The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 09-18~•~ 4 'r ~?~ ,~ CYTY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West .Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R-8 zone... for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request fora Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development fora 41-lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 1 of 2 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. ~w: .r ~~~ ~. ,. r; :;, ~; r _ , ~_ ~ ~; ,_ ~ ~, ,~ - i' ,: y a~ t~S` c . ~.,.,. "y,! ~ ,y. ~~' _ r- V ~g i~ L. ~~~o{ri " ~'~ Y ~ ~ t 4 s '1 ~ n7;~ ~J, d' ~~' a .. - M i 8. Public Hearing AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting 9. Public Hearing PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting 10. Public Hearing CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 2 of 2 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. ~~ = ~; i ,, ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~? CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call ~4ttendance: `~ ' ~~ David Zaremba ~, Jerry Centers (~ Leslie Mathes ~_ Michael Rohm Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~:z 3. Consent ,Agenda: ~~ A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning ~ Coimmission Regular Meeting: ~}~~~/~ _, , ~' _ '~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential ,~ ~ uses within the mixed use WW'tP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton ~" - Subdivision by W le and Associate - 3680 West Ustick Ro d: c~rrnv~,~ln~ ~p(~~ovc~ to G~c~ "~'` ` 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for ~'~ a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-IV to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton ~~ ~ Subdivision by W rdle and Associate 3680 West Ustick Roa ~ ~ ~ ~U ~ ~~ v +M ~' "' ~ ~,,.., .; C,Ov ~. ~, 6. Continued Publi Baring from Augus~~1, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in ~~ a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and ~~ Associates - 368Q,West Ustick Ropd: soJc~ -~ ICJ C®v~~ ~ ~Q , . P ~' ;~ 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41-lot ' = ~" ~ ~,_,. subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, ~ minimum .square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in ~,. ' ` `~ a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and ~~ ~ `~ ~ Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: OVV1 ~~~~ ~ p~OVr~`~"D ~~ l~ 4 ~~ ~ 8. Public Hearing 03-021 Request f r annexation an zornng of 114.52 ~r ~ acres frorn RUT to R-8 PD and C-G zones for o osed Redfeather PoNertdlan Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 ~ ;_{ Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shad become property of the City of Meridian. ~, w~ ' ;' Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 4~ ~= °~~~ 3~~ try ~-rw' ,i ,,~;N ~j:::. ~:.. } ~f r '.~ K~ ~ I ~..r['j~', ~~i \:: ; ~r ~d ~~~ .~ ;. ~,: ~; t, ~~~ ,; ='' ~~ ~,~~ ~_- ~ ;' b ~.t.. ~~ ~~: ~, r; ~~ ,__.. ..., ~z1az Ta. r ~:-`try ~v °;~;. ~~~ ;, ~, ~;;`' `I ,. . >r'~; ~_ F, ~, :x .. .: ; ~i ~£~ ~~,1 • Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East U ick Road and east of Nort Eagle Road: o n~i ~- Vey P/~ ~ 0 ~~. l l.®, ~~~~ 9. Public Hearing PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-S{PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: C ®~~1~ v~ P1~ ~ ~~~-. ~ ~ , ,~®d~ 10. Public Hearing CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: ~'®~ ~" ~ ~ ~ P/~ ~ ~~~ - 1 ~ , ~~.~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 20Q3 Page 2 of 2 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 Uie City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ., b}~'. yy Y ~ 2. ~~, CITY OF MERIDIAN >~ , ::~ ~F .;``' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA .~: l~ ~~'~` Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. ~ ~ y~ ~; ~~~ City Council Chambers ~~ ~< x~'' ~` '~ 1. Roll-call Attendance: `` `` O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers '~ . `. ®~ T ;: X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm `" ~"' X Chairman Keith Borup t.- - ~:., f' ;? i , ~`' 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~;_,:... -~ y".. _ 3. Consent Agenda: v~~-°~ A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Approve ',: ~~`~ ' 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request ` for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential ~:~ .;: uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton ~ ~.°~:~ ~z ~ .. Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: ~~~_~ ;~~- i Recommend Approval to City Council ~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for ;._- . ~,. '' '`' ` ~ a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton ~ _.~, - '° Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: '`~'`'°' ~~ Recommend Approval to City Council ` 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for ; ~$ ~a ° Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in T~ - a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and ~_tr°°= Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City }' ` Council i ;,,, `'; 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request ~~ fora Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development fora 41-lot ,= ~~,,~ subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, ~a: , minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in ~3,,. ~.{ ~ a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and - Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Recommend Approval to City F ~' Council ~ :x Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 1 of 2 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 L , c ~~;%`-~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~$ ; ~,. , ,, ,r„ i ~;`~~ k" ~' ;:. ".jr 8. Public Hearing AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 ~~'' acres from RUT to R-8 PD and C-G zones for ro osed Redfeather `. ( ) P P .~..~ ~, Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - ~' south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting 9. Public Hearing PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 _;:.,, building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone ~~'"~ for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates =:~9 Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle ~~s Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting 10. Public Hearing CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced '' ~ setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle A, ~sT: Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2003 Meeting !..:Y.':~:~ ~; _.. 1, ~, y: ~'~?; ~ iR. ~ .~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 2 of 2 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 .:y please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. A; ~~~- ~ v ~l i~ ~p -~~ a nk5 ~ P ~~~: Q ~ ~~:~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ~`~` ` MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING `~~' AGENDA -~ Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. ;~.; City Council Chambers E. 1. Roll-call Attendance: °? ~ David Zaremba Jerry Centers t, Leslie Mathes Michael Rohm `" ~ Chairman Keith Borup ~H~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: F-~'~ A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Y~~'S 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CPA 03-003 Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton ~;_~ Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Vr% Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: r,,, 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request for ~`:_~ Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in s"` ; a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and <v Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 Request ~~~~ fora Conditional Use Permit fora Planned Development fora 41-lot ,.~ k~,: subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, ~:;;',~ minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks in =3 --`; a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and x . ,~ Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: h' 8. Public Hearing AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 ,`,: acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather ~~ ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 1 of 2 s " ' 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 °s'` ' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. {~ ,~;~~~ ~';. S7: Cam'. .':7. 4~'+ t, ., ~ 7 yr +--. ~ it \~.,. Y C~~ ~i ~t t ~C~ 1 - . _rY?i ~` ~:. ~fiv S . ~ ." ;. ~ . y ~ yy~. Y ~ • :l' ~. r ~~f-•~ ,sky .. f ` . . t Z'o H h N~1' ~~`w ~ ~ E f . ~ , ~ ~ _ .. ~~i f. :+ [Y .. } ,,k. 4., ' ;y4?~. T r 4 _ 9*'1'. 7.T. ~ ~ ial ~" t~yr5: ~"_ a ~ ~ '1 K. Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: 9. Public Hearing PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: 10. Public Hearing CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda -September 18, 2003 Page 2 of 2 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. ~~ 11 a ,;: ~~ air ~tb., ~, r, s' P ` ~ `~ . ,, .:r . y +i =~. -~r~t , !l S j•• Y ~ ~ r ~t t a ~I ~ ~~ _ 11 y'~wS. ,'st,,~ T' q j i'fi ~ iN ~ + ~ i1 . e i yf. ~~ ~7 G.. j! ~; ' v = -,~ ~i i Y , R ;a „~ i~ 1~ 1` ~• I T ~ ~~ 'b _ 'I v J ~Z 1 # `d ~ 2~ L ' ~~ ~ f. I ~' GFk' { `~~ v '. , n 1: ,IrFi ~~~~ -i~-~ l = t , µ~ ~~ ~~ ~'d r i~ _51 ~. ~' ~~` ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ~* £~~~~~~ AS OF SEP ~S ~a~ ,~.~~ ---- ~ ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN E~ ,~ .' DATE TIME TOiF'ROM '' 07 09115 15:49 3810160 MODE MINiSEC PGS CMD# STATUS F3 EC--S 00'5?" 002 ~~ °is 08 09115 15:51 PUBLIC WORKS 045 OK ~ xR 09 09115 15:52 12084664405 EC--S 00'37" 002 ~~ 3 045 OK ~'~''~''~ 10 09115 15:53 EC--S 00' 3?" 002 ~~' 11 09115 15:54 41159 EC_-S 045 OK 088840?44 00'38" 002 045 OK •.` 12 09115 15:55 208846?366 EC--S 00'37" 002 045 OK ~~ 13 09115 15:5? 8985501 EC--S 00'3?" 002 045 OK _ 14 09115 15:58 LIBRARY EC--S 00'36" 002 045 '' 15 09115 15:59 92083?76449 EC--S 00'46" 002 OK ~ ~', 16 09115 16:00 208 388 6924 EC--S 045 OK 00' 3?" 002 045 OK ' 1? 09115 16:01 20886854 EC--S 00'45" 002 045 ~r ~~, 18 09115 16:02 120846?4538 EC--S 00'3?" 002 OK .~'s: EC--S 045 OK 19 09115 16:03 208 895 0390 ~ 36 002 045 OK ~ ~~n ~ ®9115 16:05 Laurel EC--S ~ ;~ 00'3?" 002 045 OK ~ 21 09115 16:06 208 38? 6393 EC_--S 00'38" 002 045 ~ 09115 16:0? ADA CTY DEUELMT EC -S OK &~ `, ~' 3?" 002 045 ~ ~~ 23 09115 16:09 208- G3--S 01'12" 002 OK ' 888-5052 EC__S 045 OK ~~ _, 24 09115 16:10 CHERRY LANE ~'3?" 002 045 OK ~~, 25 09115 16:11 POST OFFICE EC--S 00'45" 002 045 OK ~' 26 09115 16:13 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC_-_-S 00'5?" 002 045 ~ 5•: ~ ~~; 28 09115 16:14 887 0816 G3--S 00,3?~~ 002 045 OK ~; 09115 16:16 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 01 16 002 045 OK 29 09115 16:1? 208 888 6?00 EC--S 00'38" 002 045 OK r , EC--S ~ _ ------------- 00'3? ~:: r _'i!' '~ --------------------------------- " 002 045 OK ~ ~ ~~~ ~ obi' ~ ----------------- ~ ----------------------- r ~ IDI I C~ 6~1 U' I 1 c.~,, ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~', ~~- ~ ~ ~~= -: -~ ~~ CITY OF ME RIDIAN ;~ , ~~ ~: MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING ~~ °~ °' AGENDA ~ Thursday, September 98 2003 g at 7:00 P.M. ~~ ,_ ~~- `~•~~ City Council Chambers ~~ . ~: ~ • Roll-call Attendance: ~_ ~~'' David Zaremba ~~•_ Jerry Centers ~> Leslie Mathes __ Michael Rohm ~ Charrman Keith Borup {~° 2• Adoption of the Agenda: 3• Consent Agenda: `n ~ A• Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning ;, `' ~ Commission Regular Meeting: ~• ; ~, ~ ` ~ry ~ N„ 1 4 ~~+ ~. •~ N~_ :.: ~ ~ .~ ~ ~~11 ~ ~ ~'Y!:: ~ ~ 1 - , t F/~ 41 T- ~f• ~. ~g i ` g i i~ ~q cki+t ?yy'.~~, a. iF, fx:ry~ ~ ,, w~'}` 'sx3 q.rr •' _ M 'k~ i, - '; p jrv y , y y'y ~ k ~ ~~ ~ j ~~ ~ + r .3 ~,: ,: _, ;; i e ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF SEP 18 '03 22 24 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD# STATUS 07 09/18 21 46 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 08 09/18 214? 8841159 EC--S 00'41" 002 101 OK 09 09/18 21 48 2088840?44 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 10 09/18 21 50 208846?366 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 11 09/18 21 51 8985501 EC--S 00'39" 002 101 OK 12 09/18 21 52 LIBRARY EC--S 00'50" 002 101 OK 13 09/18 21 53 92083??6449 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 14 09/18 21.54 208 388 6924 EC--S 00'49" 002 101 OK 15 09/18 21 56 2088886854 EC--S 00'39" 002 101 OK 16 09/18 215? 120846?4538 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 17 09/18 21 58 2083362100 EC--S 00'39" 002 101 OK 18 09/18 21 59 208 895 0390 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 19 09/18 22 01 Laurel EC--S 00'41" 002 101 OK 20 09/18 22 02 208 387 6393 EC--S 00'39" 002 101 OK 21 09/18 22 03 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 01'14" 002 101 OK 22 09/18 22 05 208-888-5052 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 23 09/18 22 06 CHERRY LANE EC--S 00'50" 002 101 OK 24 09/18 22 08 POST OFFICE EC--S 01'04" 002 101 OK 25 09/18 22 09 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 26 09/18 22 11 ~? 0816 G3--S 01'20" 002 101 OK 2? 09/18 22 12 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 28 09/18 22 14 208 888 6700 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 29 09/18 22 19 12084664405 EC--S 00'41" 002 101 OK 30 -------- 09/18 22 23 3810160 -------------------------------- EC--S --------- 01'04" --------- 002 ------- 101 ------ OK --------------------- CITY OF 1VIEltiDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND 20NING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~._, David Zaremba ~_ Jerry Centers _,~( Leslie Mathes ~ Michael Rohm ~_Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: ~}~rD~e.~ y ~~ f~; ~~ COMMUNICATIONS REPORT yak AS OF SEP 19 '03 0500 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN TOTAL PAGES TOTAL TIME ;; f ~ SEND ~ 0052 SEND ~ 00° 19 ° 44:° ,. ~ REGEIVE ~ 0011 REGEIVE ~ 00° 03'46" ~;. T;- DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MINfSEG PGS GMD# STATUS Fu"~ 01 09.'18 10 06 2089380941 EG--R 00'43" 002 090 OK k~~"'~ ' 02 09/18 10 19 2088886854 EC--R 00'32" 002 091 OK °'~ 03 09/18 10 52 3368380 EG--S 00'43" 002 092 OK ~..k~. 3,.~•: 04 09118 11 45 2088886854 EC--R 01'19" 005 094 OK '.;Y'2~ OS 0918 13 46 G3--R 01'12'° 002 096 OK '~°'~"~'0 f'%w 06 09118 21 ~ 24 2088840744 EG--S 00' 31 °° 002 098 OK N ~',a~ . 07 09.'18 2146 PUBLIC WORKS EG--S 00'40" 002 101 OK 08 0918 21 47 8841159 EG--S 00'41" 002 101 OK ~ .' ~f 09 09118 2148 2088840744 EG--S 00' 40'° 002 101 OK ~~" 10 09/18 21 50 2088467366 EG--S 00'40" 002 101 OK ~'`~=~~''~' ' 11 09/18 21 51 8985501 EG--S 00'39" 002 101 OK ' ` ~ 12 09.'18 21 52 LIBRARY EG--S 00'50" 002 101 OK '':,-'r ~i 13 09/'18 21 ~ 53 92083776449 EG--S 00' 40" 002 101 OK :::,"' 14 09/18 21 54 208 388 6924 EG--S 00'49" 002 101 OK `''~'~ 15 09118 2156 2088886854 EG--S 00' 39" 002 101 OK s ~ 16 09~' 18 2157 12084674538 EC--S 00' 40 °' 002 101 OK ~; ;;, 17 09/18 21 58 2083362100 EG--S 00'39" 002 101 OK ~'`<~:; 18 09/18 21 ~ 59 208 895 0390 EG--S 00' 40" 002 101 OK ~;:r'~,' '~; 19 09/1$ 22 01 Laurel EG--S 00'41" 002 101 OK .;,,4 i 20 09/18 22 02 208 387 6393 EG--S 00'39" 002 101 OK ~ 21 09'18 22 03 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 01'14" 002 101 OK ~~{~_~~ 22 09.18 22~OS 208-888-5052 EG--S 00'40" 002 101 OK ',;'~: 23 09'18 2206 CHERRY LANE EG--S 00'50" 002 101 OK !`~`~' .,.r,; 24 09/18 22 08 POST OFFICE EG--S 01'04" 002 101 OK ~ ' biz; 25 09.'18 22 ~ 09 IDAHO ATHLET I G C EG--S 00' 40" 002 101 OK ,~~~ 26 09/18 22 11 887 0816 G3--S 01'20" 002 101 OK a' . . ~, 27 09/ 18 2212 I D PRESS TRIBUNE EG--S 00' 40 " 002 101 OK ~•';: :; 28 09f18 22 14 208 888 6700 EC--S 00'40" 002 101 OK : ".''``' 29 09/18 22 19 12084664405 EC--S 00'41" 002 101 OK :_ 30 09.18 22 23 3810160 EG--S 01'04!° 002 101 OK h il,, l~ ~~ S1 --. '.I ~'f: ~ Si i I'( ~~ ~: ~~ V .'<'.?~ ~ ~ 5, •:1 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 18, 2003 ~,~ r ~ 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 Jerry Centers, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Leslie Mathes. Members Absent: Commissioner David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Jessica Johnson, Anna Powell, and ~~°~'' Dean Willis. ~_~: Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call O David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for September :_ 18th. Begin with roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item is the minutes of our September 4th meeting. Do we have any comments and, then, a motion on those? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move we approve the minutes of the September 4th meeting. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: We, really, only have two projects on the agenda this evening and before we go into Stapleton, I did want to -- I'm not sure if we have -- well, first of all, do we have anyone here for the Redfeather? Okay. The applicant has asked for a deferral on this ~~:-.. ;t ~~ a F t~:?" ,.~ Ek .y . .. . ~~~ _ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting '' September 18, 2003 .