ rr v.~ ': ~:~~: C ~ ~{~ a=i e~T'? ~a ~"` f 1 39~. _ ~~is~ti ..3:_ ', .~9 r~~.~F at~ L ~~w ~iiy$~ ~Ef ^~`' i F 1 ~ ~"y srs~~ r ~A.. ~ rr k t•, +~ w ~ ~~ ~ ~. i ~.~ ~- c .i.,. , .l. ~ - o~a r ~ ~i re~cZr ~0.~~ f~ .~ ~lt ~ T { r~~!~ ~+~ >6 i r r ~tv ~, ~m'b ~ ,f ~, `w~~ ~;d ,~~ °~_; ' " '~' ~~. £I ~'-~ s c, -,..-~,...~ r;~~~~+ ~"~~ ~~rw n•~s ~, ~ s ~ ~ • ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~ April 15, 2004 Page 45 of 60 y-fi ~~ `~ because -- who identifies Wingate as a private lane. If it's a private lane, then, the road ~~ ~ should -- the private lane should not be crossed. And we all know this might be past ._„ history. We went through this before, you know, from 1995. It was decided that when =..,. this property that they wanted to develop and ours were to be developed, as one of the conditions for granting the subdivision number two for Packard Estates, that when those ~;.r could be developed, then, they could partition off -- or vacate Wingate Lane, because t- we wouldn't need it. But this has just been one piece and not ours. So, technically, ~•~ ~ they were supposed to keep -- and one of the conditions was that they keep the gates ~a,;Ni ;~.t. across Challis and Meadowgrass, so they couldn't cross Wingate Lane. That was only ~ to be for emergency vehicles. And Ada County -- Ada County Highway District decided ~:„r they were going to turn it down and redo it. When my husband and I went to the city ~~~~ ~ 1 and said, you know, these are the conditions, the first meeting they said all conditions were to be adhered to. Then, they decided they couldn't make them -- they weren't h ,~ enforceable, so nothing was done, and so we have aprivate -- or a public road crossing aprivate lane. My husband and Ihave alawsuit -- unfortunately, we sued Ada County ~~ c': " Highway District and the developers. It was dismissed by Judge Neville who said the _`} s :~ . Only one that could enforce the conditions for granting that subdivision was the City of y.;~ r Meridian and nothing was done. My argument tonight is what laws, what codes are we g ;'..,~ going to adhere to? There is also one here that's a private use arrangement that's in the Idaho law book -- I went down to the law library -- that states, in fact, if there is '~~ interference by the subservient, which is the developer north of us, causing -- changing r ~~ A?~ this condition, they are liable. The City of Meridian police department has confirmed it's .. ~_~.~~~.,;j a very serious hazardous condition. We have had it at Challis and Wingate and now we {~~Y'' ' are going to have it at Meadowgrass and Challis and this, of course, has not been ~~ ~ `- addressed. Nothing has been done to confirm or work that problem out and I find it very .;„ ~ very difficult and I think that rather than going on and on, that we either honor the codes ~< I • or why have them. If conditions are made and we are not going to enforce them, why ~ 3 bother? We have a real serious problem here and I think that decision, hopefully, that , _ `~~ ~'~ you make is based on fact and not as I was told Ada County Highway District has the final say and we find out that's not true, that if it's new road construction, the city has the - a r say. When it becomes part of the system, then, Ada County Highway District does. Now, this, of course has not been pursued and this is the thin th t i f t i i , g a s so rus rat ng for those of us who live on Wingate Lane and I'm very sorry to say that there aren't other $;~- representatives here from Wingate Lane. I was told that Iwas -- you know, that the '~~_ ~ Sharps got the exclusive rights on this lane. We have never professed or tried to think we did. We are fighting for what we think is ours and that's a private lane. The land that -~ was granted for the private lane is on the west side of Wingate Lane. Fifteen feet was " contributed to make this lane and, like I say, 1913 when our house was built, so that we ` x : ~ could get to our property and I have been told that they can't stop us ever from using ; ~. ~~ ~ that, because of the -- not only is it grandfathered, but it's a contractual agreement. Not ~: with just us, but all the members of the lane, and I'm sure that if people would read the 4- , ,-;; . files -- and it's a pretty thick one -- they would find that there have been numerous 4;~._ ~ letters from the residents on the lane stating the same things that I have done and - ' would just like to reiterate -- I would like them to adhere to some of the things that are in .- black and white to protect not only us, but you as the Commissioners for Planning and Zoning and also the City of Meridian. ~~~M~, ,w~`"~' ..;art( ..... .,; ,,.: ~. - {~:~ ~ ~-~ T.~~ ' ~' t ~ i .~ r i , ~~;~ ~~ :; ~~ 7 ~~~ ~ ° '„":' ,•'-t t ~` ''a"`~;, ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~'~; ~ April 15, 2004 :~5: .; Page 46 of 60 :;~,1 ~~~` Borup: Could you maybe just reiterate briefly what you'd like them to adhere to? Are ''~`` you saying you don't want them to build Meadowgrass? ,3"' H. Sharp: What I'm wanting them to do is to adhere to the conditions that the Ci of :"~', ; Meridian, the developers, and Ada County Highway District agreed to and that was to ;~~ put fences across Challis and Meadowgrass, so you could not go east and west on Challis. :r:= <<;, '~'" Borup: So, you want us to tell ACHD what to do you mean? ~~~ H. Shar I'm not tellin _ P g you what to do, I'm just saying that someone needs to enforce '= - ~ what's supposed to be on the records. ~~ ~~ z . °~'' ~ Borup: Okay. ~" `` ~ H. Sharp: And I'm saying - i~: }~ - "- ~ `~ 1' ~ £ `~ Borup: It sounds to me like you may have made an argument to have Wingate Lane ~.;~ vacated, because it's between two public roads right now_ x; ~L H. Sharp: No. One of the conditions Ithink -- if you went back and read them -- it `h =~ could be vacated from Challis -- E ~~ ~ Borup: No, you said it shouldn't be allowed because it's between two public roads, so it ~~ {. sounds like ACHD has made -- ,~,--;.. ~~ r. H. Sharp: Well, no, it wouldn't be -- it couldn't be -- it can't be {~ ,;. and Meadowgrass, because there is public road on either end ofpt vate between Challis ;<~ ~' Borup: No. You stated between Challis and Ustick. ~t ... ' "'S~", H. Sharp: That couldn't be a nrivatP lance Aitho~ ~., +t,e ,~~~:.,:~:..., ~} , =~rx.#' Borup: That's what I'm saying. You're making an argument to have that vacated and it ~.~k! sounds like ACHD has made a special exemption for you. `~~-. ~~ H. Sharp: No. I'm not -- I'm sorry, sir. To vacate would mean that they developed the ~f ': property they are trying to do a zoning for, the five acres north of us, and us, so, then, if ~4r they blocked off Wingate at Challis, it wouldn't make any difference, because the property is beyond -- or south on Wingate Lane. -~j Borup: So, you want that blocked off? k` ~ ~ H. Sharp: I want them to put the gates on there, so they can't cross our private lane. `~`` ~ The question is what's private. We have got some in the County; we have got some in >;.::, ~: r . ~ ,;~~~ ~'~ ~ ,, .u, { ~~'t u F.