~ ~ Page2of54 for tonight. The highway commission did not complete -- they do not have a recommendation. They continued it at their meeting last night, so we do not have 1~:_~ ~' anything from the ACHD Commissioners. So, the aspect of roads and road design and .,""''~ traffic and that kind of stuff would probably not be an issue that would make sense to ~-~~~ get into. But I did want to find out if there is anyone here that may not have a chance to come and testify next time, if they'd like to get on record tonight, we would take that -r``` testimony, but would not be taking any testimony that was pertaining to roads or traffic, because it's a moot point. We don't know what ACHD is going to recommend and what '~ their requirements a re going to be. So, do we have anyone here that would like to . ,~,, `'~~'° testify on anything separate from roads or traffic? Okay. Yeah. It will be deferred to a ~~~~~€~~~ certain date. '-"`~"~ Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's what I was going to maybe suggest, that we them know what date. Borup: Why don't we go ahead and switch the agenda and take care of that right now, _ then. If we don't have anybody that was planning on testifying, then, we can go ahead '~- and handle that right now. Otherwise, we handle it on the -- where it's at on the agenda. :. ~„, ~~''. Commissioners okay with that, if we take -- Centers: Sure. Do we intend to open them and then -- .~. Borup: Well, I don't know that we need to open it if we do a deferral. Is that correct? I mean if we took any testimony we would need to open it. '-s~~ Centers: Right. What meeting are we looking at to defer it to, then? I didn't have a =~~',' ~, ~~;~,~~ chance to look at a schedule or the agenda. 3;, ~_' Borup: That's what I was just going to say. Oh, we are good for the 16th. That's what I ~~'°` was just going to say. We just got that today. What did I do w ith it? Okay. The ~'~~ applicant was hoping the 16th. That's our second meeting. It's -- we have got a fairly light agenda. I think would be -- we have got four items, four projects on that agenda, ;`` and -- s~u~~ Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup? "'"~ryr, };~ Borup: -- really only two subdivisions. Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Just asking for clarification and maybe from legal counsel. If the item is not opened -- Borup: Oh. Yes. Hawkins-Clark: -- I believe that it would need to be renoticed and the property would need to be reposted. r~ F ~ r ~.. i ~ >~F y a . Fij~~ ~G ~ I fi~ u~ ' `"~a ~.: c _i=- } , . ~ % , F .,;~.. ~. . 5 t ~`; .v: ,: ,.: ~'``' ~~ ,. ~,, ~~ ~:~ k~ ,, „~.,; -~', ~`~~'~i ~~~.~ s~ ~3 ~,_~. { -, ; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 3 of 54 Borup: Good point. Right. I think we went through that once before. Hawkins-Clark: So, technically -- Borup: Right. Thank you. I think we would want to -- so, let me go ahead and do that and maybe for the benefit of those others in the audience here, so they will know exactly what we are looking at -- Centers: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we move items eight, nine, and ten to the first three items on our agenda tonight, so that we can act on those first. Rohm: Yeah. I'll second that. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing AZ 03-021 Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 9: Public Hearing PP 03-024 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8(PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Item 10: Public Hearing CUP 03-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-021 and Public Hearing PP 03-024 and CUP 03-041. Public Hearings are open at this time and we are deferring any staff comments. The applicant has asked for a deferral until we can receive the recommendation from Ada County Highway Commission. I am open for a motion on this item. Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman -- Borup: It's already been stated that no one from the audience had any additional -- I mean any testimony -- . ,-.. t - T i t~ Fa+ F" ~ ~~ x ~~ ~~~ ~+s~ ~x ~~ ~ ~~ r.~, ~~ , ~. i ~~~~, ~,~ _ ~' nti :. , ~ ~ f 4S y~ Y' F 1 f'r- 'K~ r _ ~ ~ i ~ ~ I+ i ° - . t _ L ~I n.'. .Y Y a f ~ f:.l { :~1d _. .. ' u ^ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 4 of 54 ,4; _ ontinue t he t w e c Centers: That w as m y u nderstanding, t hen, a nd I w ould m ove t ha Public Hearing to our second meeting in October, which would be Thursday, the 16th. ~~~ You're welcome back at that time. ~:,~; Rohm: I will second that. _ Centers: That would be all three items that we referred to. Boru :Oka .Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. p Y ~,~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Then, Imight -- I don't know how many of you were at the ACHD meeting last night. I assume most of you were. No? Okay. Of course, the city and this Commission is interested in roads and traffic, but the agency that really has control over that is Ada County Highway Commission and in most cases it's a little difficult for us to override what they do. They are the ones that own them. So, input on those type of things, that }f would be the place to do it. Thank you. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CPA 03-003 'r~~ Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: ~s Borup: Okay. Next project is Stapleton Subdivision. This is a continued Public Hearing. I believe we continued the last one asking for information on -- what was the technical term? Centers: Sanitation easement. -~-' Borup: Right. A sanitation easement. ;~ Centers: In lieu of an aviation easement. ~ Borup: Pardon? , Centers: In lieu of an aviation easement. Borup: Right. A sanitation easement. The applicant was going to bring back some ~~ information from other states on how that was handled and -- but let me -- I guess I .~ ;:, should open these hearings first. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing CPA 03-003. Do we want to open all these at the same time or -- Centers: I think we had that discussion last time. ,,. ~~'? ,~ YIr., Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ,z~,~ September 18, 2003 Page 5 of 54 ;r Borup: Yes, we did, and I think we decided to do the first one and, then, hit the other three as one other group. So, let's -- ~~'~ Centers: I would agree with that. ' ~' Borup: Let's stop there, then. Open this Public Hearing at this time. Is there any ~~~ additional staff comments or report you'd like to make? ~_'~~~~` Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I think the only thing to point out was just the receipt of the letter that we received from the applicant Wardle that had the sample items. We did also receive Ada County Highway District's final report, which I don't think we had at ?? your last meeting. I think there was a pending issue as to whether or not they were ;, ~, going to require a stub street to the east and they had athree-two vote. They decided ~,~~ not to require that stub street. Then, the third item, we did receive into the record an e- '--- , mail from Charles Crane regarding this project and he did also submit some photos that he has asked to be part of the record tonight that we have received. So, other than that, on this item I don't think staff has any additional input right now. ::t ~.,~:' Centers: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question for staff or whoever wants to speak ` ~ ~;-, up. I assume you have reviewed the sanitation easement provided and a sample of one '~'!,~~ that was utilized in Nevada and I guess the staffs comments or feelings on that, the <.. protection of the public, the buying public as the main reason that we really wanted to see something like that. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The -- well, no, we did read it. I wanted to get f rom Public ~~' Works -- since it's the wastewater treatment plant that is the driving force here and their '-? ~'~~ comment and Planning and Zoning certainly agrees is the -- as long as the public, you ~~;;4;f know, is adequately informed. I think the one question becomes, you know, the *t effectiveness of the type of notification and there was three different documents ~""~'~, submitted, an actual easement, you know, maybe in some ways would, you know, be a more effective way. If all three -- I mean if the Commission is going that way, I think K.=~'~~ staff is supportive of all three methods that they have shown. There was one comment `` ; on the first item that they submitted, which was the consent waiver. That would be part _ of the title process and it referenced annexation, which, you know, some wording in ~` there, should you get to that point tonight, would probably have to be changed in the ;,k1 future, because our assumption is that the lots would already have been annexed, so Fes; there would be no need to have them consent to annexation, because that would have =5~s; already been accomplished. So, it would refer to the platting, but not the annexation. F ;~. Centers: Yeah. I think they used that wording, rather than easement, you know. That was the way I read it. It's a notice. Anyway. Borup: Okay. Well, let's continue, then, with the applicant report. Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise. I appreciate staffs comments. The ~,, Y ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 6 of 54 4 e issue of annexation I think is probably -- the property has been annexed and zoned into the city already. It has a commercial zoning, so we just need to -- and that was something we didn't pick up on and appreciate staffs comment and informing me of that the other day as well. Have done a little bit of research on the issue and the -- looking around, what Ifound -- and I submitted to you was the -- what they call an odor easement that Clark County, Nevada, uses and it's a pretty good model and we are using this notice, consent, and waiver in a similar fashion, that it would be recorded prior to platting and that would also run with each individual lot as it is purchased and have also made some suggestions on how else we might notify those future purchasers of this project. I'm not sure if the Commission has had adequate time to review that or if legal counsel has reviewed it, but our intent -- it's basically something to start from and whatever comments we get back from legal counsel or Public Works or Planning and Zoning staff, I think we can incorporate any language they need to, but it gives you an idea of how we intend to progress with this issue. That was the main issue that you asked me to come back with, that information, so I stand for any questions on that or if we want to discuss other things as well. Centers: No. That was all that I was interested in. We went through it in detail last time, but Commission Mathes maybe wasn't here or -- Mathes: I read it. Centers: You have boned up on it? Okay. Good. Mathes: Yeah. Several times. Centers: Good. Wardle: Thank you. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Can I interject? Just -- maybe just to follow up on Commissioner Centers' earlier question about whether we feel that these three proposals are going to solve the problem. Certainly don't solve the problem. The odor is still going to be there, it's still an offensive smell. It's not going to take that away. So, just for the record we are still there, we are in the neighborhood, we are going to be there for a long time. Centers: But what's the problem? You referred, Bruce, to doesn't solve -- or it may -- doesn't solve the problem. What is the problem? Freckleton: Well, the problem in our mind is the odor issue, the lights, the noise. That's the problem. That was the reason that the Public Works Department had an issue with it. ~,~-f t ~ _ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 7 of 54 y:33 f:::.7i 3, 1'... ~"•.-'i. ~; r ;:;~', i~w s3, ,;,: ~,,;;. >. ~;r 4'` ~. >; ,: Centers: Right. I understand that. Freckleton: The d irection t hat w e were h eaded I ast t ime w as, y ou k now, i nform t he public and buyer beware type -- that was kind of the direction we were headed, so -- Borup: Well, I think from our standpoint that's the problem we want solved is just there is adequate notice and no one goes in unknowing and if a person goes in with full knowledge, that's their choice. Freckleton: Certainly. Centers: And because I think the problem is still there if it's commercial or office zone and we have heard a lot of opposition to whether it's industrial or certain types of commercial. There is residential all around it. We had testimony at the last hearing, an individual that bought the property from Mr. Crane, the odor didn't bother her, that's why she recently purchased it. I won't go on record with a name, but I talked to an employee at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and she never notices it and she didn't know who I was. That was recent. I said, you actually work there and she said yeah. Does the odor bother you? I really don't notice it. She says once in awhile, you know, so -- Freckleton: Certainly. I think a person does kind of become desensitized, too. People that work in meat packing plants don't smell it either, but drive by one. Centers: Right. Yeah. Mathes: Well -- and like the people that live next to the sugar beet factory in Nampa. Freckleton: Exactly. Centers: Right. Freckleton: I just want to go on the record. It doesn't solve the problem. Borup: Doesn't solve the problem of the odor, but it solves -- it solves the problem that we are concerned about. Freckleton: Right. Mathes: Now, was this attachment to go with the whole wastewater treatment area, not just the residential part, but also any of the property? It comes back here -- Borup: Yeah, because there is no residential -- there is no residential-commercial designator, so it would be that whole area. Mathes: Right. Okay. ~; 5 ~ t • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ~~" September 18, 2003 Page 8 of 54 ;~ Borup: Would be my understanding. Centers: Yeah. That was clarified to me last time, that the text change will allow residential use within the wastewater treatment plant brown area. ";4;1~ Mathes: Right. Centers: And it would be my opinion that if this were approved that this language would be used anytime -- whether it be commercial, office, or residential, that it would apply to ~~'~ that whole WWTP area, so that any buyer is aware, whether it's commercial, residential, or whatever. Okay. ~;-:±~ Wardle: Thank you. Borup: No other questions of Mr. Wardle, then? Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup -- Borup: Did we have anyone -- Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. Did you want to take public testimony first of -- e~`Y-2 Borup: No. Go ahead. ~~`~ Hawkins-Clark: Just a couple other additions, I guess. We didn't talk about how this i~A ,~~ kind of notification might also inform about the noise, which, as you may recall, the =' ~ noise and the lights were one of the -- were two probably just as significant issues as .' the odor. So, I think that would be pretty key to incorporate into some kind of "'`` y notification o r e asement s hould t he C ommission g o t hat w ay. A Iso i f y ou g et to t he _ '~' point of changing -- of making a recommendation of approval on this application, there is two issues. One, we had pointed out two other Comprehensive Plan policies in our ~~' , ~„ ;, staff report that specifically say residential is discouraged around the Wastewater ~,:~ Treatment Plant and I forget the wording on the other one, but those -- I guess we ~ ..-`~ would need to think through how to amend those. You know, there would be an ~'~J'` inconsistency in the Comp Plan with these two other policies if the section was ~- ~' changed, so we just have to -- probably just strike those and say that that's -- you know, _;;'~` that's no longer -- ''~'~`` Borup: Just not even mention it, you mean? .,5 ~"''` Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. ~; -~:,.; Borup: Or leave it it's discouraged, but may be allowed. f IC ~4x;i~~ l;t~:A... ~ ~ 51-~ I TatV ~~~~; ~~ 41~Y v~ {~' ' y' ,_G ' J ~: E Ir i~ -' li ~~- ~ ~ ~~ _ y~ h t i ~~~ ~ - _ ~; N. W ij ~~ A~ ~p' ~ ` ~ + ~! ~. - !i- - :: -i ~~~ ~, e ~':,:'; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting <!' September 18, 2003 ~ ~- Page 9 of 54 t •: ~.A ` Hawkins-Clark: Right. However the Commission wants to proceed. But we did point ;:: that out in the staff report and there would be a conflict between those two policies and ~':~ this one if this was changed. Then, the third point we had had to do with density and ~; ;~ the applicant hasn't specified in the Comp Plan amendment how -- you know, what density would be desired, it just says residential would be allowed with a Conditional ~`''' Use Permit and we'd encourage some conversation amongst the Commission about r , d what densities you would be looking for in this mixed use area. ;::.; .€_~ Wardle: If I might. +.~ Borup: Go ahead, Mr. Wardle. ~~.,.