-, r,r , , ~.E ~?~',e r, ~ ~ ` z ~ ~~ ~°~? ~` -<~; "~ '3 ~t',A S _' ~.. -a ~ b ~~ -.~ , ~~~,tr `~ } w ~ ~ t, 4,,, . ~~: ,1~ ~ 1 ~. ia~~ xl -c' ` k P ~I 1.~aj ~! _ ~~ ~.~~ <~ ar ~, :.. 21_.::~ ~ n .,:z~~. r,,,lg i§va ' °J~ 6 k ry~ .=: 'h i .Y + _ - 5~ 2: y•fl 4. ,, Fi ~~ r ~;•~qdg i~a~Y~f <, l 3! ) a ;'~.~ L ~~1~h~t YY ~y' rY~ 3 y, cif ~ ~. ~,c~ tx.''; ih ~r.~ i ~ . ~ :•'. µµ,,~~ }} 5 ' F~`.!5 YJ Fh4 ~y h c,)L. ~lY A~~~ ~ ~i 5,~~Y.it.y, #.r .;8 fq;~yp Y. ~. ~.riF ~: 7 y ~ '_ ' 1~ - .:> ::~ ~~~~ ;m•. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~~.~~ April 15, 2004 -s Page 47 of 60 •-; ~3, the City. If someone drove on your driveway, what would you do? You would call the w==' authorities and they will say, hey, listen, Mrs. Sharp, you cannot drive on their driveway, ~A~ ~~~ ~ it's private property, so you have got to define what is private property. Our lane is a r private lane. Borup: Okay. I'm just trying to -- H. Sharp: And I just don't think that we should be allowed to have public roads crossing it. Borup: Well -- but that's already happened, so that's something we can't address. But what we can address is -- ~`;~, H. Sharp: You can on Meadowgrass t~,. 5~ ;~ Borup: -- the application that's before us now, so that's what I'm trying to find out what it . :r~. ~, is that you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're saying you'd like a gate. i~t;~`~l ~~~>~~ y.~~ ` H. Sharp: I'm hoping that they don't cross Wingate Lane at Meadowgrass. According ,~~ >,~: ~'~' ~ to the guidelines from Ada County -- and I'm not too sure they have even dealt or talked ~ { ~ to Ada County on that, but some needs -- they need to have definites, because we know there are other private lanes. In fact, I think there is five or seven between Eagle ~; ~ Road and Linder off Ustick and they need to have some definites and not this I heard or ~; ,: I think or I have been told. We are dealing with fact. ~: ' *` Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did Mr. Hall want to testify? ~~.. Hall: Justin Hall. I'm a current owner -- well, eight property owners in Packard Estates in both number one and number two. My concern this night is the 13-foot easement on ,,r ~, the front property line of the home that's currently there. I support the annexation process of the subdivision. I think it will be nice to have the 20 lots, but our concern as -,',;1 a group of homeowners that live close by that would devalue the subdivision havin a 7:~~ ~ 13 foot front easement granted in this particular subdivision and I don't understand how k' -- you know, if we had one granted, what would stop me as a home -- a builder wanting s _,~~'~ ~* + to go in and grant another 13 foot easement? . Borup: Because there would be no reason for it. This is an existing structure. Hall: But is there a hardship developed on why there should be a 13 foot versus upping ' "~ the price of lots 3,000 dollars to bulldoze the house and not make the value -- I mean it ' - r ~`; doesn t seem like we are imposing a hardship on the landowner by requiring him to adhere to all the other, you know, current 20 foot setbacks in the rest of the subdivision. "" Zaremba: Well, what is happening is what used to be the side of his house is now, by <~ definition, becoming the front of his house. It's still the side of his house, he hasn't ~:`~_ moved his house, but because a new road is being put foot there, the side suddenly `. .~.a ~- ~~ ;~ ~4 ,~: ,~~,~ -...-. _. ;~_ s.~ r n ~` H~ ~ 1 _ 7 ~r . ~ • i ~ ~, ~ ~: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~ ~`~ April 15, 2004 ;~, ` Page 48 of 60 ' a : ~, . becomes subject to the front setback and to mitigate that we are saying the existing ~:. setback is okay. Hall: Thirteen feet. ~;~~ Zaremba: Yes. The reason for the 20 feet is so that it's possible to park a car in the "~' driveway without having your tail end of the car hanging over sidewalks or streets and their driveway is certainly long enough, since it comes in an L-shape -- ~~ ;~ Hall: And how many feet from that west boundary to the front of the house will there . be? Will there be 20 feet there? w 5> Zaremba: That I don't know. We can ask the applicant that. i.: -,_ Borup: There is a representation of it right here. So, I'm assuming that the 13 feet is at this corner, the closest point. If that's correct, that's -- so you have got this distance ~~~ here, plus the width of the garage would be the distance off. ~? ,x~~ Zaremba: And your other point is that -- making that exception in this case does not ~ :` ~~° give anybody else the right to build ahouse --anew house without the proper setback. ~~ ~ ~ Hall: So, how can current concerned homeowners deal with that issue if there is no -- ~~:. mean I guess that's why I came and I don't know this policy very well. ,. ~, , YJr`~"`'1 Borup: Well, you have done exactly the right thing. ~' Hall: You know, that we have been joined with quite a few other people, you know, and I made the comment at the first meeting to try to up the price -- I mean we are concerned as a homeowner on the whole community and how it's going to retain value for our current home sites and we think -- you know, as I'm voicing a concern from many other people, because I built 35 or 40 homes in the subdivision, is we have a valid concern. If it's about money, I would be willing to pay a few extra thousand dollars per lot or whatever it would be to mitigate that problem and put it in -- you know, change the home, put a front easement, so it's consistent with the other home sites. There has been another home -- Borup: How did the developer respond to that? Hall: I can't recall. I -- Borup: I mean -- Hall: I think it kind of got shot down. I'm not sure. How did you respond to that? Borup: Well, we need -- we can get that -- ~~:~ ~`'~ ~> t ~;~ ~ fi '$"~~'~ "'7 ~ ? k H..u ' i .r$ ~¢ _ `;.y .r x ;, r{4 f ar -r r°i'-ST "'44:5 ,. t, ~a 3~~ z.wt,' .+"' >. ' , c . l_~e ~S~ I,.ti ,. ~: "~ r' iCl ~. {' A ~ }' {' Y:'V ~ i ~: ~, ~VS, f t ~ ~ ~~;~ ~M i '' 'K~ ~ iii- .~5~ f h 4.~ ,. 4+ - - f ~1~ 3i Fr~f;q t ~~; ~~ i7 ~ Yom. .:;~.,: , . ,i: ~~ k ,L t ~ ~z~a .,:;,.~. ~ ~,.: . '~ ~ - ~ n~l'~j 9A~ u1 °~ Y r ~enS-f~C3~ V '~, "k"~ ~~„ r F~ fi;? ; s F~Fk ~. a~~(. - ~v e wpE:}tti } ~i a ~ _~ „' ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 !ypyp 5~ ~y~• Page 49 of 60 ~r .:^ Zaremba: They will come up and respond afterwards. ~~~ . Borup: Or if you wanted to express that. I mean you raised that as a ue ' You ~.~ .:Y3` ~:. said, you -- it was related as a possibility. I just wondered what the respo se was. ~~ Y~ ~' Hall: Yeah. Commissioners, I have you -- you know, just a concern to express that to ,~ t,. you, as a group of people that I have been here to talk about and, you know, busy lifestyles haven't permitted some of the other peo le to be h B t th ~~~~~ p ere. u e only concern that we have for the subdivision -- some people have been against it. Easements I~ ~ x , respect the Sharp's ideas on -- you know, concerns on safety and everything like that ~, g,.