~ 4;; 5, Wardle: Last time there was some discussion about what the North Meridian Area Plan suggested. If you read the text of the document that we provided, earlier drafts said that `;~Y -- and I have a copy here -- that residential may be appropriate. The final draft you z~~' ' received there was nothing in the text, but in the land use plan it showed it as residential up to a minimum of three units up to eight. It was not considered a high density section, '= but I just wanted to clarify for the record that although the text may have been silent in ~:*,yx what we proposed earlier, there was -- the land use map did show it as residential being - appropriate in that location and I got that map to show you if you want to look at that. ~~ . Borup: You're talking about the land use map before the wastewater designation? The t, ~. previous one? -~• ;r~ -~ ~ Wardle: Specifically what we are talking about is the North Meridian Area Plan. ~'~'~' Borup: Oh, that -- I'm sorry. ~:~~ "~ Wardle: Back in March there was -- here there was given a PowerPoint presentation by ~`~'` Mike Wardle and it showed how those two plans meshed together. I have a copy of that a :`.n I'll give to the Clerk. It's on CD, but they would have that PowerPoint presentation as .=~= well. So, we had shown as residential, single family. I will just leave it at that. ~:, ~}~~ -~',, Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Again, the item that is open before us at this time is ''~, the request for amendment to the Comprehensive Plan text. Do we have anyone to testify on this application? Come forward. ~~ Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road, Meridian. ~ ` ;` ~{ ` ~' ~ Actually, I'd like to testify for the next three. :~ 'r Borup: The others aren't open. '"..~~1, l~' `t Crane: Right. So I will just do this one. _::- • ~' - ` Borup: Okay. III Y I ~ M ~~ S ~ ~' ~~?~pid~ c r-+' ~ 9 + i ~ - .{ Kr :.r ::~ t. , ~ ~P .~e ~ 'C~ ~~ , z4~~ 3 :# yyy ill i ~ ~ ~~. M1 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ } ~~~ •~. i ~. f ! ~ ~ ~b qe ~(J i n T f .. ~I '.i -~ rt~ '.J ! ^ ~.; ~ ~~ ~; E f~ ~ - - XX t ~: f. ~ ,H.. ~, ~ ~~ i 7 ~~. ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 'r* '~ ~. } ~ , S ~'~ a° t t f~,~ : ~ . _ .. ~ t~~ ~~~ ~. a~ .}f. t _ ~I gg ~ ~n'~ t.~"Ysap~ ""~~ • ~ t. , ~`~, . a ~ ~. i {' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting "E September 18, 2003 ,~ Page 10 of 54 z~ Crane: I was at the public process that created a lot of these rules in this area, a lot of ~? those meetings, and I'm just a little concerned, because this might fit this particular property, because it's about four or five hundred feet away from Five Mile and the Waste Treatment Plant. By changing this wording it's going to change that entire area and that concerns me a little bit, that 35 acres on the corner, which is directly downwind, might also want to take advantage of this wording if it's allowed. So, that's just something I wanted to -- Borup: Your concern is that residential may develop there, then, and you don't want residential there? Crane: Well, I want it limited. A few years ago when I came before this board and got my place rezoned and annexed to the city, what Itold -- was told, it needs to be restricted. I had applied for an R-4 zone and they said that area was not to be developed heavily and I was given an R-2 zoning with the added stipulation that I could only divide my two acres into two separate pieces, so -- '° "~ Borup: This Commission gave you that stipulation? Crane: The Planning and Zoning and the City Council, as part of my development agreement w ith my a nnex a nd rezone, w hich d oesn't n ecessarily a pply t o t hat entire area, but that's -- Borup: No, but that -- but this Commission did not give you that restriction. That was -- ~" ~ that was the application you submitted to us. ~: Crane: No. That was determined in the hearings. I applied for an R-4 zoning and it was changed during the meetings. Borup: The zoning was based on the plat that you submitted; isn't that correct? Crane: I think the original plat had it as two separate pieces, but I had applied for an R- 4zoning for future development. But what I'm saying is -- Borup: Okay. Crane: -- there was a precedent that not just recently, not during the Comprehensive Plan changes, but for years that area has been restricted on the residential, even when residential is allowed and that would be my concern. If we just opened it up for residential without any restrictions, that it might be better if we open it up for residential to put some density limits on the area, as it's been done in the past. :~9 Centers: How many acres did you originally own, Mr. Crane? Crane: Two acres. `: ~~~ :- ~~ . ,} , 'F t'~ ~ fL~ t";tr ~~:. - i r ., .,,.. • f ?° Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 11 of 54 Centers: Two a cres i s n of d evelopable, s o t o s peak. I mean y ou c ould t alk t o a ny developer, you're not going to do much with that, other than split it in half, maybe, in which you did. So, I think the R-2 is why you ended up with that, because by the time you cut a road into that and do what you have to do, you're not going to do much. Am I correct there, Mr. Chairman? ;` Borup: Well, unless you tore all the houses down. Centers: Yeah. So, I think that's maybe how you ended up with that. But what I want to ask -- and, you know, we have met a number of times -- what do you want to see next to you out there? Let's get right down to the point here. Crane: Residential, actually, would be preferable. I just built my new house there, I think it's a wonderful place to live, but not intensely dense residential, more like the R-4 zoning and really within about four or five hundred feet of the Waste Treatment Plant . , really needs some kind of special consideration. Centers: And maybe staff can answer me. Is this R-8? And this? I think this is R-4, but this is R-8. Borup: I think it's R-4. i Centers: Is it? Borup: I'm not -- the lot sizes are. Centers: That's what I was looking at. ~`~ Borup: Yeah. They are 8,000 foot lots, I believe. Hawkins-Clark: So -- yes. There is two zones across, the Wilkins Ranch Subdivision is R-8, which is -- let's see. This subdivision. But the -- and, yeah, these two subdivisions. This was brought in as Staten Park recently, which was R-4. So, there is R-4, R-8, and, T then, R-4 again. Centers: It's mixed. ';9! Hawkins-Clark: All the way to the corner. ,1~f '', Centers: Mixed. Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Centers: Okay. °,~ Borup: Okay. Anything else? ~, ,~ ail - x ~.,1. ~~'~. r ~ .~~ ~;,~~ k ~ {!I ~ ~~ 1r rt ~I~ f+ 7 t~~c - I ~ ~ I ~~,,~ ~'. ,ti . ~ ~~~~ ~ '~~ ~ t I I tl (p'~4" ~'~ },. `. .x. the . .get ~~. ~ ~¢ - . w~~ ' ~fl ~~ , 1 p I& ~ ,~1; k i ~ ~~iR1i c~~:~ G`4 i l,~ ~ ~ . n 4 I~ ,~ ~. ~,~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,I ~ .y r.''~'' `a ~~'~` ~` ~~ ~~.~ ~~: ~?' _ ~ I~ ~'_, ~ r._d.,i a. - - may- ., .,y., a ~ ` FVfn'4~'Yr 1 N.Y - -- T Ya, xf ~. ~, t ~ ~ ~ y { ~ s. • „~ ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting '~. September 18, 2003 Page 12 of 54 Crane: No. Thank you. °~~'' Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Commissioners, any 4V ~ discussion b efore w e continue on t his i tem? D o w e f eel comfortable that t his w ould ~~,~ answer the questions and concerns that we had last time? -~~ ~ Centers: I'm very comfortable with it. Borup: And, then, if that's the case, I would assume someone needs to write this and how is that handled? =~'y Centers: Yeah. I would say that would have to be approved prior to the City Council -- =~~: or it would be the City Council approving our recommendation and they would have ~- "? their counsel, legal counsel, draft the appropriate language, because we are not going ,, to draft it tonight. ~`~~~~.~ Borup: No. ~'j'` Centers: But, you know, our intent -- at least my intent, anyway, was covered. Notice '~~'~ to the public and they are talking here of three ways to do that. Of course, the primary ~'' way is that -- recording of the document that would always appear on the title and a buyer would see their preliminary title report, if they are smart enough to read it, it's ' °~ there. Buyer beware. I think there was a lot of testimony at the previous hearing a r >. month ago, wasn't it? And it's very true, I mean you're going to have the same situation ~''` ~'° ~ with commercial or office. You know, if it's true that the odor is that bad, are you going '`' to get someone to develop that with office or commercial and subject those, people to it? ~` `'r' I don't think so. I don't personally think it's that bad. I don't experience it, but from what "j,~,^,1 r~-' I h eard a nd from t estimony t hat I h ave h eard, a nd M r. C rave h as n ever c omplained ~'~"~ about it to my knowledge and he lives right there. So, I think if we can make it a public ~~= ~ record, you know, the people that own some of that land should have the opportunity to '~~'` ~` develop or to sell their land first to a developer that wants to do something with it. End of speech. L ~`~ Borup: How would staff visualize that this be -- I mean we have got the -- how much '~ more draft -- or how much more drafting of a legal document would need to be done ~ and how would that be reviewed or does it -- what would be the process here? ~~,, t ~ " Powell: In all honesty, I have not reviewed these, but this would seem to be a _, ; ~, significant issue that the attorney staff needs to get involved in reviewing and perhaps the applicant's attorney should draft a first copy of it for our attorney to look at, if that's ~, .,;, the way you want to go. ~'~~ Borup: Well, they have done the one. Mr. Wardle, maybe you could -- was there ~n'~µ anything else from staff? Anything else? h ~ _ A~.~':-'r. ~~~n. .. r y'.' I a ':'t :i f Z' I~~ I S~ k:' ,, - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 13 of 54 Powell: No. Just, again, the density issue. I don't know that -- I think that's a key component of this, so I just want to make sure you don't leave it aside. Wardle: If I may, I guess for clarification, I think we have provided you with a first draft and -- Borup: The Notice, Consent, and Waiver? Wardle: Correct. And I think that document just needs to be reviewed and scrutinized by legal counsel. I guess it's our impression that before the project would go through its final ordinances and the rezone, that type of thing, that this would need to be worked out and if this document wasn't in place -- I mean if it wasn't in place, I would assume the ordinances probably wouldn't go forward. This is something that we are willing to tie to this rezone. Centers: I have a question, Mr.. Wardle. Why didn't you title it Odor Easement, like the people in Nevada did? Because of the sound of it? Wardle: No. If I may, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers. That's a good question. We talked with our legal counsel about that. This is what he put out first. We provided him additional documentation. I think he's comfortable with calling it an easement as well and this is what he provided to me and we discussed it. I think we just need to work with -- Centers: Because I know how that's going to appear on a preliminary title report. Wardle: Correct. Centers: I'm very aware of that and Ithink -- I would like to see the words Odor Easement, because that's going to catch someone's eye, rather than Notice, Consent and Waiver and, then, they won't read the fine print. On item 22 on the preliminary title report it's going to show an Odor Easement by the City of Meridian, bingo, what are they talking about there, let's read on, so -- ;. Wardle: I concur. We wanted just to provide something so the dialogue could begin, so I don't think we have any issue on our end titling it that and making sure that it's very ° clear on that title report. :., '='e :J ~~~ F..~ ; 31 ~ I ,i; Centers: And, I agree, I think the language can be determined by legal counsel. I mean we are not here to prepare that. Borup: No, but we have got something -- I guess if there is anything we'd like to add to it -- and you have just done that. I'm assuming you're going to make that as a motion to add that title. Centers: You're right there, Mr. Chairman. ~~: ~: ~`, `~~: ~ • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 ~= ~;?c'~4 Page 14 of 54 ysl v f~, ~ "~ '' Borup: Is there anything else we would want to add in addition to that? ~_ s';~ Mathes: What about the lights and the noise? {~'F: Centers: Good. As Brad mentioned. I made that note. -} '~','~ ; Wardle: If I might, noises is there, the word lights is not, so we can get that added as y~`,f'', well. And if I might, staff made a suggestion or a question earlier about a couple of the ~' other policies in the Comp Plan, which are also text, specifically, it was Action Number 1 :~ 17, Objective A, page 82 and Action 8, Objective A, page 105, which were outlined in ~; ~~= '~ the staff report. If you want, I could quickly provide some language suggestions there or ~- ` -- those appear to be the two that Mr. Hawkins-Clark was talking about. ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ Centers: Which two, again, Mr. Wardle? I have them now in front of me. i ;, Wardle: It was the second bullet point, which was Action 17, Objective A, page 82, and, ;~`~ '~~ then, on the next page it was Action 8, Objective A, page 105. ~ ;~;~ ~~ ~~ Centers: Action 8? ~y ~: Wardle: Yes. ~~ ~-::~ `{ Centers: To be honest with you, Action 17 doesn't make sense to me. t ':~~.''~:~ Wardle: Whether it's office or commercial or -- ~ ~~. ,~ Centers: Yeah. Right. Because it's -- ~ `1 Boru So, you need some t e of use that doesn't have an humans associated with P ~ Yp Y ~ :~, it. ~~ ~~~" Centers: And, a ain, m su estion on it, that would be to ust strike it. 9 Y 99 j '~',; . ~~. ~~ Borup: And after reading the other one, that's -- I would feel that would probably be `~ ~'? appropriate there, too. I mean it doesn't really make a lot of sense to say -- encourage, ,' but allow. I mean it's better not to say anything at all. ,y~y_h.. ', ' ~~ ~ ~" Centers: Yeah. I agree. ..z ~~~ .. ~~~ Borup: So, that would -- okay. And, then, as far as adding the lights, I'm -- paragraph ~;_ .,: i' , number one under notice, is that the only place where -- } __ ,_4~ } Wardle: It would. We could probably -- ~~;:.~ ` . ~: l Borup: Okay. I was looking -- you could say offensive noises, odors, lights, and dust. G' ~. __i~ ~~~;' ~ - ..~ . hZ4 ~r + '~! y~ _ Y: ~~ n c:~ ~ - - 4 w l S ^ Y~. - ~~ ~~ ~' Ak ~ZC - +3~ ~4 ~ w~ ~~Ygtj 1 ~.~ Q~~ ~ _ ',. I F' 3 ~ ~ .` Hg~ ~4 i~.,,' ~.iFt ' Y I ~li r Ai , II ^' . Y I 1~ S^~^ ~. r~ ~ i 4- .4 - ~ iz t~ ~~~ . ~ ~ M ,. ~ -. ~ ~, ~ i h~tr dill 1-}~ I,~« r ,l~ +~: f ~ Ili ~ ~~ , ~~~ 1, ~ - ~` ~~` Tk- ~, f I _ .. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting '' ~ September 18, 2003 Page 15 of 54 ~ Wardle: Correct. Borup: That -- Wardle: And we might want to put it a little later on in the sentence as well where it says -- Borup: Oh, there we go. Same thing down there. r;', ~; Wardle: So, those two places there. It would be on page two under number one. So, =a the owner is aware that as a result of the close proximity of the plant of the property, offensive noises, odors, lights, and dust may emanate therefrom and may be experienced by the owner and that such noises, odors, lights, and dust may interfere s with the owners use and enjoyment of the property. So, in those two places. w `` ~ Centers: Uh-huh. ;~ Borup: Has dust been a concern? Okay. That was a mentioned one? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, yes, it has. Our plant's under constant construction out there. Borup: Oh. That's true. ~x~" Freckleton: While I have the microphone -- Borup: Go ahead. Freckleton: The title of the easement needs to reflect those things as well I feel, the ~' ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ noise, the odor, the dust, the lights. Nuisance, in general. a. ,.:: . Centers: I would agree. ~ ~ Borup: Is that not too long of a title? r~ ~. Centers: I would agree. F'a ,; k' -~,' Borup: Maybe leave it at -- ~~ Centers: And odor would be first. So, Odor, Noises -- h. ~;_ Borup: -- Noise, Lights, and Dust Easement. Well, I think you're right. That's going to :"`'' attract someone's attention and they are going to look at it and probably not tell them t~~, anything they didn't already know, but -- but it would be hard to miss. ,33 l Vii. ~,a E'F IN ~p'3~_. - d ~` ~it' _~ ~; - "' ~- ~Y. ~'~. ~~, f r}j ~ 5. ~r:t~ ~'4 f~, ~ ~.kX4e yK t ~ ~~ i ., iY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' }~ ~ .fi ~l a~ q A"M}' _ _ f ,~ € ~c t ~ .r .. '. }~ ~~. n- , ~ t~ ti Y~ T '~~ . ^ Y ; ,t ~ • S?f r.. ( Y`, ~. ~ n "~ 5 i~ TIm - . ~` ~• is ;~}: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 16 of 54 Centers: Do you agree? ``~ Rohm: Yeah. s~: Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. y=:=~~ Rohm: I like adding the additional items, as opposed to having it just an odor easement. Centers: Yeah. I agree. 4~~-= Rohm: It adds a little clarity to it. Borup: Commissioner Rohm said he agreed. Centers: That's where two minds are better than just one. Or three or four. Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the Public Hearing for -- Borup: CPA 03-003. ``:_~ Centers: That's it. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I'll second that. ~`~= Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,t Centers: Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to give our reasons for denial. You know, we ~~ have been coached to do that recently. I'd like to give my reasons for recommending •~ : approval, so that it will be in the minutes for the City Council. Borup: That would be good. Centers: I think -- I think they should recognize the property owners that want to sell their property, whether it be developed f or c ommercial, office, residential, what have a you, t hat w ith t his r ecommended a pproval t onight -- a nd w e a re adding w hat w ill b e referred to in the motion, a lot of protection, we think, for the buying public and in my business it would be a lot of protection, because I see it every day in my business and a'Y.: it's the best notice you can give the buying public. So, with that, I would recommend approval of item CPA 03-003, it's a request for amendment to the text of the I~~ . ,~ ,~ - ,a , , -r ~ ~ ~.: : ~ ,~.:, ~ ~~. I' ~ ti . F ~~~ :x: 1. cy' y ~ ~~ - f ~ ~~ ~ t ~ l~ 7 ~~1F5~ lyx ~.. 'J', _ ~ ~ y,.P~ _ , ~ ~~I r . , 8 f M ~~~ ~ 1 5 ,~.~4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ W '~ 1 ~~ ~ x~ k;~ ,. 1. .3 .- r ~ Rrr r ` ' ^~ T '{~1~" 1( S a a I~~ ~I~ ~i a a ', ` A J+ . ~J~~ ~ \ z~ d¢. ~ ~~~ ~T~t ~Wr?~ ~ II ~'~f y.~:~v . II ' ~ ' ~~~ ~ r.~ l ~ ~ ~ ~) ~~~. ~ I i~ f';'3 C +. ,. ~ .'_;. ~ f T'~MSr ~~`?c~ ~'p ~ ~~ ~. ~/'~t R~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 17 of 54 Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zone designation for proposed Stapleton Sub by Wardle and Associates. It would be subject to the text change allowing the residential, would be subject to the recording of an Odor, Noises, Lights, and Dust Easement and using as a guide what was submitted by Wardle -- the Wardle Group, they submitted an easement that is used by Clark County, Nevada. T hey s ubmitted s omething t hat w as d raven u p b y H awley, T roxell, E nnis & Hawlin, which was titled Notice, Consent, and Waiver, which, as mentioned, we don't like that title, but therein there is a lot of verbiage that could be utilized f or the f final wording that would be recorded and would be a notice to the buying public. On page two o f t he notice t hat w as w ritten b y H awley, T roxell, E nnis & Hawley, t hey m ention notice. If that verbiage is used, we would want to insert the words lights on the last two ~ sentences of that paragraph, so that the buying public knows that they are going to have issues with lights, along with the other issues. I think that's the end of motion. We don't have any staff comments, other than that they didn't agree with it, so -- thank you. Borup: Do we have a second? Rohm: I will second. Borup: Discussion? I -- Mr. Centers, question. A little unsure on the motion if you were recommending adapting the sample that they presented to us. That was my assumption t hat t his i s w hat w e were r ecommending a pproval o f. I f l egal s tall feels there needs to be some adjustment in this, then, they may, but at this point this is a documents that we are recommending. Centers: And that's a good point of clarification. I recommend the document drawn up by Hawley Troxell and that group -- Borup: With a new title. Centers: -- with the new title, specifically O dor, Noises, Lights, and Dust Easement. That would be the title. Borup: Okay. Centers: And, then, any verbiage that is changed due to legal staff, that's to be determined. Borup: Okay. I just want to clarify the motion. So, the motion was to adopt this language -- Centers: Thank you. Rohm: The specific language or as adjusted by legal counsel? Borup: Right. ,f _~~ 1. ~::~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 18 of 54 Centers: Right. Borup: Question? • Holinka: Mr. Chairman, I have a question also for clarification. Are you -- is the recommendation to adopt the easement for all future uses within -- Centers: That's correct. Holinka: Okay. Centers: That's correct. Because -- I felt that it applied that way, because it's a text change for the WWTP for the whole area. Right. Borup: The only other question is we didn't address density. Is that something that is necessary or is that something to be handled on each project as it's -- the application is brought forth? Centers: Well, the way Iwould -- yeah. That's the way I would do it, is each project stands on its own, but we did want to strike -- Borup: Oh. Right. Eight and 17. Centers: And that reminded me. From the Comp Plan. Borup: Yeah. I wrote that down. Centers: It would be my recommendation, along with the motion to strike Action 17, Objective A, on page 82 and to strike Action 8, Objective A, on page 105. Rohm: If that's as amended, I would second that as well. Borup: Okay. That's -- all right. Motion has been amended. Any other discussion? Did that catch the two items that staff was -- had mentioned a potential conflict? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Okay. We have a motion. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: ~f ~' ` 4 ~,., ~ r ~~ x~ ~~~a, ~~'~ ;. k s `. • ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting =_ September 18, 2003 Page 19 of 54 ~`;~; Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: PP 03-019 Request f~ for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 ,; ~'; ~ acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by ?~~~` Wardle and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: ?~' Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003: CUP 03-034 ~~ , Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41- <<~.- lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, t.: ~~ minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks '~'t`~ in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle '` and Associates - 3680 West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. At this time we'd like to open continued Public Hearing RZ 03-009, request for Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, at 3 680 West Ustick Road. And a Iso P ublic Hearing P P 0 3-019, request for P reliminary P lat a pproval 4 0 b uilding I ots a nd s even other lots on the same project. And CUP 03-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development. Like to open, again, all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. On item number five, the rezone request, the property i s shown here on the screen. It is as noted before existing commercial. You can see the -- Mr. Crane's property, who just testified as well, and the split that happened on that triangular-shaped piece just to the east. It does abut this subject property and, then, the Nine Mile, you can see here, which is owned in fee simple by the U.S. Government. The W astewater Treatment Plant shown here to the north in gray and, then, the existing R-4 and R-8 subdivisions to the south. There is -- Dakota Ridge Subdivision is the one that is immediately across the street. That's Dakota Ridge. There is an elementary school, Ponderosa, shown here just down to the southwest. So, the request is to rezone the property to an R-8 zone. Their density -- gross is 6.91, so the R-8 would work with their. gross density. Their net density is, actually, 9.26, so it exceeds it, but we have typically used the gross density for that calculation. I think the only other thing to point out on this item is that the applicant has submitted a written response and has pointed out a couple of items that -- of findings that would -- that they disagree with and assuming that now that the Commission is moving towards approval of the residential zone, those findings would also have to be made by this Commission to modify staffs findings. So, those are findings -- on the rezone it's Findings A, E, and F that we have -- we could not make the finding and that would have to be amended for the Commission to make the finding in favor of the application. And moving on to the next two items on the agenda, here on the screen is the amended plat for you to consider tonight. Ustick Road on the south, they are proposing one point of access, public street into the subdivision here near their west boundary. They have a common lot to meet the city's street buffer requirement, along the frontage 25 feet. They have a couple of hammerheads that are here in the project on the east side. They have one stub street that is just here right in the middle -~~ <.1r1~~~ % ~IFpF~r t~~~ ~ ~ ` 144 ~1`I~ ~ ~ ~~ ; + 1(§ y ~~g~qgggg 1 ~ . . 1 / , ~ ~ ~t~c 1M1 t ~I~ ~,,~ , r~F - ~ - ~ ~ uA ~~~ -.~t'~ i ~ ~ ! u '~ ~ ~ 1 ~ s ~ ~ ~ `~ : r ~~~ 'OS {.h -. ~ ~ 4 ~ . _ ,II k~ a lk ~ {i ' J +' :.~Y ~ ~ ~ i 3 ~t { ~'f i ~ ~ . ~Ys 1 ~ • L T ~ ~_~ T ~ s ~ m ^?ilk i,T I' ~ '~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ , ,~ , " 1 a„~ y~.~ }iii ~x ~ .h~ ~ A, L. ~1 ~i z .~ ~l~ ,~ f~.~~' i I ~~ " i~ ,~; etc' r ~ : w'2. i. ~ I ~ ~ ~~s 11' - ~, r ww ~ r~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Comm~ion Meeting -, <. , ~''`` September 18, 2003 ~~ ::;. ,,~,.. Page 20 of 54 a=x5 of their west boundary that would make connectivity to this larger ag parcel to the west. `~~ The other common lot that they have, the larger one, is here on the very north end, :'.~ which does wrap around and touches this Nine Mile Drain. They have their storm water 45`x`" retention area shown here with the contours and the crosshatched area there. So, it's a i~,, ; ;~ , general layout of what they are proposing. They do have 40 residential lots, seven ty other lots. The main points of discussion that we called out in our staff report, those ~~.;:t~ ~ start on page seven of the staff report and the first item there is the reduced street .~~ sections, item A on page seven, and they have requested some reduced street sections `~~" as a part of this. The highway district, my understanding, has accepted those. So, we have not received a written notification as condition number four asks, but I was told by :: ~,,L Mr. Wardle that Gary Inselman at the highway district said that the 40 foot right of way, r ` '' which is the minimum width that ACHD can accept as a dedication, they do have 40 foot ~~ =-r just here in these T's. Otherwise, they have the 42 right of way in these two east-west _~fy', street sections and, then, they have 42 from this stub street to the north. So, those are ~. r: -~:~ the reduced areas. They have the standard 50 foot the right of way off of Ustick up to ~~' the stub street to the west. And item B on page seven, the reduced lot frontages, and we did receive w ritten modification to the planned development application, that they ~ , have now formally asked for -- as part of their planned development to reduce the width ~"= ~; :y of the lot frontages in this project. We still have -- would like probably just to talk about ~~ `; it more tonight with the applicant, particularly on these two lots that I'm pointing to now. :{ ~` As they have proposed it, this southerly lot would take access off the -- this 'k hammerhead and, then, this northerly lot would take access off the hammerhead to the ~~'~~~~ north, of course. But they have a common lot that is connected -- a micropath u'-~'= `~~ connection between these hammerheads and that at this point is not a common ` driveway, so you really just have 15 feet of this lot that touches the right of way and the question is, you know, is that sufficient to make the turn with a vehicle or anything else ~~~° and so we are asking for -- for there to be -- I think probably the best way, if you go with `~ ~= this configuration is just to make a common lot that's for vehicular access and not just '" ~` pedestrian, but there may be other options to design that. But, again, those are Lots 9 ~y, ~~ and 10 on Block 1. We are asking for that to redesign the lots and submit an amended . plat that meets the ordinance. And the other two items, Ustick Road right of way, I think °`~ ~r~~` we are -- the main thing there is with any future dedication we are just suggesting that -- , it's really not clear right now if the applicant intends to dedicate the right of way and ~ ~ where the sidewalk's going to be proposed, so we are asking for clarification on that R -,. `~` " and, then, D on page eight is the pressurized irrigation. They are stating that there is an r~,=~~~~' insufficient amount of surface irrigation water available. They are requesting a variance _~ ~~ to the pressurized irrigation ordinance. If this is granted, the applicant will be subject to ~; ~~-~' ~ paying well development fees. On the site specifics, we had requested a couple of -- some more information and I will just let Bruce speak briefly to item number one, which '`~ dealt with the sewer trunk and where the serves from. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The information was provided to my office today. This morning. We looked it over and it does prove out the fact that sewer is not going to be available by flowing to the northeast and that the plan, as proposed, is the only viable alternative to sewering this project, so I'm satisfied with that report that I got this morning. ~c ~ ~ £ f~ 1`a ~i ~~ ii =r 5 ry.i`. r . q r4 ~ ~ l~ ~~ ti 2 ~ ... -}~, ti ~ , t ~ ..: ~' I r. i ' ~t .~ ~ ~ . 'L; ~+ II ~~tK +• ,~W. a 'i ~~~~ ~Y y ~ ~, ~,~ ~~ , r ~a,'y Yy Y '; A'f> ~~'~{ u~' i~ ' Y .~ti r' f I ~^ :'~ ~ ~ rt ' ' ws ~xF'~~' ~~ r a I il _ . ~y I y ~ C ~ I JM~S ~ 4i 9 ES SS's. ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 21 of 54 v ''` Hawkins-Clark: If we continue, then, on that page eight, just a couple other items to point out for the Commission. I believe that the applicant's in agreement with the :~~ modifying the plat to accommodate any future right of way in a common lot. So, that's ~.~ kind of taken care of, I think. The 40 foot right of way widths, we just need to get written ~'~_~ confirmation on that and, then, the redesign area that I mentioned on those two lots off `'~ 3'~ of the hammerheads. Then, on item number seven, the planned development for the Y~~, project, again, the reason for the planned development is multiple. They are asking for reductions in the setbacks, primarily the front. The street side they are also asking a change from 20 foot to ten on the street sides, which, mainly, is going to affect, you _ know, all the corner lots within the project. So, instead of having a 20 foot side to the street, they were proposing ten. Then, the front 20 foot from back of sidewalk, which, ~~, as you know, has been approved many times. That's mainly just a tracking issue with the builders. Then, another reason for the planned development was the lot size. They }'~ are asking for a reduction to 3,400 square feet per dwelling unit. The house size, ~`~; asking for 1,100 square feet per house, instead of 1,301, so 200 square feet left there and, then, the final reason they had -- on the first floor, the city ordinance right now says you g of t o h ave a minimum 8 00 s quare feet o n the first floor o f a u nit a nd t hey a re asking for that to go to 500 square feet on the first floor. The amenities they have got ;;T~ are the ten percent open space and two picnic hardscape area common lots and -- Centers: Where are those, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Here at the north end, the common lot that comes through kind of adjacent to the Nine Mile, I believe, is a couple of different areas in that lot, several hundred feet long, you know, along the Nine Mile and I believe they are prepared tonight to show you where they want to put the amenities within that. I think those are all the things to point out for right now. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their ~~ presentation? Wardle: For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive in Boise, Idaho. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk about the Stapleton project. Just a couple points of clarification. We did a slight revision on this '' " project. It moved the entrance over slightly. The actual lot count is 38 new lots, with one existing, so a total of 39. There is an existing house that sits right here that will =r, remain but, t here are 3 8 b uildable lots. T o answer Commissioner Centers' question regarding where the landscape areas were -- and I was under the impression that staff had received this landscape plan. !~` Borup: Yes, we have got it. Wardle: Okay. One area is right up here, in that location. The other one is right here between those two. We are proposing picnic areas, as well as some heavy landscaping around those, so -- they are pretty secluded, but accessible and usable by the public. ,, ,r.,. . f I 71 ~ k.~ti~ ,Flr;~, ~ ~, ,ti, ~ ~~ i '~' s , r. r 5 ~ ~~ sr :~~ ~ o Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 22 of 54 Centers: Mr. Wardle, let me cover that now and I had noted on my agenda and I got it from my notes, there is 39 building lots or did you say 38? Wardle: There are 38 new and one existing, for a total of 39 lots that will be a part of this plat. Centers: Okay. Thirty-nine lots part of the plat and five other lots was my other change. Wardle: Maybe we can do a quick count. Borup: Well, that's the old one there. That's why -- that's the one we have the landscaping plan o n, t he one t hat's on the b oard, before the road was -- before the entrance was moved over. Centers: I got the five from someplace, because I crossed the seven out. Wardle: Five is correct. :;~ Centers: Okay. Good. Wardle: And one other point of clarification is since the application was submitted, the property has changed hands, it is now owned by Mr. Jake Centers instead of Mrs. Britton, so I just wanted to clarify for the record that Mr. Centers is the owner of the property. Centers: Clarify the other connection there with the name centers for the group, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: We -- I think we have run the family trees and there is no relationship between Mr. Jerry Centers and Mr. Jake Centers. Centers: Way to put it. Good way. Wardle: If I may pass something out to the Commission? Borup: Does staff already have one of these? Wardle: Staff does have a copy of this. We have gone through and reviewed the staff ~~~ report. I made some comments regarding -- or directly relating to the previous action this evening, which is the Comp Plan text amendment and if I might enter for the record a couple of these. On page three of the annex -- on the zoning application, A, we just ~~ simply say that we disagree and that this item probably should be stricken, given the action of the Comp Plan text amendment. On item number E, we do not believe that the mixed-use wastewater treatment -- we do believe that this area is an appropriate location for residential uses. We request action on modifying standard E by eliminating _,X ~. ~.