~~~ , which I think having it -- you know, cross there is going to be adequate, as long as people -- maybe they are going to have to th ~~ ~~~~~ ~~. , move e -- recommended move the fences back a little bit so you could see up and back of Wingate Lane, so they can safely cross s; ;, that with the Sharps coming in and out. But the only concern that Ihave -- and a lot of other people have expressed -- and that's why I'm here -- is the 13-foot setback I don't ~ ,~ . understand why -- you know, how to express a concern as a group of homeowners in a `{ large development like this to maintain the same look throughout the subdivision when fir,. ~~ we of a - g -you know, Mr. Pantell here, we built a house right here, the realtor has expressed -- the representatives that this house would be not there when they chose to `` ''~ do this and that was a representation of the people to him as a person that that wouldn't a ~ be there and that they would demo that out and it wouldn't affect him and so I have a _ ~ ~ concerned homeowner asking me, well, what happened here, it's not happening and that's wh I re t d th ~,n yi `. k ~ y p sen e e question to the developers, which I don't want to do this, because I have stakes and I'd like to continue buildin there t f rth , ~~ ~b ~~ g o u er my business and stuff like that, but I just think that in the overall scheme of planning and zoning, that that hom ld b e cou e a condition of approval of the subdivision that it could be moved it could ~.. ; "" , ~ be passed on as a lot, the future 20 lot owners, that they could divide that up into a fee ~~ 1{ _~ that -- we could do that and -- ~~ r= ri i :~;1 Borup: It sounds like you're asking the Commission to ste into the r' -- P p ivate ;. .,:; ~~ S e; f' Hall: No, I'm not - - ~~,~,~i Borup: -- into private business and dictate value of properly, though. >~. ~, a c~ Hall: No. No. The only option that I'm saying is that as a condition of the annexation a of this subdivision, is there any way that we can put a condition on this -- <~ Borup: Well, that's what -- that's what you're asking for us to dictate. I mean if that's -- - if it is a detriment -- and I don't disagree with anything you have said. That should reflect in the price of those lots. I mean a homeowner may be hesitant and so that -- you know, that lot may not sell at the same price. That's how you control that is speak with your pocket book I would think. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just point out, in approximately one month there will be a public hearing for this exact issue before the City Council. I just wanted ~q~Y~~ ~~;tr~ - Y ~ j Sin 7;4 ?. l~.hytic ~ 7...~2 4 1i } ~'_ 1I ~ 4,°~~ ~. ~. _i ~~ ~~ ~ - a r;l ! '~^'~F~ } v~~tQ ~~ ~ ~~ C.. .k~ F~Y~' ,. - ,; r, . ~ ems: r ~ u 7 -: n ~. M~ _ _ '~ 53~tA ~ '~ j ~ Y-%+' r' ~t 4 ss ~ ~ j j~_ ~ ~aa t ,~ Y ~ ~ }~ t .a 1 14. ~n~~.*'bH$ 17 ,~j~~. ~71e s 1~.~ y~ t :.9 ~~k~. t 't..'y 7 ~ ~v..rr'f" ii'r'~t y ~~'~a6. .. .. t~~ T7+'kyF`~ ~~. f~M g. ° k Y-,YZ.~k ;; '~ }~ ~{~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 50 of 60 to point that out. There is a variance application hearing that will be held before the Council. Borup: On a similar issue? Hawkins-Clark: On just this issue of the front setback for that lot. Borup: Oh, for this lot? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: That's the whole purpose of -- it technically is not a part of this hearing. Borup: That's -- and I should have explained that when we started. As was mentioned, this Commission can make arecommendation -- I mean we can express an opinion, but not make a recommendation to City Council and that is where that is decided is at City Council and, as was mentioned, that would be definitely where you would want to go and express your -- so, we have taken note of what you have said and, you know, the most we could do is maybe express how we feel about it, but we would not be even making a recommendation to the city. Hall: So, there is no reason chatting, because it doesn't matter? Borup: Well, you have had an opportunity to express and this is on the record, but the official place to express that would be at City Council. Zaremba: It does, however -- but the correct forum is not here. The correct forum is before the City Council. Borup: And you said at what date? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the date has not been set. Typically, it's about one month between. the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and the City Council. Borup: After this -- whenever this application would be moved to City Council, then, part of -- the variance would be added to what -- the applications we have before us. Zaremba: And that will be publicly noticed that that is happening? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it will. Hall: On site? Borup: Yes. ~; ~~ ;;-:. tlI {!y~t14f~~ ~~'.S ~~r •y ,. ' Y'4 ~~ ~~ k ~} ~ ~~Fl fy:~ .1~ ~: y~=rd~ ;. ;f:: , ~ '' +r. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission `~~ April 15, 2004 '~'=~ Page 51 of 60 ~,~, Hawkins-Clark: There will be three ways. One would be on site. One would be ~, ,, ~' ~ everyone within 300 feet would get a direct mailing to their house. And, then, in the ~~ ~~ ~ newspaper. So, there is three ways. But unless you like to read eight point font in the ~~., ;. classifieds, you probably won't pick up on the latter one. 4 ~ Borup: So, probably, the site sign would be the best notification for you. And just being ~" aware of it. You can check the agendas, too, knowing, approximately, that time. 3' Hall: Well -- so, I guess just basically stated, that's our concern on annexation is that's '~ ""~~ a big concern for us as a homeowner to approve this, which I guess this is what we try '~ to do, so -- t ~: ~ ~ Borup: Thank you. K: Zaremba: Well -- and I think the point for us to understand is that we could approve or ~ disapprove -- or I mean a recommendation on this annexation and on this plat and it has =r .~r~_;. no affect on the request for the variance; right? ~xi ;.~~ < -~ Borup: Right. ,k ~~ Zaremba: So, that's another issue that was only decided by the City Council whether or ,~~,,,.~ not that 13 foot setback is going to be accepted. But that wouldn't affect whether the ~~;_~~: plat is acceptable or not. ~. _,. .~~:I ..,i f=~ ;.-- Hawkins-Clark: If I could just add one point on that. It was brought up in the pre- application meeting if they swung the street a little bit to the south, obviously, the setback wouldn't be needed and the applicant did raise that very early on in the process to say, you know, should we even go this route. Staff felt since it's only one lot and it's only a six and a half foot difference between the required setback of 20 feet and the requested setback of 13.6 and our experience has been that that -- it doesn't have that large of an impact on property values when you have existing residences, you know, that have -- obviously, if it had an impact on the street circulation or on the -- you know, the other impacts on adjacent property owners, maybe there is some concerns, but we felt to swag the street just to accommodate a six and a half foot setback, it's better to keep the street alignment consistent and predictable. Borup: If this is an R-8 zone, 15 feet would be allowed, wouldn't it? Hawkins-Clark: It's an R-4 -- Borup: I said if. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, if. I'm sorry. No. It would be the same. It would be 20. ~. ~. ti '~~z ~ ~:. ~~ ~ ~ ~C:a.X `t'~' iicj.; - y 3~F'_, ~.?ia ~ u ~y ~f l'- 'S',.t ~' 1 ~:. Y ~l } .~^ 1 1 v,k ~ ~, 1'.~ ~i`i• i~ y Y f G ~ +'s+ ~~ ~Tti ~t'Y~~ 1 1 i1 ~~. L ..i'.. ~~ l ~''FS1x ' t 3~r ` fM ~~ ~ L S FF ~~~~~ tY~ ~ i 7 ~ fctl* 4 r ~ ~~. <„~~, s . =7vk ~-. Y t ~;~~n3 f~k ~~I -, <I r.` n~ ~?C.' ~ ,,~~ u' i, ~w.{c $ ~ c~ =r .~ ;~ ~: ~ark~i '' r' . 4i ..Z,.7 k .s..p,. „~ ', tit, '~~.i ~'f+~:rtd F ! ;', r F ~+`~•` ~ f, ~, ~ ~ ~~~7 vTr pi. C'" ,h' t~~i °' '*'~''° r< f~a{r'~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 52 of 60 Borup: It would be considered side loaded in this case. But I mean that's academic. This is not an R-8 zone. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Okay. Any final comments the applicant would like to make? Groves: Members of the Commission, my name is Craig Groves, I reside at 3920 East Shady Glen Court in Boise. I wanted to take a few minutes and wrap up a couple of issues that were raised in the application regarding safety and liability and let you know that as a member of Packard Estates Development, LLC, we are just as concerned with safety and liability as Mr. and Mrs. Sharp are. If you could back the screen up to the -- right there. From about that point right there north, the lane is exactly 15 feet wide, but there are no fences anywhere from that point north where there is a fence on both sides of the lane. Okay? So, it appears to be more open. Okay? The only place that there is dual fences on the lane of any significance right now is about from that point to that point, which is about 190 feet. Okay? We recognize that when there is dual fences like that, you have issues in terms of turning onto the public street or from the public street to the lane, that's why these fences are tapered to three feet for public safety issues. Our proposal in developing this five acres here is to open up the visibility in this lane by eliminating -- removing the fence on the west side of the lane that exists now, putting a two rail split cedar three feet high along the edge of the lane at the 15 feet. From that point to the houses there is an additional 42 feet that will be landscaped with a meandering path from Challis all the way to East Meadowgrass, so that pedestrians that would need to walk to school, children, or people that walk in the neighborhood, they don't have to come down this lane, they can come down through the meandering path, across the public right of way to walk to school. Okay? So, we are looking out for Mr. and Mrs. Sharp's issues on public safety. The second point I'd like to make is in regards to the private road agreement. We have no issues with the private road agreement. If you can back up two more screens. Again. Again. Right -- forward. Okay. From that point down to that point at one time we had fee title to the lane. Okay? We owned the lane. Currently, these property owners here own that lane, they have agreed not to have any access to the lane or use of the lane. However, when this five acre parcel here redevelops, okay, if they do not use that lane, the rights to that lane will revert to those property owners, so now with that in mind, if you will move forward to the landscape drawing -- there is your lane right here. And right here is an additional 20- foot of homeowners association property. It was our vision in placing this common area where it's placed, that at the time that the Sharp property redeveloped down here, and the need to use that lane would go away, that the property owners association could go in and expand this common area, which is centrally located in the community, for a nice open space for the entire community. Does that make sense? Okay. And in regards to the 20 feet that staff has asked us to dedicate an additional five feet here along the lane and an additional five feet down to the Sharp properties, which would be right here, we made offer and proposal years ago to Mr. Sharp to give him a deeded access of 20 feet from the edge of his property here to East Meadowgrass, deeded to him, pave it for him, and, if necessary, put up a private gate for him. They rejected that offer and at this F ,R ~.. h. CY ~~ ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 53 of 60 point, you know, we have spent thousands and thousands of dollars protecting our rights that we could be reimbursed, but we have agreed to let it go. We don't see any need why we should have to give anymore ground on that and we would request -- Borup: That was a written offer? Groves: No. It was a verbal offer r~` Borup: Verbal offer? ,. ~~ _x~... ,~:,A. :;~ Groves: Uh-huh. '`~~~~ Borup: Okay. '~°~ Groves: Okay? We see no reason that we should have to do that at this point. Thank `~~~ you. ,~. ~~"~' Borup: Questions for Mr. Groves from anyone? Any comments on the gate. Would there been any problem, other than what ACHD would allow, of putting the gate up on ,.:.,~, ry, Meadowgrass? Y,.; ~.~~ Groves: Are you speaking about the gate that originally was right here? .;< Borup: No. I'm talking about putting a new gate right here. ~~.,~: Groves: What Mrs. Sharp wants is she wants a gate across the private -- across the *.. public right of way. She doesn't want the gate -- Borup: Oh. ~ Groves: -- across the lane, she wants it across the public right of way and that's more ~. ~ r: of a public safety issue -- ~~:; -: ~ ~, ~` Borup: Oh. I misunderstood that. n, ~ ~`~ °' Groves: Yeah. ;;: ~f <>~ t 4:,:i ~~«~ i f' o-' ^ Borup: I thought she wanted it across the private lane, so cars wouldn't drive down it. ~~. ~` ;~; ' ~ Groves: No. ~~, y "~ Zaremba: I understood it this way. },.~ , ~~ '~ Borup: All right. I misunderstood. ~~~= F r ~', ' ~~~~~ Groves: Any other questions? ~N ~: ~~"<; ~, ~ ~ 4 i~ ,~ 4.t z ~d 4 .~'~• ~, ~ ,.9,r" Y ' S ~~ f i #~~Fk~~ tZ '~ .G.Tr~.'"t ~{k ?y ~ ~. f - iii f 1 ~ ~~ `~ ~~ I~ {~~ pj„ ~ ..JJy..[yy~~,, ~3 T jiN~t 's'i._~r~~j S i~ ~ ,~"~`'~ ft ~' J +2i1 err' YY.g y~u t~ ~ .~ r c of ~ h ,'~, ~r S ~~~~~ x (~ X: ~ h r:: '+' w o,. ., . F , ~~ _ 7r-`TA~F ~~S~ ~'~.~'i~a... l~~ ~ ~ 3~ tip ~~ r Y"" ~1`~_ , ~ i ~ ~ ~_ ~~. .~ i '; , ra, ~,a k ~*, tiS A q ~{ ~~1 -y ~,.~( ,_ ~; s : Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 54 of 60 <a:r~` Borup: No. Thank you. Maybe the only thing -- I think might -- comments from staff ~,~ would be on -- on the 15 or 20 foot. To me is that mainly our issue? Anything else any `~" Commissioners feel that ought to be discussed? ~. =,F Zaremba: That would be the only discussion I would think and my opinion would be if the traffic on Wingate Lane is only moving north and south and they are not turning onto ;~ the other public roads, there is no need to widen it. Their stated desire is to use Wingate Lane to go from their property to Ustick and back. ;. <;,_ Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, that was a little bit of an oversight on my part. I didn't look into that as well I should have. I was thinking that the reason for the expansion to 20 feet was emergency access. Borup: And you thought it went the whole way, from how I read the staff report. ~ ~" Hawkins-Clark: So, I do understand Mr. Tealey's testimony and would agree. ~; d~. Borup: Okay. ~~as~ r -~~,'~ ~~' -.~ Zaremba: So, we could give up on page eight, paragraph five, give up B and C. ,t, ~:;~~ . ~` :~ ~ Hawkins-Clark: B only. ~ `~z~ Borup: Oh. Right. That's limiting the access and -- and that same C is the same thing ,uf " ~a,~ they have done on the other as far as the -- releasing the interest and -- 4a`; , Hawkins-Clark: Correct. " ~+ ~ q, Boru p: -- and nothing happening on the rest of the subdivision up to this point? Okay. 4' EMI Hawkins-Clark: And just to clarify that the -- condition number two and three on page 6~ '' seven, regarding the accessibility of the open space and the fencing, could potentially '. rk4 be deleted by the Commissioners. I think that -- if you feel that those have been addressed tonight. ~~; y~~'w Borup: Well, they have in these exhibits only, I think, and plus the testimony. Is that ~ what you mean? ~.,;. ~'' ~ Hawkins-Clark: Yes. r~: ' ~~ Borup: Okay. ~~ Hawkins-Clark: I don't think it would -- it wouldn't benefit this council for you, in your ~' ~ recommendation, to keep those in there, I guess is my point. They have been ~: ~ addressed. 1t~;=,~~, a ~>~~~i. $ ~~ hikk~~ ~~ ~~x~ r c1.s' ''~r~.'~._;. °y :.; •~ ;,~f , ~,~~e'~x1 a k?`t ~~ 4~ia~~..+ft 3 ~-+~ i~#r - ? ~".~e~ ~ ~ F~ a~ c,cs.,cz ~ ~ S$~ :%M +L ,,.'[ , ; ,~ ~r. _ , ~ ,r~. : ~`~'. 5~ ~~. b' ~~ r ~ i ~ w 1 ,x r 3 ~'~ ix7 ,~~~ a~ 7 ~ ~g~, - :r ~e ~t~tj~ ~ f~~tii ~~,~LkK ~ r, i~F ~ ,' i ~~ ~~~} ~ .';tip N ~ 1 ~~=~,Tti`f ~' 9~ f ~`~. s r~` ~.i.. 'f c r ~.~, t rH~. t ~ 7 4 ~1{ ~y ~tU ~~~. fie.. ~tin~ `'~+ ~ • ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ,: r, April 15, 2004 °"'!~ Page 55 of 60 n Borup: Right. Okay. Yeah. Both of those have been addressed. ~, ;," ~~ Hawkins-Clark: And, then, item number six regarding the permanent fencing, if you're ,_~;~ ~ ~ agreeing with the applicant's proposal, it would also change, regarding that split rail ~.. ~~ fence on the open space, because right now it says a solid fence. Where it says a ~; permanent fence matching the existing one, which is -- .,'?'~~; `':<<' Borup: So, it could state a permanent fence as proposed by the applicant shall be ~; constructed? ~~ Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Yes. :~w ;. Borup: I think the only other clarification Mr. Tealey made was that Nampa-Meridian ~~}, was the irrigation district maintaining the system for item number 11. s~; Zaremba: That's item eleven. ;. "=~~~ Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to clarify Mrs. Sharp wanting a gate across the public a`^ road. We have no jurisdiction in that area to make a decision on it one way or another, ='~ do we? -'1;1 'tit>. r~~ z' Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's correct. In the summary of my staff report I mentioned aplat -- final application that the city initiated last year, which proposed -- and the City Council did approve it -- to remove that condition, because it was a condition of Packard Acres to be in with, g that they had to construct that gate. The City i _ ,• Council approved that. But, then, Ada County Highway District went back and held a hearing and they determined that that was obstructing a public right of way and that the rn~ ~~ gate should be removed. So, then, after ACHD made that decision, the City Council , then, last year chose to remove the condition that was on inall , final plat that said they had to have a gate. So, you know, I th nk we have been down _ ' ,t l that road and that's been removed, so I -- yes, I guess I would agree with you that it's ,;,,1 , Ada County Highway District -- ~;_I Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That s fine. I just needed to clarify. Thank you. ~ A i . = ~ ,Y=:.~ Borup: Okay. I think we still have a hearing open. Commissioners? ~ ~ , s~. w ° r + . _ . y ~ :~~ ~,yS Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Pubic Hearing on Items 12 and 13 . r . Moe: Second. 5. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on Items 12 and 13. All in ~~ ~> s ~,~~ x ~ ~'"`'3 "" favor? Any opposed? ; , , MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,~,sK;~ ,r'.~ I-;, s u. . ;:~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~;;} ~i'.~{I . t.;Y?~~4{ - u h ~ a~ c:~;z*~~+~ u~ _ L_"v~ w i t 6f ~ 7 ~W ~~ .2 'i '~r~~+``,~ ,;~ ~ ~~}~i a ~,°s"9'~$ ~rfi~s"eo S .,F` ' il;.;' x, w '~ ~, < t s~' N SS r~ ~, ".F ~ 1 ~• f i ~~~~~~, ff 7a:~:A { ~s*~s~*~ ~ ~~p ~ - it r~9 r ~. i ~J' ~; w:~.~~ ~'~ ~ 3 w~~ - ~ w + . r:a•'a~kul~ - ~~~ * ,5 ~ - aFr.q~, +~.,~ ~;. -~~: ~ , • ^" Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission (•}a. April 15, 2004 .'"' Page 56 of 60 ~~ ~~ ~- : Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward to the City Council ~`y ~ recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 04-005, request for annexation ~}~:~~; and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3, by Packard Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road ~j~. and east of North Locust Grove Road, to the include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004. ~~~ Moe: Second. *- Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~.: '': Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 04-006, request for preliminary plat approval of ~~~ 20 single family residential building lots and two common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 by Packard Estates ~~ Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, 'r-' under site specific conditions of approval, preliminary plat, paragraph two can be `~`k~~~ deleted. Paragraph three can be deleted as satisfied by the applicant. ~~~~"'I Borup: When you say paragraph three, you mean item one and two under special ~> ~_~~ conditions? ;~~: k~ ~~' Zaremba: Under site-specific conditions of approval preliminary plat, paragraph two, i,~l that starts: At least ten days prior -- S~ 4.~`` F ~` ,:~s` Boru Oka ~` p• Y ~_:, ~ Zaremba: That can be deleted. And the following paragraph three that says at the P&Z ~` ~~ Commission Public Hearing, which they did. That can be deleted. Am I in the right place? ,_ Borup: Yes. I think he also mentioned that the two up above could be deleted also, The whole special considerations. Am I stating that correctly? aj~,, ~: ,. ~'v i'". °~; Zaremba: I didn't hear that. Hawkins-Clark: We do not include special considerations in -- ~«; ~4 r , Borup: Okay. That's not part of the -- i,. r, ;s ~r,:_ 4~~ isk~~;i . ~%;Y~+tt"irniSe . a a .. s t y - Y,t,.l :; G~. ~ c.z s `~ _ ~ ~~ til• ~ a ` S yr3 '+~ 1r~ '~ -a^r~r ice! .. s ~ - A-~'~ n ~srS` CK? d=:iK~i a f.,~~~ '~~~:.,' t ~~r~t~~~*g A R'~fi ~ _ - ~- ~ ~Y: j~slfid +F - n,v` *s T` ~~~ } ~ ~ s.1 : y~.