„ ~~+ ~n ~, ~~' I~l~ kq ~>;, ~ , ,i~~ ~ ,~ I V. ~' i~ y, !~ ~:~~ ~ t y # l 1` ~I~ ~~~' _~ ~ } r - ~~~ f~i .yam ' i~l i 1 i ~. ~: . ~ ~~ ~,; .- x >. _ ' ~ ,-~..~ ~~~ ~~:~ lil ~~~ 11~ t .~ ~ht~ .~ '~f~ ! }~ ~ fqU I~ 1 l +`t •~- ~ A ~ w?, 11' tz , - ` ~' li ` ~ is ~ _ q'. e - a ~ ~ ~~ S l~ ~i4' I } i h. f' ~ _ ~ - '~'"' y? ~ ~` n ~i ~ t s ~ i~~~ ~~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 `:'~'~ Page 23 of 54 LJ that first paragraph. F, we do not believe that the proposed rezone and use will be as is written here, a disturbance to the Wastewater Treatment Plant or the existing areas around it. And item L, we believe that it is an appropriate location and request that item L or standard L be modified to state: Staff finds that the rezone of this property would be in the best interest of the city, period, and delete the rest of that sentence. If I might, are we going to cover all three hearings at this point? Borup: Yes. All three are open at this point. Wardle: Okay. We will just go ahead and go through -- moving onto page two of my report, under preliminary plat findings requirements, item A, we, once again, disagree, given the previous action on the Comp Plan text amendment. I think staff did a very good job on pages seven through eight on items A through C of clarify this. We have discussed with ACRD staff, they are in agreement that we can use a 40 foot right of way on those hammerheads. I had forwarded an a-mail yesterday from ACHD to Mr. Hawkins-Clark, but, apparently, that's not made it to his file yet and we will make sure that he has a copy as requested as a condition of this. We also did amend the application, it was a slight over -- we overlooked this when we did it. Clearly, we were asking for reductions in lot sizes and frontages. The issue of Lots 9 and 10, there is currently 15 feet of frontage on these two, there is 15 that touches there and 15 that touches there, which is sufficient for a driveway to get out to it. If you look in the planned development standards, driveways for either single or double residences or certainly one or two can be a minimum nine feet and we have 15 feet. I think it meets the intent. If we need to be a little more creative and create a common drive between those two, I think we would probably do that, and the same thing with those two. But the fact of the matter is there is sufficient width there to handle the driveway for those two -- for those two homes. Borup: Mr. Wardle, would it be anticipated -- I mean would you know at this point in design which location the garage would be for -- Centers: That's was my question, too. Are they going to have to back out? Borup: And I think that was one of staffs concern, if the garage is closest to the street, ~` can it make the turn or if the garage is on the opposite side of the lot, you know, that would allow -- Wardle: If I may, I think there is two ways to look at it. If the garages -- let's look at lot -- I think this is Lot 9. Sorry that I'm shaky. If the garage is on this side, we could create a };~_ little bit more concrete on this side of the lot and they could, essentially -- when they -- they could pull right in and when they back out, they back out on their own lot and pull straight out to the street. That's one way to do it. And if the garage is on the other side, farthest away from it -- Centers: But you haven't given us footprints, so to speak, so, you know, we have nothing to hold you to. So, I think your comment of creating a -- ~ 5l r, ,; 1,. i. lly .:.b ~~~'~ .~'~BS '`~~- Bs '~~ ' (' I ~ ~f~ _. fr i i' ~ ~° L -~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ Y I li i ~(fllli 7b. : ~~~. ~ .r 1 t t1 ' 9 ~" 1 ~ ~ ~ t` ~ r ~. ,? ~ w ~ ~?~ , 11 ii~ ~'E d '' t ~. 'h'C i ill 1 ~ ' ~ +y+v y ~~~'': } - s ~..~, ~+ ~ II ~t _ w ' t ~-' + iTR. d ~ ~ 1 ~I ~~a~`t~~~ ~F i V, 9~1 ~ 'q`~' ( i :. 7 }~ . ~ !! ~I ~ ~... t I I k~, i r S jil i y`~ s <~t ~ ilk ~ ~~y t { ~~ ~ I 7 ~' ~""'~` # 4~ ` ~"F~ - ''-fi v .•. 1 ~ ,~ II iI~ j ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 24 of 54 Wardle: A common drive? Centers: -- a common drive would be -- Wardle: Preferable? Centers: -- that would be my preference, because -- L_J Borup: What was the reason that the streets weren't connected in the design to start with? Was it block length or -- Wardle: Well, no, it wasn't block length. I think we were just trying to create a little bit more -- an amenity here where the neighbors could get to a ach other without really needing to put that road in. It wasn't required, it's not necessary, and we just thought we could do a little micropath through there that would connect the neighborhood and not disconnect them. Centers: Save some asphalt expense? Wardle: Perhaps some, but that wasn't out intent when we did it, we were just interested -- Borup: It's not that much. Wardle: -- providing some sort of connection for those -- Centers: A hundred feet. Yeah. Eighty. Wardle: So, I guess the alternative would be to create a common drive between these "r two lots and a common drive between these two lots would accomplish that concern of them coming straight out. Rohm: It appears that it would be easier just to push the road through and not have the hammerheads or whatever you call them and, then, you wouldn't have that as a concern at all. Centers: Would you have to go back to ACHD and get approval for that 40 foot all the way through? That's a 40 foot street; right? Wardle: We would. Centers: Yeah. I think that's part of it. .~~ R ,I: >,~ ;~<. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 - Page 25 of 54 Borup: Well, I think something can be designed to accommodate that. Did you have questions or a comment? Okay. Maybe -- I mean the turn around would be an answer, but I -- it's not up to us to design the layout either. Wardle: And I guess I'm not asking you to request -- or requesting you to redesign, I'm just -- Borup: No, but we are -- I mean I think the comment is the concern about safety and cars backing out on the street. I mean in this case if they backed out they would have to back clear out to the main street up there, which would be in front of two other -- at least two other properties. That's a lot of backing. Wardle: I think if we create -- I guess the two options are create a backing space on the lot itself or do a combined common drive between those two. Borup: Is that the main concern of the Commission is just more just a safety thing? Centers: Oh, yeah. You're right. You know, somebody coming out of that garage would have to back clear down here. Wardle: Also, for the record, these lots are deeper, which gives us -- I mean, typically, the front setback on this adjoining lot would be here, so I mean the garage would be about w here t hat number i s o n t hat. I think their -- I think w e c an p rovide s ufficient space on that lot for them to turn around and pull straight out on the public right of way. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: One other thing maybe to consider is that, as designed, they have our public sewer going through the middle of that, connecting up the two hammerheads. We need to be able to have 24 7 access to our sewer, so I mean we would not allow any parking -- I mean I could just envision somebody's motorhome or camper sitting there in that area. Borup: You mean on the common lot or on -- Freckleton: Or whatever we are talking about. I mean if we are talking about a micropath, i f w e a re t alking a bout a s hared d riveway, w hatever we s ettle i n o n, j ust, ~~> please, keep in mind we do have sewer going through there and we need access, so -- Borup: But right now, the way the design is, that -- you don't foresee a problem, do . you? I mean because it's a common lot with a pathway. Rohm: Well -- and you just can't park anything on that. - t ~-~ ~ ~~ ~- ~~. ,,99 T Baas 1 c=. ~f~, ~ > F 9 ~ ~ ~ . ~ sy ~ 7 ~, .~ ~,. +I~+ ~ ~~, "~ .. I~!,. ~~.. - - .. +~ :'" ~S ~ 1~'.t+ti`T~ r ~~ w i, 2:. 1~ f Ft ~ 4t ~ ~} Y` ~. } a-' Y rz x .~ ~ lr .( ~. ~~~~~ . . ~h Y !_y ~ Y_ a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 1 S, 2003 Page 26 of 54 Borup: Well, you wouldn't park on the pathway anyway. Centers: Right. Rohm: Not on the pathway itself, but the 24 feet that Bruce is speaking to would be outside of that 15 foot pathway. Borup: That's alandscape -- that's a landscaped area. Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Centers: He wants 24 hour, seven days aweek -- Freckleton: The easement -- the easement for the sewer need to be 20 feet in width centered. Wardle: And, for the record, that's a 25 foot -- Borup: Yeah. It's a 25 foot easement. Wardle: So, in terms of access, I mean these will be restricted from parking on those ends. The pathway would also provide, technically, Public Works a way to get across there without ripping through landscape features, because they would have that pathway. Centers: I don't have my plat out, but what's the number of these two lots? Wardle: I think it's nine and ten. ~~#f~! Centers: Nine and ten? Yeah. I think it would be -- I think we have done it before, too, `_`.;;~" that before any building permit would be issued on Lots 9 and 10, the Building ~:~~, Department would be satisfied that the garage is such that a car could turn around and leave the property and have sufficient room to leave the property without backing out. A permit would not be issued on Lot 9 or 10 unless the building official was satisfied that the garage was such that the vehicle could turn around on its own property. I think we 4 have done that. Really? ~~` Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, if that's the way you go, I would suggest asking for a plan of how these would be developed now, so that you can review that -- Centers: Ask for the footprint? Powell: Yeah. Ask for the footprint now and have them come back and provide that to you, so you can make that evaluation. i'~~~, @'~~ r ~ I ~~~ ~ r~ a ~,z 3, ~!I~ r rh; ~'~ r 4 .~i ~' l E ` ~ ~'~ E {~~g~i Y i ~ u~. ~s F w ii _._ L ~ a !S r' S ,.. ~~ }~f u; E ~ s~?"h~tw f ~~ i `~ '' ~. .' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ``" September 18, 2003 Page 27 of 54 Borup: Well, other cities have had that stipulation. I know Boise has on a -- they just ~~~ required a turn around. So, their stipulation was -- and they didn't design the turn ~~"' around, they just said there had to be a turn around provided that the car can back out >, ; of the driveway and pull out forward. ~' Centers: I think you're speaking from experience. Borup: I am. ~~~ Centers: Yeah. I figured. Borup: I have done. And that's simply all they said. It didn't tell you how it had to be or what your house had to be or -- you know, you didn't have to provide any footprint, just when y ou t urn t he p Ian m y ou s howed t he t urn a round,you k now, t he b ack u p t urn around. I don't know that it needs to be too complicated. Centers: And the footages. 'i , Wardle: I would agree. ;` }~ Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, normally, it wouldn't be a problem, but that's an awfully tight site and I'm just -- I think it would be beneficial for °' ~ you all to know if it was possible on those lots, given the design of the site. I mean he's got 15 feet of frontage to work with, he's got a driveway apron, plus the backup area, plus a house he needs to get on there, so I think a simple layout would be -- ; Centers: Well, I think he's correct, too, the 15 foot is sufficient for a driveway. I mean ~~ there is no doubt about that. Borup: Now, are we looking at a two car -- Powell: Other than that he's got the hammerhead coming at right angles and that tV driveway would have to come at an angle from that, so it would be crossing over the corner of it and it's not shown as a radius curve, it's shown as a -- as a 90 degree curve. =`A~ ~' So, I mean there is -- it's not clear exactly how that would work through there to me, but I think that would be beneficial information for you all to base your decision on. Borup: We are talking two car garages here? Wardle: They are two car garages. Just one point of clarification. They are shown as square. They, actually, will be rounded. ACHD has already commented on that that those need to be round. Square is not -- I don't know how that got through exactly, but that's the way it was submitted. But they will be rounded on the end of each of those hammerheads. as ~~ ~ .,~ ~~;, `: ~s i ~~ ~7' ~r ~ i ~ ~r~ fl~• t 4:,:4 ~.n .,, ~ ~ ~ ~~ e ~ ~ 3~. i~ ~iti~~' ,.,~- -. :, i l~ s i_;i'<'- t :~~:; ~~'~I ~~',e, z,;.C'r, ~.y,.r, r Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 28 of 54 Centers: Well -- and addressing that, Mrs. Powell, I guess, you know, I would ask the applicant to address that and satisfy staff that it can happen prior to a City Council meeting or going forward from here, if that were to happen. I don't need to see it back. You know, I'd like staff to look at it prior to another meeting, I mean, so -- Borup: It's a tight fit, unless you have a short car. Centers: They could put that in the CC and R's that only the buyers of those lots drive Dodge Neons. Wardle: Or M ini C oopers. The next i tem t hat w as o n t here i s i tem C, w hich i s t he Ustick right of way. Staff has made the recommendation that that future right of way, if it's not conveyed at this time, be placed in a common lot for future conveyance. We will do that. And I think the issue of the pressure irrigation has been sufficiently addressed already. Onto number five on page number three of my document. We requested a preliminary plat, site specific condition number five, be modified to read -- eliminating a majority of that -- actually, all of it, just as something to the fact -- and I think this is where you were going -- the lot frontages -- I'm going to just state my statement and, then, we can discuss it. The lot frontages as depicted are approved for the accompanying planned development application and I think we would be willing to submit plans on how that -- those Lots 9 and 10 would function prior to the City Council meeting for staffs review. Item number seven -- and I have looked for this issue, we specifically requested it, but I don't know that it was appropriate for us to request, and this relates to sidewalks -- required sidewalks within the landscape buffer. Historically -- and all the projects I have done in recent terms, all of our sidewalks have been placed within that required landscape buffer, but we have been told that if the sidewalk goes in there, we are required to add an additional five feet to the landscape buffer. I have looked through the zoning ordinance, I have looked through the landscape ordinance, and can't find anything specific requiring that. The fact that the sidewalk goes in the landscape buffer means that the right of way is reduced, therefore, there would, actually, be more space in that ultimate buffer. The right of way of the road would be much less -- required much less than what it would be if the sidewalk was within the right 'of way. So, we are just asking as part of the planned development that the sidewalk -- the five foot sidewalk along Ustick Road be allowed to go within the 25 foot landscape buffer with no additional land for that lot. Just for clarification, we are going to fence both the east and west boundaries with six foot cedar and along the Nine Mile Drain we will do a six foot powder coated chain link fence. There was a question regarding what the fencing types would be. And the same thing on the general comment number five. Onto the Conditional Use Permit, pages 11 through 13. Standard A, we submitted an amendment stating -- or requesting reduced lot frontages and lot sizes. That was submitted to staff in a subsequent letter. Item D we disagree with, given the previous action on the Comp Plan text amendment. Same thing with C and D. The remaining items we don't have any comments on. Special Consideration A I have already addressed. Special Consideration B -- and this is probably where the question of what these homes are looking like. For point of example, when we came in and got Berkeley Square approved, we supplied you with plans that we wanted to use ,, z.~. wu .~ ,~ -, :; r~.,~'vr tiw, f t,`~~ a , ~ ~ ~ a'" ~.~na ,.:u,~ ~~ ~~~ i ~~ .~ 2 3..