~t J~' t .~ r ~ 4 y; t- . "}ir~ i a~.c -0 ,~ ~'° 41 v' u( LF r RZ'-¢~r~f S't 1~ i 'L: 'lik ~. . (a(.M1,1~ ys .~ } '~ ~.¢. i ~ r u~"~ %`. ~:' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~` `'' ~' April 15, 2004 ~,<~~~±~: Page 57 of 60 ~~ ~_ ~ti` Hawkins-Clark: -- in the recommendations. We only include site specific and general ~~ '~ conditions, not special considerations. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Unless you want us to. Borup: Well, no, they were eliminated anyway. *~>~, Zaremba: Okay. Borup: All right. So, two and three. '~~~ Zaremba: All right. Continuing with the motion. On page eight, paragraph five, y-~~ subparagraph B can be deleted. Again, on page eight, paragraph six, shall be changed to read: A permanent split rail fence, as proposed by the applicant, shall be constructed by the developer on the western boundary of Wingate Lane road easement. And in 1 reference to paragraph 11, which begins on page eight, the applicant has answered that ,.~r. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will own and maintain the irrigation system. End of -_ ~ motion. ':_r~ Moe: Second. ~~~ Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? ~~ ~~ `` MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~ ~ k~-1 ~~ ~~:: ~~~~~ ,I Item 14: Public Hearing: RZ 04-006 Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 =' I to R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by Sutherland £~~ ~,:' Farm, fnc. -east of South Eagle Road and north of east Victory Road: ;~ Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 04-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots & 8 common lots on 16.1 acres in '~~-` proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 by ~-T Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Ea le Road and north of east ~==~'~ 9 ~~ Victory Road: r:; .: ~. ~' Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 04-009 Request for modification of the original Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow the elimination of five office lots and the addition of 47 single-family lots in addition to the 32 residential lots previously approved for a total of 79 ~': single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 with request 4 for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks by Sutherland Farm, Inc. -east of South Eagle Road ~~'~`" and north of east Victory Road: ~~ ~ ~~ ~t~~2~~~ ~_~ ~~~i~~. f ,__ f ~~ - F ~ ts~~' ~ 3Gj'{~ ~ =~~~r a,~a~r4+ ~~. ~ `{ {~t~~' !~ V^jeiJSl ..'f;T yi~ y.' }} ~~..M .;~,t ~,-~~ { . ~~gr ~~ 4i1 ; ~ ~ i Z c ti: P ,~ ~~ ,'7% E~ j~''~~ x # C -' ~ ~ ~~7~'I:,,, - ~ t; ~ ~ a ~ ~ r i~a t ~~~ir~ ~ 4~ ~~i~ ~''~{i~i ~ . r ~~ A c j' " d ~ :i". } r 3T: ~S.Yi`k~ 1 ~-~ II~~ A L.n7r .. ' r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 '~~ Page 58 of 60 Borup: Thank you. That concludes our hearings for this evening. We do have one other -- Zaremba: Do we need to open 14, 15 and 16 and continue them? ~z'~F: Borup: Yes. I mean that concludes the items we were going to have hearings on. Yes, ~~- we still need to address -- oh, I'm looking at the wrong page. We need to address 14, ~_ 15, and 16. The proposal was to continue that to April 29th. Two of the Commissioners ~~'~~~ were here when all of these were continued the first time, so I don't know what your ~.,~ ' feelings are. What we have is one, two, three, four subdivisions on the agenda -- four -- 5 I mean four residential subdivisions. No. I'm sorry. ;, Zaremba: For the 29th? x ~" Borup: Yeah. Presently on the 29th we have Jaydan Village, which is a 16-acre R-8 subdivision. We have McNellis Subdivision, which is an L-O, C-G -- a commercial -- 16 -'~~' commercial lot subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: There were quite a few people that showed up for the public hearing on that one last time. Borup: Okay. That's what I was going to ask. Maybe, staff, any comments on -- is the McNellis a pretty clean application? Do we know? It is the Southwood that the people were -- Newton-Huckabay: No. The industrial park there at the Ten Mile and Ustick or -- Borup: Okay. That's McNellis. Newton-Huckabay: McNellis. Yeah. There were quite a few people here for that. Borup: Okay. So, that may -- okay. And, then, we have Rock Creek, which is a down zone from L-O to R-15. Hawkins-Clark: I do believe that Rock Creek, Chairman Borup, will probably take some time. Borup: Oh, really? Okay. Hawkins-Clark: That one had -- Moe: Try and move it to the 5th of May. Borup: And, then, Caparelli is a little two acre two lot I-L zone subdivision. The last one is Southwood, which is a L-O R-15 on South Meridian. ~~~ ,~ ~_~_ ~~ ~a x e .R ~ ~' 4 ~ )~ i {~~~~ P 6 ~!Y. t a ~o-~~sC 7 y t-{y, ~ t R ..•N ~ :'F.tES 4~? ?.;- ~',~~Y~ ~~S~;.ar.G ~:'~ o :. . 22..,,~~ t ,~y ,~-3 4 . 1`. S~`~~' S z ~ t ~;~% s .e ~ rig r s. ~:i 3 ~:7 ~f ~ "'^hS~ ~~ i~ ~~ t~ a ;,"~ , 2 ~ 4~' R7 ~_~`ip '~i F 1 ~ ~ ~r; : i Z~. __ .k, `r, } 4 ~ y ~1d ~~~ ~ r sE „1~_ r s!~;~~2 +k a c1y, ry:~•~~ } r ~1 ,o - k ~;z` lF ~ x+,35 b ` t ~' ~~rY ".p~ ~~ * ~~~ ~M y~-~ ~4 SR` ~ ~ l~~A~4 X'r~. ~ ~~.. ~.I.t ~' 0. 'r .J::,'~.y ~ ti Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 59 of 60 Zaremba: And we already moved Southwood's ;: ~~ ~t k' •^~ 5; c~ x ~,3: F ~: :.1 ~,~~~~~ ~i f ~w. ~. ~.r. ~`~ .; ~f., ;. ~:= ~' ~; >. ~: E>: ~,~;°wF ,. r: ~~',,~;. ~'- ;? ~S Borup: Yeah. That was on tonight. So, that's the last -- so that's what we have got, which is one, two, three, four subdivisions and, then, that little two lot, two acre one. Zaremba: We have to do the same analysis for the 5th of May. Borup: Pardon? Zaremba: Do the same analysis for the 5th of May. Borup: Well, I'm assuming May is -- I didn't look at May. Moe: The 5th didn't seem to be as full yet. Borup: Well, we have 11 items, but it's -- oh, no, there are not. Okay. So, really, we have got atwo-lot subdivision, a communications tower -- what subdivision is this? A commercial -- a commercial subdivision. Another commercial subdivision. Another one. So, everything is commercial on May 6th. Zaremba: Oh, 6th. Yeah. I'm sorry. I said the 5th, but the 6th is correct. Borup: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Why don't we put the -- Borup: That is -- yeah, that's a pretty light schedule on the 6th. Zaremba: If you would care to open the hearings, I would suggest continuing them until the 6th. Borup: We'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 04-006 and PP 04-009. These two hearings are now open. Moe: And also -- Zaremba: And the CUP. Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. And CUP 04-009, the third Public Hearing also open. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that continue these three hearings RZ 04-006, PP 04-009, and CUP 04-009, to our meeting of May 6th, 2004. ~ r Q ~`l: ~ + '~h 26 '~~sf5}tlr'~ q~ J" r ~a~ 7, ::w f ~ e: ~~n, - -. ~~, ~~~~ =yh 14~. ~ ~ t;. h ~'4.lTµ ~~ -^ ~~ y F ~_ r , 1 ~ ~,.,1...,R - ~ " ~~jl~ sfi~ ~~ ~~, y ~~~~H ~~~-~.. t 4 ~' J *. 4•ri, X: w ~ . y, ~~1~ k a'„~t -. } !.. ~ f t ~i~r'!4 f ~ i';L~. ~.i ~-2~ ~ ~ f~'4~ i'kY rti.C ~'~~t ~~~ ~~~~~ i:~:g,. R t ~ L ~~ ~. ~,yr;~~ n i a y,'h., ~ ~~.. .~ ~,~ z ~}.y;r r~S f 4N~ A Y~( t~~~ ~,: s 1 _ ~~`Rr~1~ ~ '"t ~ ~t t ,~ ~,p k ~~ - -~~ ` i4 #~ ~ .,~x~f$ t~;° 4:4- ~ yitir4,{J i~5 1~ ice.-- ~ ~~({ ~~{.S __ i :' ; F~: ~~:5 X45 e ~ ~, ~ 4~.Y ~`:`";`` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~`~-~`t April 15, 2004 ;;~ Page 60 of 60 '~"~~° Moe: Second. ?1' _} Borup: Motion and second to continue those hearings until May 6th. All in favor? Any ~~.~ opposed? ~• ~. x: f,~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ;yf Borup: Thank you. One more motion. .:~. - M.; ~_ ~=~ "'`;°~. Newton-Huckabay: I make a motion that we end this meeting. Moe: I second it. ~~ ~~ f:~~' Borup: Okay. Motion and second to close at 9:45. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. . ~~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M ~ ~~ (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) 9a,x '``' ~ APPROVED w /7 ri ;:~ 1 H B RUP - HAI MAN D,AuT ,F~ , f~PPROVED ~~ ;~ ~ / ~ 'L ' , ~ .. ., G cA ~ F ;~:. ~, ~: o ~~ k`i #e!{ ,~ L IAM G. BERG, JR, ITY LERI~ ~EAIJ ,,. I, f ~ ~.. - ~ ~ o G~ ~~ ®., ° ~` `~~ 0 ,p.ri~ Qd S Ell~~ i r ~+~.~Y.,1~,~ r:~+ ,~ :~.a. r~°S ~r ~'-' ~ e .3.t ~~~,', - ~~~r v FS +~., ~1 ~xri~a r ~ ty'J 4 \ri`.Y ;~f ~If C (~~ tk"y' ~ ~'~~~ px`~ }~ , ~ ". 3 t ,~ ~~~ ~~~ ;,y'a ~ `! :a~a ~ i ~. ~vF+bf~~~ ~;u;3, F-~~;k~'' ~~°~, ~~ - .-, ,x' ~;: , ,;~ L~~~ r~ ~ f. y ~~~ ~ , q. 4 { t ~'~b.`~(.11 L~ r;4Q~ , ~ ~ Try?Y.4Y ~i~~II .: ~~ ~'~1 fa~ i~ t . -i.. ~. I `:~~,~ '' S`r'i vy r {~' _' ~~ ~~' Ttir 1... '~~ 3 f~ `s~ 't ~:4 D,„e~,',,s ~:'~ r~" z~~t ~,- ~a>. ; ~: ~s ~ ~~ ^~,: > , r r.. r r:_' ly~~4. `` F MERIDIAN PLANNING S< ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Tabled from April 1, 2004 -Approve minutes of February 5, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~~~,~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: - ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~~' x ~ ;~ ~ ~;~'~ . ~~~~ , ~ ~~. ~~a~ . Y r a4`3 ~ _ tF ~w,y, r~ ~ :-1S f 7`? ' t ~?<s.C' ~ 4 If~ ~ F c- ~ t ~s a ~as~l "1iF t l~y~ 4r ~ F + ~ '~" ~ ~y'~ ~'~ ^> ~u, y ~~~ r- Ac "~`/'? 2, y i~_ P :'1 n ~~ i {~'~ x h1' r ~~~f .. ~ ~Y s,- 1 ti ~ ~~ ~+ '{ L~ ~ :~ ~ ~. Ers'~ w ~~' #s ~~- s i Fi°. k r, _ ~ c'w' }~ ~ ~~ r' .~ ~ ~ .:~~ -~;~ - .~ s r'~ `i ~ A-,~ r fl r ~o'.~ • • MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~2ONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~B REQUEST' Approve minutes of February 19, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting ¢ ~ -~ AGENCY COMMENTS F ~ ; ~~ ~~' CITY CLERK: ~ ~ ° ~ >>, CITY ENGINEER: ~4`~'"' ` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~-. _; CITY ATTORNEY `~Q 3 CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ O"'`~ „ ~ Q ~~ . ~k CITY FIRE DEPT: f ' k CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~s, ~~`~:;~} CITY WATER DEPT: ~~~,. ~'~' ~' CITY SEWER DEPT: ~ ~` f ~ ' CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~= ~; ~ .; ; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: " ; ~~ ~x.? SANITARY SERVICES: ~~j`~:' I ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~ .Ai ~~ "~'~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~,, »~;-~I i NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~: ,~~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~,_~`: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~, d ~, OTHER: ~~, d: ~` _'-,. Contacted: Date: Phone: ~~ ~~~ Emailed• Staff Initials: i~, ", Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. ~~~,; 1 1 r-,ARrVacari,°9S~".<-." :., ,, y, _1~.,Y 3 ~~' ~ k ~~'r~ ~e ~ i ~.,tr , g~r.'kY {F~ J ir~ f., y ~ a t ~~ M1 C #. 1 J. ~Y r~3~~`y~~y~~ ~~/J ~Y ~.~,~ ; ~ ti i ~~~ ~~ ~ '4 j5.-~11~Ti. ,I ~.S~~ }~-. l S. _ k,:~4 ~Saf,~ 4 . ~t fLS ~.~ -.3 1 \... ,y ..; S :` ~rt ~ S y i t ~~~ ~ "I~ ~ ~1~ ~~ ~ 2. ~ f r. F.-~ r h y~~`S~ T Y`, ~~~~~~p ~tr'. 5 ~ ~ ~ _ ,, rye ~ ~~~ ~t ,' 's "a r , i .r.. ~ t xi Y'~,Fr iF~ Y,;;~ W ~~~~~~; ~, . at ' ~x 3~ a r~ x"":: :4,~ _ ~ * Mcc,t } 3~„+ 4 d ti;w t P ~ ~ ~. ~jt (~~ ;~. April 12, 2004 AZ 03-038 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, inc. ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004 -Request for annexation and zoning of 21. 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposeod Mussel) Comer Subdivision - northeast comer of East Victory Road and SouthMerldian Kuna Highway AGENCY COMMENTS o~ CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached update /comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubilc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian • April 12, 2004 PFP 03-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continues Public Hearing from March 4, 2004 -Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Mussell Comer Subdivision - northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached update /comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: IDAHO TRANSP. DEPT. OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ i f, _ April 12, 2004 CUP 03-071 ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 . '~ ,.~~: ?`; APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Ir1C. ITEM NO. 6 `' ' `% REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2004 -Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development r,~, ~~`'~~ to allow the construction of a combination feed store and gas station/convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the epsting >~,!4 commercial and residential uses to remain on the properly Mussel) Comer Subdivision -northeast comer of Victory Road and Meridian Kuna Highw i ~ y: AGENCY COMMENTS ..: ~~, ~' =°°'? CITY CLERK: See previous item packet /minutes `` f'' ! y CITY ENGINEER: ~ . , ~,k~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See ®ticched update /comments I.:~l Y`"~ ' CITY ATTORNEY , ~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ` ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: =`~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~;' CITY WATER DEPT: ,. '`'~ CITY SEWER DEPT: 4~ ~-~y: f~_ Y CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~:: =~' ' ~ SANITARY SERVICES: , ;F;~~~ ~:-~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~1 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~ `~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~` . ,`'~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: .~:~r~ IDAHO POWER: 1~7. ""~~ Y:~~. IDAHO TRANSP. DEPT. OTHER: r;; . Contacted: Date: Phone: ';, Emailed: Staff Initials: ~: 'k~= Materials presented at public m®eHngs shall become properly of the City of Meridian. L },: F,~~ P.