~: ~ ri ~~~ .4 3~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commi"scion Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 29 of 54 for that project and those plans were accepted, the dimensions were given, and it was understood that we -- you know, as designed they would likely work. When we went to go p ull b uilding p ermits, w e f ound out t hat t hey d id n of c omply with t he I etter. o f t he zoning ordinance requiring 800 square feet on the first floor. So, that's why this issue comes up. I think we can work with the design of the units like we intended to do with Berkeley and we can accomplish that if this issue allowing 500 square feet on the first floor, instead of 800. Borup: I would agree with that. You have got a lot more design flexibility by allowing that. Centers: Did you say that was allowed at Berkeley, the 500? Wardle: The plans were accepted, but when we went to go build them, we were not issued building permits, because they did not meet the zoning ordinance, which required 800 feet. So, we ended up redesigning and reconfiguring those homes to meet the intent of that and that's why we are bringing this issue up at this point. Borup: I don't think we received those plans as -- I had understood it was more of a conceptual plan. Wardle: They were conceptual and they were taken to the Building Department. They were designed, but they just were not allowed. Centers: Yeah. You didn't get the specific approval like you're applying for here. Wardle: That's correct. Centers: So -- okay. Wardle: That's correct. Centers: Before I forget it, Mr. Clark, could you throw up the original map that shows the adjoining property here? There we go. And I guess, you know, it's -- it may not be any of my business and if it's not, tell me, but rather than just this almost six acre piece, was there an attempt to acquire more land to develop? You know, six acres is tough to deal with and I can see why you propose this project. Or was this just a parcel that is available by one or two property owners? ~'a Wardle: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, at the time that we looked at this only that property was available. We have spoken with the neighbor to our west, - Mrs. Wilkins. It's not her plan to do anything at this point, so we are working with what `:~ we have available to us at this point in time. ,,~, .`. , ~,r _,~ v~n~r,l#,t~ a „ 1c,'~~'4'~~ f y i ~~'~ at 1 . a,~w,-F,,., .,~. ~ ,,jj~, H ,~?' R S.i7~lM1 rW_ r l ~~ vim' _-v. ,.M.~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Com~sion Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 30 of 54 Centers: Okay. Yeah. And the reason for that question is I -- well, it's a lot easier to develop the bigger parcel of land and it's tough to deal with 5.93 acres and I can see your reason for the density, I guess,, is my point, in a round about way. Wardle: If I might also address why we -- why we chose the type of product that we want to do here is we have looked at the market, if you look -- if we look just what's to the south of us, a lot of that is R-4. There is a little bit that's R-8 spread throughout, but you look at everything that's coming on line generally all complies with the R-4 zoning, although many of them are getting R-8. The Comp Plan would allow R-8 and in what's the yellow around most of this area, although the areas below it to the south did choose to g o R -4, t hey c ould h ave a sked for R -8. What w e found w ith o ur a xperience w ith Berkeley Square is it meets a Hitch in the market that's currently not being met. Other people are making housing choices that are much farther away and we just have felt very confidence, we had a lot of success with Berkeley Square and that's the reason we - chose this. We weren't just trying to maximize or push them in. We came up with a very efficient program at Berkeley Square and feel like this is a good area to do it as well. It's likely that other things, as they develop around, there may be some that would, you know, go for a little higher density, but I would say overall there aren't many projects that w ould b e s imilar i n n ature t o w hat w e are t tying t o a ccomplish h ere. S o, I j ust wanted to clarify on the record why -- why we went with what we did. Just to summarize and sum up here, on my last page number five, staff asked for clarification on the open space calculations. When the plat changed, those numbers were not provided. They are now here, it's been given to staff, and I believe it's item number four relating to the hardscape elements. We have two picnic areas and also the micropath and picnic areas, one in the front, one in the rear, and which will be heavily landscaped as per the landscape p Ian. Finally, on the recommendation, staff said that t here was a lack of finding. We now believe that there is -- there is the ability to make a finding, given the Comp Plan text amendment, and we request that Stapleton Subdivision be approved for the rezone, for the relimina lat, and conditional use ermits with staffs p rY P P recommendations, findings, and recommended conditions, as well as the modifications we set forth in this document today. I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Does staff have any comments or concerns on Mr. Wardle's reply to the original staff report? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, there is -- do you want us to respond now? Borup: Sure. Hawkins-Clark: The ordinance number on the Ustick Road sidewalk is 12-13-10-2. It's it the street buffer section. That's where it talks about the sidewalks, that the buffer width must exclude the width of the sidewalk. In terms of the -- Borup: Have we been consistent on that on other projects or has there been waiver? ~~~ C~ . ~ ~i ~d~'),rbv s .. ~~ :~~y~ ! ~ ~, v S -~ s~,~. s .-. ~.~ ~;-:~ ',4 ~ . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing September 18, 2003 Page 31 of 54 r T~, :-f`: Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe we have -- no, I don't believe we have received any waivers of that. I would have to -- you know, to check specifically on other projects that have had these detached sidewalks. You know, is it a key issue, I mean from a design standpoint I can see Mr. Wardle's perspective. I mean I think it's just -- the ordinance is ~_ ~ basically saying, you know, in order to accomplish the amount of landscaping from the = street, the five foot sidewalk isn't a part of landscaping and -- Borup: I understand that and that's what the ordinance says and that's what needs to be stated. I just want to make sure we are being consistent. I'm trying to remember the last -- I guess this comes up with most all of them that are on an arterial, but I think the last one I'm thinking of was over on Linder that had a meandering sidewalk through their buffer area. Hawkins-Clark: You know, on some of those, of course, if they put the sidewalk in the ~~' right of way, it's a mute point and, you know, several of those have. I think since the '` ~ highway district has changed their policy and they are -- you know, they are not paying ~~'~ for right of way, we have seen more sidewalks placed in easements on the private property, rather than in ACHD's right of way and, yeah, you're right, I think maybe just the fact that I have called it out here has kind of raised the issue, but it should have `Y~ been addressed. ,; ~..,, r Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: We need to be consistent. 4z~: ~" Wardle: And I guess with the planned development -- and we knew that coming in, that's why we are requesting. I can personally say on the last three projects that I have ~=` processed through the city here, we -- it's never come up. Borup: Have they been outside of the right of way? ~' Wardle: Yes, they have. Within the landscape buffers that are required along the ~~x arterial roads. Borup: So, Berkeley Square has some -- "~ Wardle: Berkeley Square, Heritage Commons, and Paramount when that one gets ;F developed. ~~ Borup: Heritage doesn't have a sidewalk yet. Y^ Wardle: It will. Borup: Okay. ~~ th; y ,~~~' ~~ ~ ~ i, ~: ~ ~~ ~~ ,; { k. .~ ..tom llf~ ' § 7 e ~i yf v I~~, ~d ~ ~ ~. _ „ ly ~'°$; ~I f~. y' ~,} p y p~ ~gyha .Y ~ ~p ~i w`~ rt.~,s: ~ ~ B~~~a`k c ~. y i. r ' ?I , ~ j II i ~Sy~}~ ~Jl ~ - i T ~ ~, n~+ S ~~ c ~, ~ g ~`~s~.~ . ~T.7 .' r z Y i '~ ;fir '.c' 7x7!: (~~` W e. ~ II~- u ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~„ r f.. II~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~ , ~ ~'~ y ~~~.Ci ti~.~ 7 '~ I ~ . - 4+ . y-: r. . 4 - '~ i d ~ 'tf 1 ~~'k~ r `~ ~ ~ ~ ti . ~ ~ ~¢,a ~ l y ~ i ~ ~ ~ -•d '~. Y,,y ' ~ ~ ~ 11' ~ lw li 3 ~~ 1<<~ . f e Fl."ua ~ ~ h' ¢ l ,? ~ ~~'~ R 1 3 ~~(( if ~ N I I A l~ 4' r S I ~ --~` ~ ,F i B ~ ~~ f' u .~.~ ` ~ 1 ~ .w~ r % . . p ~ ~~ n"#~,er~k9' c ~ ~ fl a ,~ te ~ -. E A II1Z a/ P ~ ltd ~ S.^.:~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 32 of 54 Wardle: It's not too far removed. So, just raise that as an issue, because it's never been raised before to me and I don't know -- and it was specifically raised at this point and that's why -- Borup: Well, it sounds like that's something that's been on the books and maybe been overlooked a little bit. Wardle: I believe so. Hawkins-Clark: So, you're the lucky one to have it brought up on this project. Wardle: But to put this in perspective, from center line they would require 48 feet and ~~:~ as you approach that property line you would have back of curb, five foot buffer, five "'' foot sidewalk, and, then, two feet to property. So, if we removed the sidewalk from the -, ~`,1k public right of way and place it with an easement and we put the public right of way at back of sidewalk, we are talking 12 additional feet as enhancement to that landscape -;'~?;~ buffer and, then, the sidewalk would be within 37 feet, instead of 25. Borup: Yeah, there is definitely more buffer area, but that would -- and as Brad said, that would restrict -- could restrict landscaping within that area. But as long as they comply with the landscape ordinance is that a big issue? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the landscape ordinance is where this ordinance -- is where this is at. Borup: Right. But I mean as far as the tree count and that thing. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, yeah, I don't think there is any question they could get the required trees in there. It's the width. Borup: So, you're concerned more with the width? ,~~ Hawkins-Clark: Right. That's what the standard is 25 feet -- on arterial roadways 25 foot. r~~; Borup: So, even though we don't have the width now, once the road was developed there would be more, as Mr. Wardle just stated. You would have that extra that would `E be added to that -- essentially, to that land -- I mean even though it's not owned by the -- ~_~ in this case it would be the homeowners association, but the property is still there. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I'm not following. Borup: Well, the distance from back of curb to the nearest lot line -- I don't know if I followed your numbers. You said an additional 12 feet. Wardle: It would. So, if we just look from centerline, there is an existing 50 feet there. r~.~ ty ta. may, Y,:~' ~~~ ~, _ ~ . Y ~.,~ ' x '~~ ~ ~ ~~ +~' ~ _ ~ ~ ~ 4 1.`: ~~ ~.P C~ ,~ r s' c ,-, rr k~`' .~~'r` "~` c 7 ~~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ } ^i K 'Sf N Y'~ }?T k j ~ ` \ .~ y =;,~ :, t;A :~~ y', =' =~ ~5 ~,;y'; '... ~. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 33 of 54 Borup: Yeah. Wardle: Okay. So, the standard would be -- Borup: You're talking a 96 foot road? Wardle: Ninety-six foot road -- 96 foot right of way. So, if we go from centerline, you would have six feet of -- for the middle lane, 12, 12, you would have another 5.5 feet for the safety shoulder, bike lane, whatever you want to call it. You have half a foot for the curb and that would p ut us at 3 6 f eet. So, we have an additional 12 f eet now that would, in essence, not need to be dedicated. So, from that point to our property line, since we are already showing 25, there would be 37 feet, in essence, for you to place that five foot sidewalk, which more than meets the requirement. Centers: But you're talking undedicated land. Wardle: At this point. Centers: And unowned land by the applicant. You're talking shoulder -- road shoulder, let's call it, that no one is going to maintain and not the homeowners of this association. Borup: Well -- and that's a good question. And who maintains the land, the property from the back of curb to the subdivision? Wardle: As done in most projects, most developers just landscape right up to the sidewalk. There is no differentiation -- Borup: Right. Wardle: -- and so that's just part of -- Borup: But this road's going to go in however many years down the road, so who is going to maintain it, then? The landscaping won't be in at that point, will it, or are you -- Wardle: Well, the 25 feet for sure would be in. Borup: Right. Wardle: And I guess the question is how much more would be need to go. Centers: Right. Well, I see where you're coming from, Mr. Wardle, but, you know, he showed you the ordinance and it's 25 feet, plus a five foot sidewalk is what they want. You're saying there is extra land for a period time and, as Chairman Borup said, and as you're -- you were going to say, generally, the homeowners association landscapes that, even though they are going to lose it, which was the case along Overland Road _ !• ;r~~ F Y ~x `e>Y ~ _ C t P ~ " ° lsl ~ r' ' ~ ~ I ~ Y; ~_ k ~ y ~ r'S • J 1 ifi 9- ~.- ~I ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ `_ I ~ . F , S ~ F. v <f f ~ ~~ ~ . t•: sf a t e v;~r,~u'~.l;t. g, ti ~ i~ ~} ~ 3 4k >4 -. i. i~ 2 r,, ~~ ~0 u:: 'wk~'- ~ _ ~ 44 ~ ~~~x~ ~' ~ ~.: (.~ ~'~ LY.~.. +1~ 1.~ ~~ 9 '' ~ ' y j. { Fn ~ - ~`''y~i .. ~~ ~~ ~ a, ~ r a ~ ~ ~~.~o*.D~€. c•> ti .~r , 1~ ~ i ~ 'r ~ ~ If ~~ 5j ~I I ~~Y k a ~Y: ~fa~.,rr .~; '' k` .° ' w~. ~ s~ 3k 4t -ratal.- ~ ' _ , ~ ~ fk ~'_ytp}fc F ~ # r . , i fir.. d ~'~ r~~ .~ . ~~ ~ ~~~ ~v Y r:.. 1~ Fh'$~-~Lry ,~ i y-.',~ ~~ , ~ ` Meridian Planning and Zoning Common Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 34 of 54 n I~ just recently. They did it to sell the homes, but there is no guarantee that this development will landscape that road shoulder for the beautification and we can't require him to, because he doesn't own it. Wardle: Well, he does -- Centers: Did I miss a point or did I hit it pretty much on the head there? Wardle: I just -- I think you're on point. I just want to clarify that he will own that common lot -- that lot up until the point the highway district chooses to purchase it for the road. Centers: Right. And of that we want him to do 30 feet, five feet for sidewalk and 25 for landscape. And, you know, I think we are beating a dead horse, in my opinion. Borup: Well -- and that's what I was, I guess, not -- I had forgotten that the f uture dedication is in a separate lot. Wardle: Correct. Borup: So, they do own it at this point. But it wouldn't be any different than any other subdivision that's -- where t hey run the landscaping o ut to the shoulder. Is that the intention? Wardle: It is. I think Mr. Centers is correct, I mean it is our intent to be able to sell these. Borup: Yeah. Wardle: And we are going to do a nice job on the landscaping out there on that buffer. Borup: Well, given all that, Brad, are there -- what's -- what's the options without ignoring the ordinance? I mean we don't want to -- we don't want to just ignore the ordinance, it's not -- apparently, it's been overlooked for the last year. Hawkins-Clark: I mean we are not sure of that, I guess, is the point. I mean it sounds like o n H eritage m aybe t hat's t he c ase, b ut I m can H eritage, too, L ocust G rove i sn't going to a future 96, it's staying at the current 50. Borup: It is? Hawkins-Clark: It's, ultimately, just a three lane, Locust Grove is, from Ustick to Chinden. That's not planned to be a 96 foot right of way. Borup: Okay. k~ „~ rww ..,.: Y. "`' .~~ t4~ n -~ ~.x 3 , y~~.~ ~ ~ z~w,w ~ ~.M 1' s~ "4~~t ;~f a ~ ;' .~. ;`' ~5~nr~,t~g~„o . T "- ies t... ~."''~ t' '« f~~74'` «~~` r ~ ~ ~ ak ~ IJ ~~?~` yF w 't t a i ~i°"~j r?AM"~i r'i 4~'.('; • ~~''! • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 ~'„ ~ Page 35 of 54 ::. Hawkins-Clark: So, they are using the existing 50 and asking that the sidewalks be on private property. They are putting three travel lanes and 50. Does that make sense? ..~,. i Borup: And 36 -- Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Forty-six. ~~' Hawkins-Clark: With your utility easements. ~~~i` Boru Fort seven and a foot and a half. .~~ p~ Y- t `' Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. So, I mean, I guess -- really, I think the only option here is to -- ~._: ; you know, to ask as part of the planned development -- you know, they can ask for a reduction in the buffer width. You know, I think our -- the ordinance says at ultimate {~ build-out 25 feet of landscaping beyond the right of way. Is it going to look ice in between when it's -- now and when it's built out? W e have no doubt that they will probably do a good job, but, you know, we got to think about, ultimately, this being a five ~~: lane road and how much landscaping beyond the future ultimate right of way -- ultimate - road section and, you know, that's -- Borup: And if the landscaping goes to the new -- the future curb and gutter, then, it more than is adequate to comply, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: To the future -- right. To the future -- Borup: The future -- Hawkins-Clark: -- right of way. Yes. Not -- because, yeah, they are not required to dedicate that until, as they have said, the highway district chooses to come in the future. They are going to preserve it in their own common lot, but -- so, yeah, I think it's either comply or amend t he planned development and, then, yeah, I guess on that issue I think those are the two choices that I can think of. Borup: Okay. Does staff h ave a big c oncern a ither w ay? I m can t he i ntent o f t he ordinance is to have -- is to have it look nice. Hawkins-Clark: Right. And to have somewhat of a consistency along our entry roads and main arterials as the city builds out. Borup: This doesn't seem to -- Hawkins-Clark: Five feet of difference, a traveler, probably, is not going to notice a big difference, but -- the other point, I guess, that Anna just noted is the question of the ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ec ~.~= 7 s a ... ~ ~~s ~ ; ~~~ ~` t_ ,. ~ ~ -.r .~~ ~~i I ; i S '`,,~,~ ~ ~ ~'^?i~ ~s'~. ~ ~ ~~~., Y I I a~ ~ ~~+~~~ 1i~ ~ ~.~,~; ~~.-,:-. I1 ~ L `.bi~r~t~ ~i r ~,', '~'~ -~~~ ~ • ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ` September 18, 2003 Page 36 of 54 existing house. A sidewalk along Ustick Road, is that going to extend in front of that existing house and cut off their driveway? Wardle: The sidewalk would extend and at the point that the driveway comes out, it would be, in essence, a curb cut. Hawkins-Clark: Just a curb cut. Wardle: A curb cut. And, then, it would extend across the front and back. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Wardle: If I might ask a point of clarification. Are we required to do a detached sidewalk? Is that -- is that an ordinance requirement or is that just a -- is that a preference? Hawkins-Clark: That's also ordinance. Wardle: Okay. Centers: And I have question, too. If you're familiar with Overland Road and my subdivision out there, Sportsman Point, where we ended up, we don't have 30 feet, do we? After dedication of the, you know, improvement of the streets and the curbs, we don't have 30 feet from the curb -- Borup: That would have been under the old ordinance, though. Centers: -- to the back neighbor's fence. Borup: That would have been under the old ordinance. Centers: So, I can see the rationale with this ordinance. If and when down the road -- when Ibought in '94, ten years ago, you know, I thought we had a lot of buffer there. Didn't think about Overland Road being widened to five lanes. Bingo. You know. So, I -> think that's what the ordinance is looking at. Did I hit it? `>r Wardle: Yes. Centers: I'm glad I hit one of them. Borup: But this one covers that. They have got it. Centers: As long as you end up with 30 -- you're going to end up with 30 feet, including the five foot sidewalk. -~ ~: ~, ire `;r t ~t,... ;.~. a ,w -~ ` ` ~`~ qtr ~ ~ 1~~`~ s ,;-e~;~,r ~ r ' ~ ~ ~~ ~:` Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 37 of 54 Borup: Well, they will end up -- I still didn't catch the numbers, but -- 37, either that or -- or at the very least you have got the sidewalk that's not going to be there. Centers: Well, then, what are we talking about? He's going to comply. Wardle: Eventually, we will comply. I mean but it's -- today -- Borup: But not right now. Wardle: If the sidewalk is detached and meanders and we are requesting to go within the 25 foot landscape buffer, which means the eventual curb -- back of curb will still be 12 feet away from that common lot. Eventually, that whole buffer will be 37 feet, so we comply, but, specifically, the way that the ordinance is written that has just been shown to me, they are saying that we would need to provide 30 today and we are requesting that we be allowed to provide 25 feet ,five feet of sidewalk inside that 25 feet. Borup: The difference here between this and your subdivision is when the street goes in the buffer is going to increase. In your case it decreases. `I~i Centers: Yeah. I don't follow that. ~~~~~' Borup: Well, because the curb and gutter is going to be 12 feet from that common lot. ~~;`"~ Apparently, when Overland was widened it -- well, I don't know. I don't know. It was either a smaller setback or they took some of it, one or the other. Centers: Yeah. Borup: I don't know --okay. I don't know if we -- Wardle: Thank you. Borup: -- needed to spend that much time on this. Centers: Yeah. Right. Right. Wardle: Sorry. Borup: But I think we started with asking staff if they had any concerns. You mentioned that one and we have probably beat it to death, but were there some others? Hawkins-Clark: I think the only other point was on the frontages, just to clarify that the -- you know, if -- the R-8 requires 65 feet of frontage for a standard R-8 lot. You can reduce that to 30 feet if you do a flag lot. Again, I'm referring to these two Lots 9 and 10 that are on the west boundary -- on the east boundary. They are not flag lots and you can also reduce it to 15 if you have a common driveway, but there is no common driveway. So, we are kind of back to the 65 and I guess our point is more focusing on .t~r:l~ib CSh~.~. 1 ~ j # y ~ Y"',~' 1 f 6i~ r .!~ 'K:.. f.Z i~°~='~ .;fit ~~ E '' IT `~t r'P-''rF ~~f y,. rFfill9 I t 4. i~ ~ s ~ t4 rr i ~ ~ gM~~ x it ' 4 v,#+ ~ ry ~~ T., .s r.., ~ J Y ~~~`~ l y!@ # ,n T'r ~ 4i~~'~1Y ~At ru, ., ri .[ r , k t• S _ F k ~, w }. t z y. .. ~ '. L ?, 5 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 38 of 54 .~~ the legal frontage than it is the access into it and how the design -- I mean that's important, but -- Borup: So, you're saying that's not in compliance with the ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: Is the -- yeah. I guess to point out that it's just a significant reduction from 65 to 15. Borup: Fifteen. Hawkins-Clark: Which is pretty unusual for -- you know, certainly, we have seen it go in half and the rest of their subdivision averages 40. So, from 65 to 40. Borup: So, that aspect of it is more of a technicality on complying with the ordinance, then? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: You're speaking of Lots 9 and 10? Hawkins-Clark: Lots 8 and 10. Right. Centers: But if there were a common drive, then -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. ~. Centers: -- then, you're okay. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. I think -- Wardle: And I offered that as a solution, to do a common drive for those two. Borup: It sounds like that may be the solution to comply with the ordinance. Wardle: Okay. That's what we will do, then. AL Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to -- I didn't know --didn't hear a conclusion `:~ on that point. ,, ~~ ~_4 Borup: No. We were saying that or a turn around, but -- ~r; . Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: -- the turn around wouldn't clarify the -- _; , { (,'jl~, Hawkins-Clark: Clarify the frontage issue. ~ ~ s " ~'~ ~`~ 4=~ ~~F { ,~.~ ~ `` C t ~ A~'~l~se "w f ~ r ;.;. ~ i st~titia~'S'4i`r ~;F~-~ E l ~:, ~ ~~~-.::., ~ t 1.~T~ 'A~i i ~ ~ 4 { ~ ~''~`~'~ 1 i ~ ~~ ~j, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ SS3~~S i~j.-~ 3'~~tl 3 ~~<< ~ ~ {X Meridian Planning and Zoning Comrr~Tssion Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 39 of 54 Borup: The -- okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Borup: That was it, just those two, then? Okay. Does that make sense, Mr. Wardle, just the two -- Wardle: You bet. Borup: -- just the two items that staff felt there was any conflict with -- and they were both ordinance conflicts, not necessarily -- Wardle: Just -- I understand those and just to restate with the planned development ', , there is some flexibility that can be granted, but we will -- Borup: Atwo-thirds reduction is probably -- Wardle: I think with the common drive we can address that and meet actually the way the ordinance is written, so -- Centers: It's kind of an irrelevant question, because of the attendance here, but did you have a neighborhood meeting? Wardle: We did. We sent out a notice, we held the neighborhood meeting in June, and Mr. Crane and Ms. Leighton attended that, as well as Mrs. Wilkins, who is our neighbor to the west. The Johnsons, the neighbor -- their neighbor also attended. We noticed -- Centers: Who did you send letters to? The same people that the city sent letters to? I have that list in front of me, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: We used the list that was given to us by the city. Centers: Right. Okay. Wardle: We noticed the homeowners associations to the south. There were two, actually, and all those neighbors that were on that list. Centers: Okay. And you had how many show up? Wardle: I think we had six, maybe seven. Centers: What did your letter say in just -- you don't have to read it, just briefly. Wardle: It said we are going to have a neighborhood meeting, included -- I' ~ ,r 3. ,~,.~- ~,--~s, ..r~ ~~~ ,- J ~>. r_ a s x.R?~F~ 'mod .i~ia~4' _... ~;~~~~ t ~ r ~~~,~ 'rs ii ~!~trn ~ a~ f , ~ '~~~ .c'~~s.,r~ ' ~~ ~~ !~ t ~ ~- ,swsrr}~ ~, e Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 40 of 54 Centers: Talk about a development to the north of you on such and such property? Wardle: Actually, it included a copy of the plat on it as well. The proposed plat. Centers: The density? Wardle: Uh-huh. And I think said we that were requesting a Comp Plan text amendment and the Conditional Use Permit, the Preliminary Plat, and Rezone. Centers: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Wardle: And I only had one letter come back to me and that was the one I addressed to myself. I always do that, just to make sure that I get it as well, so no letters were returned as non-deliverable. Borup: Never heard of that approach. Centers: That's good. Wardle: Right there. Centers: You addressed it to yourself? Wardle: Yes, I did. So -- it's just my way to make sure that I know at least somebody got it and I got it and I attended, so -- Centers: Very good. Borup: Okay. Any -- like to open now for any public comments. I assume Mr. Crane? Crane: My name is Charles Crane. I live at 3600 West Ustick Road. The density is one thing I'd like to address. Keeping in mind that this is just six acres, it's the same ratio of having 39 houses on six acres, if I had come before you with that original request for my two acres to have 12 houses on it, what would you think, too dense for two acres having 12 houses on it? You know, this is the same ratio that they are talking about. If this property was on ten or 15 acres, this density would fit in with the neighborhood and make some sense, but being this tight and pushing back all the setbacks and the f loor sizes, the lot sizes, square f ootage sizes, to m ake this many houses fit on this small of a property, that's a problem, and Ineed -- I live next to this problem, I have just built my house, I plan on being there for a few years. This intense bothers me and along the east edge here every 40 feet there is another house. House. House. House. House. House. House. House. House. I have got nine houses all of a sudden looking into my backyard and these aren't little two story houses. Borup: I thought your property was to the east of -- E F ~ ,~ ,.~.:..< w it ~f {l~.{}TX~.H' ?Y ~ ; q W r+1 I ~ i ~. c'. Af~~1~ y 't 1 ~ j#1~~~~' c~~w ~ ~Q'"~ ~. r ,~ i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 41 of 54 Crane: That direction. So, there is like a hundred foot strip with the existing house and I'm -- Borup: Right. Crane: -- the other triangle. Borup: You're the triangle. Crane: Right. Borup: So, they are looking across a hundred feet into your backyard. Crane: Right. Borup: Okay. Crane: And if we could go three dimensional -- just two dimensional that you have -- Borup: Well, I mean you just made a statement they are looking in your backyard and there was a lot between yours and them. Crane: There is, but it's just an open lot, an open area. So, this is -- I was standing on my property on this top left and looking over into this subdivision. The wood fence there is Rhonda's fence border, that's the edge of Stapleton right there. They have brought ~~ dirt in already to start bringing up the slope, because they need to slope towards Ustick Road, instead of the back. So, I'm looking at this big mountain where I don't see the sunset anymore and on top of that mountain they are going to build two story houses. So, these people are going to be on this giant mountain, nine of them staring into my backyard. Borup: Well, you're making the assumption the homes are going to be on top of that ' pile of dirt? Crane: That's -- for the sewer to flow towards Ustick Road and that hill is going to get bigger as it goes back towards the back. I would, actually, be very interested in knowing how high that hill is going to be. Centers: I'm sure the applicant can hardly wait to address that. Crane: I would really like to know, because at the moment, you know, you can see the `' other neighbor's house over there and the hill is bigger than the house. So, that's my main concern is that many houses being -- and they are going to be not that far away, they are going to be up where that wood fence is, because of the setbacks being crunched down smaller and smaller. Do you have a couple more of those pictures? And this is from the other neighbor on the west side where they are building up the hill, 9 ' ~,'~~ } ~ 4d~f ~ Sky. F?[t,n d ~i ~ ti ~ v ~l 'i 3 - :~ ~ . .~. y ; ~ ~ ~ ,. g ,~ . 9 ~~ I ~ ~ ~~ i ~ r- ~ ~: R x, {fir ~' v. a " `~ ` i + _ ' lt ~ti; r E ~ ~ r. '.. ~f+v. ~ ~'. h r f J({ T ~4 t Il C» a f 1 - ~~ 4 `' j ~ d Jl Y . ~ ±~ !! ~n ~ 1 ~ w ,(,' # p r, S A "`I~ ~_ x ~f rsa dva 'tYP. r~.~ '-l Itj A ~P ' m ; ~ K- ~' ' ~.4: . .V~' i:... : ' . { h~ t Chi t~~~T Ylf tw _ ' " " i< ? w~ s ~ , ~ 6 ~ ~ r7 ~ a'io-.~ t;w ~. '~ r $ ~~ arm` 7+' ~' .lirY j a i "^~~ - ! ~ 1 u~ + ~ ., k ~~ r~ ~ ~, .~ at ~ ~ ;: ~ t„ , ~ ~ R~ ~ -..,v. r y*N Kr .. z c 'G. 1, ~ ;.~ '.. ~ ~~~E~ "b a a~ .a r ~ ~ pjpj r a ~ t'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~i i.~,7~ x: u:~ Ab'pb'+ R~ _ ~ - j4 4 1 ~ I ~ti~'~sY w ~~ _. Y a~' a y, ~ p t~ 5 ~ xu. ~~` r. ~~~ ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 _, ._ , _ Page 42 of 54 i~ just in reference back behind the hill are those big trees back by the sewer treatment ;, plant and they are almost as big as those trees and -- more pictures there? Hawkins-Clark: Charles, are these the ones on the CD? 1' ~.f ~ !~~ Crane: Yeah. On the CD. PEA °: ~,~ Hawkins-Clark: Okay. It will just be a second. =~_-~ Crane: And a couple of these pictures on the CD are the -- the other subdivision that f they were talking about previously and what those houses look like. I had a couple of •~` thoughts on their design. As it sits, they have got nine houses up against the border "; with our property. If they rotated those houses, they could still get nine lots in there, but ~' there would only be three up against the border and because of the height of the _: houses maybe we could limit the second story not having any windows facing east and ~~~'~ still get the light in on the first floor, but on the second floor not having east facing windows. Some of the -- ': Centers: Let me backup. The property line to your property line is a hundred feet? Crane: It's about a hundred, 104, something like that. Centers: Hundred and four. Okay. Crane: Just another picture of the hill that they are building. Go ahead and go to the next picture if you can. I wasn't sure if that first one would be available. Next picture. This is our own little family slide show here. Oh, Berkeley, that's what it's called. That's the houses at Berkeley Square, which, I guess, would be 800 square foot floor and they are talking trying to get that smaller, 500 from what I heard at the meeting. But there is - very small space -- there is only like five feet between the houses. But I drove around the side and I noticed that some of the side houses they don't have windows on it to the °; :~' next subdivision, but that would be right up to that border, but they wouldn't be at that _.~ level, they would be built up on top of that dirt pile to get the sewer flow towards Ustick Road. So, we have got the dirt level, first story, second story, and even though I'm a hundred feet away, you're going to have all those houses lined up five or ten feet apart from each other. And this is the -- Berkeley from the side. If they rotated the houses ~~` sideways and didn't have windows on the sides, then, we would only be faced with three houses and no, you know, real high vantage point to be looking down in the yard. This F is w hat it w ould be now w ith nine houses stacked up right next t o our property. Be house after house after house. Borup: You're saying this is the rear of these homes? Crane: In this one it's -- I guess this would be the rear of the home. So, the garages would be on the other side. This is at the school behind Berkeley. This is on the backside. I think this would be the -- what we would be looking at. Then, the last E t ~ >~~ ~, ~.~ :, ~ ~i~ ~d2T~.