~ '~~r~~s~ ~ rr~ ':a;i' ~~ ~,,i 1f s1 'j~r3~ ~' r~{~,;~,~ sT ~~~~ R .,, ~,9v , ~ ., +.~r~~ 3 a -; ~ ~3r~~4 ` x?-. ~ ....-t~. e 'y'~t~'r :§ ;• ~~ r ,._,- ~~ .,.a,E~; ~'~ ~t,, . M~ ~~,~-, U U AZ 04-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 from RUT to L-0 zone for Southstone Subdivision -northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Stt>Iff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: NO COmment MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments 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 Ctty of Meridian ,r~- ~~. . U U PP 04-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-0 zone for Southstone Subdivision -northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: 0V0 Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: (Vo Comment MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See aitaChed Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See aitaChed Comments 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 Mertdian ~~ ::~ RZ 04-004 3 '~. ~t ~ :: ~;_, Materials pr®sented at pubdc me®flngs shall become propert~r of the City of Merldtan. ~:_. ,,=_ U ., °:,~n~~~,.~T ~~ k~•_F -+~ ~ r •V t ~. ~ iyk . ~~qq~~ six ~ +'~yC' -- k i~3~1t 'fi ~ T _ a"~~ 3~ro =.4 F ,~., a (y~ ? `~~lT ~ ~ ~ ~~ G~~ 9f i ; ~ Lid 1 +'t >>d'.~ i~~ ~r ,4x,~. r~ Z pf_x~ i~'k k1i. ~~sk ~1~ ~'~-.v~~7 ~ + ~'d ,~ -.;t„t s :'?~ ~ ~'~' t i y~5~ tip. ~Y r ~ ff' q~:~re~.g ~ , '~?~,' ~~` i~~-j:~+ r~, ,:t~ s~~~P`~ z i ~.~' +~~4 ,t, ti f f ~ ~ ~ a, tl~s~! S Z1~{.fit ~ J..:'1 ,3: }' ~jF , ~ a ~~ ~ ';~ 11 1 . N ~' ~'r(i ~~ v ~I 0.y rtS~j N~'( "~~ YR~`~K ;;~* s~ .irafi., ,yxppi ' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Calderwood Community, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing - Requesf for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R-4 to L-0 and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision -2090 South Meridian Road - Renoticed to Apri129, 2004 AGENCY COMMENTS ~® ~~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials• CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: E ~: .%i w'; Y r; Y :'::~a F -7:. ~N /~~~"pn~~ :~~p ;;r, =Y u!'. }y ~'S' ! s~y ~ry ~'rE . :, ~;:: r: ~~, N ,.,. {:~i 1'.t~'% . : ~ :;_~k _~. __~:; ~~~w. ,.;t ;~< ~ :~' ~ ; - -:, _ ,~- u_~~~a~ .:;:~ ' Ati' ,.;q, >2,,u .. ,,, _, Al ~~n.. ~w=,~: t~.~s '~; C~ • PP 04-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Calderwood Community, LLC ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-8 8. L-0 zones for Southwoods Subdivision - 2090 South Meridian Rd. Renoticed to April 29, ZQ04 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ;~. :a rte; y ~y. n ,~µ ~•' ~s;~ .:- ~~,. :'- ~., ~, ~. .:E~ f~. ;rw i k ~ ~!, ~} ~a ~, ~ , ~~T r `-~ ~. ~r'~:. .s ~ . s ~,.:,; f`;~:.- •r= CUP 04-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Calderwood Community, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision - 2090 South Meridian Road - Renotlced to Apr1129, 2004 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. AZ 04-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING Aprii 15, 2004 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 2 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for annexation and zoning of 5.27 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER pEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~{ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~,+ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments .~:.~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment •I SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: '; ` ~I IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See affidavit of posting /Letter from Dale and Heleh Sharp Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat®rials presented at publk meetings shall becom® property of the City of Meridian. ,, ~, ~ ' ~„~ , ~ ~Y, .,r ~ s 4..:p r ))~ ~,~. s 3 w rr n~'' ~rti w~,3~~~ '~'..~" .,.< ~ ,~_~~ tt t ' i.~ ~~ s~-. ~~,w a !v xk~;r a qt ,~ x ~ ~:, ~;~ r r ~i t*i 5 ..~ a ~"t ,~nf~~x ~?a ~ ~3y s ~ r .,?pry - e, ,~ - 1r1F' f _~ rub,. F .j ~k~ -- ~ it ~»3~~~~~~~ 'F; xy k ,~a:rw ~r ti ~,~ ~ ~~ l~R~ ~ ,~r'~ >r4~, iw {` ~ e ~ ct ~>£; nQ ~fw~.5~ ~~~y . _x"~.A._, ..C~ ,~ =% ~*~s ~~ ~ ~ri,~. ~:: =ti i4i-. ~~ =` :: ~~ ~: =~= ~~ ti ~?' ~~: -•r;% ~: =; .. :~~ ti. ;i *~' ,> ypp~ ~C~4~. Y,~~i'?15YC' t. ~; ~;~ ;~v; '~~.. r~ ... e PP 04-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 single-family residential building lots and 2 common lots on 5.273 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 3 -0 south of East Ustick Road and east of North Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS .~_ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Staff Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: No Comment MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See letter from Dale and Helen Sharp Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian e 0 RZ 04-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Rezone of 16.1 acres from R-4 to R$ zone for Sutherland Farm Subdivision No. 4 -east of South Eagle Road and north of Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Comments MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attachd memo for deferral Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian P~~` a~i. l'i? 1 :~ ~:. _. ~~ ~~ ~~ ,~~, ~.,~ .. .~' . ,t; r` ~f~ `~. ~: - :.i ti;,.- -;: W ~ ~:~; a ~~, ,~. ~~ ~n-~: ~~~ ~,_ ~~`> ~fi~~' ~': ;~:, ~~~~ ~~ j : ~`i ~\+ ~ f : ~ y ~ 1-I}`( M _ ~ ~~ ~.. °, '< t~ s a~ ~., ,; ~.. 1 ~~;~.~a;.. e e PP 04-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 5 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 79 single-family residential building lots 8~ 8 common lots on 1 b.l acres in proposed R-8 zone for Sutherland Farm Sub No. 4 AGENCY COMMENTS ~o CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment See ®ttached Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments See attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached memo for deferral Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. "~~ ' ~: .:>:'~> CUP 04-009 ~`; ;¢ ~~:~ ~':~ •': MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING April 15, 2004 APPLICANT Sutherland Farm, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for CUP for a PD to allow the elimination of 5 office lots and addition of 47 single family lots in addition to 32 residential lots previously approved for total of 79 single-family lots for Sutherland Farm Sub No. 4 wlrequest for reduction to minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks. AGENCY COMMENTS SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached memo for deferral ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: $ee attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: CITY SEWER DEPT: IVO Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Comments CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: w"~' Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.