~~ zKr,;: ,,~ ~l~s~~ h Nzg. t ~s z =g i~ r~. ~ is 7 ~ar*;~1 C~;~~ t~=: n~.45'= .yy~~ _ f T #`~ S f ~~~Y~y~ #-b ~yiJ Fes" 2 +,da 1 3~i ~?`i~'tm~a' i7i d ~7E;7 ,~ r~• .t _ ~ k . _ ~ x~ G , ~ 7~ ~: ~` ~,' t~' ~ r k .~~. R _ R' :4 4~F~.... ~, T~ ~_~, ' '~ . ~~ ~: 4 : G . :~. Z ~.:- k, _ ~^,!4~ ''` ~, " ` ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting "~'$~'~~, September 18, 2003 ~~,'' Page 43 of 54 picture. And one of the reasons I live out where I do, instead of a subdivision, is I got tired of looking out my window during breakfast to see what the neighbor was eating for their breakfast and I wanted some space, I wanted to be out a little bit, and that's why I live out here. And, in fact, the neighbor and I just put up that vinyl fence, just so we would have some privacy, so when we are out in our back porch we don't have to, you know, bother each other and we just spent 1,000 dollars on that vinyl fence for some privacy. But with the sides of those houses and on top of that berm, they are going to be looking right over that six foot fence. And I did attend that -- Borup: So, don't they have to also look over your neighbor's home to see your home? Crane: At the very front, but our backyard -- the front yard faces Ustick, so we don't go out there very much, because of the road noise and being out in public. So, my private life is in the backyard. The backyard is where we spend our time, we have our barbecues, and that's what would be exposed. Because the original two dimensional plans, it doesn't really show how high these houses are going to be and that's my concern, that they are not doing the setbacks, not doing the restrictions on lot sizes, and they are just putting so much in this little six acres that those would be some of the things I'd like you to consider and work with the developer on and see if he could fit in with the neighborhood a little bit better to protect our privacy and our property values. Borup: Anything else? Crane: That was -- that was it, I think. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Leighton: My name is Rhonda Leighton. My address is 3610 West Ustick Road, Meridian. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I -- my feelings are pretty much just like Charles'. I don't have an opposition per se to the residential itself as we discussed in the last meeting in regards to changing the Comprehensive Plan text. I also think that in RZ 03-009, the request to go to R-8 probably is a doable thing. That kind of encompasses them all the way through that they could probably push five or six into some land deals. When we have gone to the neighborhood meeting, we discussed that, I asked him why so dense, why two story, you know, facing the back of my house, why do I have all these windows that are going to look down onto the property. My property is 600 feet -- oh, maybe that's too long. I don't know how long it is. It goes back all the length of the side of that property. Their east side is my whole property line on my west side. So, there is one common lot, nine lots, all the way through and Charles showed you the pictures of the back of those houses that look down on there. It will be intrusive, there is just no escape to that. So, during the neighborhood meeting I said why, why do we have to go this way, why can't we just go a normal -- normal homes. They said Meridian needs 120,000 dollar homes. That's what these homes are going to sell for. And they may be 116, they may be 123, they may be in there. So, I i ~~ ~ ,,~: =r.> 4 N l y~[~} f 'h E .} > Y5 ~:~" 'i 13 ~ y.l'~~ ~ ~~ x~~ ~` ~ a ~ ~~F2a f.~ i ~ ~ r~~~ 3 a9~'~" t ~ ~ yt ! ~ K'.7 ~ c r .~c *w~¢. ~ ~ ~. - Sf7~~`A ~ r F ~ !a k~,'~. n+dc% 1~.i~v~' ~ ~ ~' ' CL. 3 '~ ~ ~ u~ +~ ~1 ~ ~ - !_ _ i -Y fr _s:: r~ ` _ . alr _. yE yt L' ~ I FX~ xfi I '~ f~ ti 9~+~ ` i ,~r ~, t, v yy e ~ 'r h ` yn ~ ~ ~ , ;, Y~ i ~ ~m~b ~ ~n`Ati". ' ti 6 ~ r '~ ~s~r. ~ ' t t ~ y ~~ ~~ ~ °r / { C YT a : Z . I r5 .~f G1 ~ .. (~%~ .. ,, s Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting :.1:~-.~; September 18, 2003 ;~'~,',~ Page 44 of 54 went shopping and I went to Hartford Estates. It's on the corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. It from the northeast corner and it's a Hubble Homes. I can buy today, tomorrow, a house that has a main level finished, 1,454 square feet, it is three bedroom, two bath, and has an additional family room with an attached two car garage. It sits on a lot that is 9 0 b y 1 15 a nd t hat h ouse s ells t oday f or 1 19,965. I g et t o c hoose t he c olors, e t cetera, et cetera. So, I think that marketability could be done in a less dense situation. Borup: Do you have any idea what they paid for that land? Leighton: What they paid for that land? Borup: Uh-huh. Leighton: No. Borup: Okay. I don't either. Leighton: Actually, I heard, but that's not my -- Borup: But Hartford paid about 20 an acre. That I was aware of. Leighton: Yeah. Well, we are talking marketability. I mean they are talking development. The way it looks to me at the bottom line is pocket money now. We are talking about cramming a whole bunch of these in together so that we can 39 of them -- 38 sold, since there is an additional one to go in there. At that same meeting I said I want out, this is not what I bought this house for. This is not where I want my horses. I do not want nine homes on the back of my property. Buy me out, buy out my back half, or stub me a road, so that I can do something and get horses out of there and do something different. What am I going to do with a piece that is 115 wide at the front, narrows down to 104 down in the middle and goes all the way back that distance? I get stuck into a situation where I have horse property and nine houses that are dumping onto my land and I mean watching over, looking into -- I even have trees, which is kind of a nice thing, but there is no privacy that way. They take away my sunsets, the take away my privacy, and they have all this up against horse property? And now I have no options. Mrs. Wilkins' land to the west has gone sky high. She's sitting on a gold mine, as far as I can see. She has a stubbed road into her property, she probably has developers knocking on her door. Jon Wardle admitted today that they have already been knocking on their door. I'm standing with a hand out saying buy me out, I'll shut, I'll leave, this is not why I bought this property. I will go out elsewhere, I will move away, I d on't w ant t o s ee t hat. Then, t hey t ell m e t hat t he a xcuse i s t hey h ave t o h ave a market for 120,000. Did they sell Berkeley Square? Yes, they did. And did they sell it in eight months? That's what I heard. So, I'm sure there is some marketability out there and I'm sure that they can get something sold, but if Hubble can take and put this Clearwater at 1,454 square feet on a lot size that's over 10,000 square feet and sell it for 119,965, why can't have we have some sort of compromise with this? Why can't we have something that will push us to single level up against the property line, that will ~ r '?t~ k7k, .....t~ ~~L ~ '~'~ N" y 1 3 7 ir/,~,~ry~.pfi~~1 x, s: h a < w r .;r.4 ~ 71~ 3"'% r+'. i { l~i.r.~!14 1 1 I 'hYYf 7'i~')t'rl IJt. ~ C ~ FOC N ~ 'u~.J~ ~:.~^ ~'~ ft 71z. '~V~ -~ S~ fi+tn 3 _,r E ~' r ;' h'i'f~ H ~ 1 ~ C _~ ~f+ ~y. ,~rti ~ M .. c. . ~~.....~i- ,.. ~13A ~~ '~ifi-4 ~~ '~ ~ ~~ ~~, xi , .e€ r*-. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 45 of 54 push us to a little bit less density, push us to maybe a five lot, maybe a six lot, maybe something with a little more elbow room. I walk across the street at Dakota Ridge all the time and I know what they are, they are spread out a little more and such. This complex, this Berkeley Square ditto is not the same type thing. It's not in keeping with the area. The two story complex is right, it is very intrusive. So, I would ask for your denial as far as the density of this. It goes to show in the CUP 03-034, that they have to have all sorts of reductions, they have to have minimum size lots, size of homes, the minimum square footage, the this, the that, the setbacks, the this and that, and I mean whatever else are they going to ask for? So, it seems to me that they are asking for an R-8, which is a general blanket and, then, they are wanting to push the limits further and further and further. I think I said my peace. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Do you have any final comments, Mr. Wardle? Wardle: Thank you. For the record, Jon Wardle, 4940 East Mill Station Drive. I guess if we are going to show pictures, we might as well -- Centers: Give them a copy, too, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just sitting on our property -- the one that says property to the east -- we didn't want to show the mature trees there. With a six foot fence and where the trees are, there will be homes there, but she has some nice mature trees, we are not going to discount that at all. If you look at Mr. Crane's property -- I haven't been out there this week, I just got back -- I just got into town today, I haven't driven passed the property, so I w as n of a ware t hat h e p ut u p a v inyl fence, b ut i f y ou I ook a t h is p roperty, t he bottom picture there with his vinyl fence and with the fencing that we would be putting in and with the trees where they are, I am not sure that there would be many people looking into his backyard. Borup: How long ago were these pictures taken? Wardle: These pictures were taken in early August. Borup: Okay. Was this home occupied at that time? Wardle: Which one? Borup: The new one here. Wardle: Mr. Crane's? Borup: Yeah. ,,.u ., _. :. .'t _ ! ~y~ C L ,;'f E i,~, r r~2 w~ ~ s A ~51~«C'i :~ is ~. r. C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~K ~ ., ~ ~~~~ ~ , t # ~ ~ ~ n ~"~ ,+vN K ;. ~,~ f ~r. eF { 4 ~ r ~ 4 a~ S ~~~ ~ ~'~S~ !F ~i I;y !~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 46 of 54 Wardle: It was. I think he's probably been in his home maybe a year. Borup: I didn't see a garage. I'm not sure how he got an occupancy permit. Wardle: I don't believe there is a garage. Centers: So, is the other property with the vehicles sitting in front the Crane property pictured, Mr. Wardle, the one at the top left? Wardle: Uh-huh. Centers: There is a vehicle. Is that the adjoining property? Wardle: No. That's Mr. Crane's property. If you look -- Centers: Where is that? Wardle: Pardon? If you look at the property to the east on this upper left picture, you can see that same van just in the corner there and, then, you can see Mrs. Leighton's property where her car comes in on the front. It's kind of tucked back behind that power pole. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: I want to address the issue of that dirt. Centers: Yes. Borup: We are interested in that, too. Wardle: We recently -- I mean we are aware of the issues of the grade of the sewer. We recently came in contact with somebody who had excess dirt near by, needed a place to go, we volunteered. If you look at the grade at the front of the property, that property is not going to be any higher than that. It's going to be tapered towards the back and it's just for cover in terms of sewer and those type of things. It will be level, it will not be any higher than where the property is at the front of the -- up at Ustick Road. Borup: So, presently, the property slopes to the back? Wardle: It does. It slopes to the north. Borup: Right. Wardle: Towards the Nine Mile. i 2 7cw e +~yY~tr ~r~ ~. ~~~ `Y':`y . ~ -r..la}.Hru'r......... ":t 't I~ :~ ~ ~~k ~ f l 5 ...+1 ~ ;.~ 7'de = .. ~ .~ f ~: A ~~ f { Y~ ~~ ~~"~ p t~y~ Lf ~!'+~ c 1'Y f I~}~ ~ewt_~'lW N..n i :~ ka L ~~ `~?l~ v:` h ,r. ' ` i ~ .g-~ } ~ ~;;. , O r r a w ic:' 4, , _ ,:..... _,.. ~' • ,.~: `~._' it ~'~'~i: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 ,' Page 47 of 54 -'; Centers: So, it would be very similar to the Crane landscape? T ~~ ~:-~ Wardle: Correct. ~`~°j Centers: And the mounds of dirt, that belongs to other parties? You weren't bringing it ~' on in anticipation of development? I mean I couldn't imagine you doing that. ~:' °'- Wardle: Yes, we were. The opportunity was available. I mean we always run the risk :,: ~' '` ~ of if the project's not approved, then, we are -- "~ Borup: You have got a lot of dirt. ~~ Centers: Yeah. It was dirt that was kind of available to you, so you just took it? ,_'~ .'_'~ Wardle: Yes, it was, so we took advantage of that opportunity. Let's just put this in '~~_`` perspective. If the rezone is not approved and we go back to the underlying zone, it's C-N. We would be allowed to put a commercial building 35 feet tall, 25 feet from that :~ ~~~ property line. These would be two story homes in comparison to that. I guess, technically, we could get up to a three story home, as long as we met the 35 foot. I ~='`~ ~ think everybody has opinions about ways the property should be developed and K~., ,. designed. We have always taken the longer view of what's available in the marketplace _ and Idon't -- I guess I don't discount the fact that maybe Hubble is trying to sell those ~` for 119,000. We have done our research as well and we are comfortable with what we have designed. >`~~ Centers: Well, the way I look at that comment is this is a capitalistic society and I'm happy to live in that kind of a society and I'm not going to sit up here and dictate what ~a°" anyone can make on their property and if they can make more than the next guy, then, ~~ more power to them and I'm not interested in knowing what they make, so, anyway. Borup: So, the way I read this topographic, it looks like you got five or six feet from the front to the back -- to the north. It really does slope off, doesn't it? Wardle: We figured in back there would probably be about three and a half to four feet of fill. Borup: Towards the back. So, it will still be lower than the front, then? Wardle: It -- very well likely, yes. Borup: Unless you're cutting the front down or if these numbers are wrong, it will still be a little lower, it looks like. Okay. Was there any other issues you wanted to address? Wardle: I do not. Just stand for your approval of this project. Appreciate your time. Thank you. s ,.. i~ ~fi~~ ~` 1 ~ .-ipi.. ~ ti.L -,.....~:.:,j a ra~,"~et'~'-' t f ~ ~~ ~ 1 d.1~ lf'd ~=. 5 4 1..: . 7 t4.u ~I,t t ~lx ~y,T r ~. t i a. ~ ~ {~ ~ ~ _• k ~3s ~a~' i ~ ,~ +, c• t~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~' frs£t~t~' ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 48 of 54 ';• Borup: Does staff have any additional comments? ..7.1 '~~' 7 ~~~ ,. ',: .: ;~~1 Hawkins-Clark: Just a couple of things, Commissioners, should you choose to move ahead on this. I did want to just note for the record that Ruth Wilkins did submit a letter dated September 15th that was into the record generally supporting the project. I just wanted to note that. Centers: You know, I didn't see that. Supporting the project? Hawkins-Clark: It's just a three liner. Would you like me to read it? Centers: No. That's okay. It's supporting the project and it's on the record there? Borup: This is the neighbor to the west? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. S he s ay's I'm n of o pposed t o t his d evelopment a nd w ould recommend that it be approved. I am concerned about the future planning of this area surrounding the sewer plant and would like to see this kept in residential to conform with the existing residential houses to the south of Ustick Road. So, I guess there is both items there. She doesn't have a problem with the project, but she thinks that the density is too high, because she wants it the same as the south side of Ustick Road. Sorry if you didn't receive that. Borup: Well, you're assuming that's what she meant, because that's not what she said. She just said she wanted to keep it residential. Hawkins-Clark: To conform with the existing residential housing on the south side of Ustick Road. That's what she says. Borup: To conform with -- well, never mind. It doesn't really matter. Centers: Well, let me interrupt. I'd like the applicant to address the fact -- did Mrs. Wilkins attend the neighborhood meeting? Wardle: Yes, she did. She was in attendance and she was, actually, at a Public Hearing -- I think our first one when we went late that evening and she decided not to stay around, but she did come to our neighborhood meeting, yes. Centers: With no comments or -- she was just there. Wardle: She was just there. She did have a friend of hers with her that also attended and -- but she provided us with no comments -- Centers: Okay. Wardle: -- at that time. V «: J,.1 ~s ~.~ : ~~,tirr ~~~~t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r~ r K :e~- ~;aai ! S 'i 1 a4 ' t [ < :'iii r't?'~ ;:e.-_--.' ii ~y ~ e JLa .z y ,,~ { ~T,~-2xt a ~ ~ , aa~~~.~'ftyy~," ~~ar•i 2 ~~'S2 l~i !!7M ,.f ~." ~3~~ ~M~~'~~! 13 ~~: 1 4 t i ~ 4-(~ ~ :Sr 73 r 12~h cx'~~~~x..,. .,.~_~. f i~_fQ"~Tr~N u.. 1 ', . • ~ ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting X14' September 1 S, 2003 ~~ Page 49 of 54 Centers: Thanks. Borup: Okay. f ''f'''~ Hawkins-Clark: And, then, I guess two other things that we wanted to mention. The ~~;. °'~'. findings for the rezone, again, would need to -- you would have to make the finding in favor of the project if you choose to approve the rezone and, then, there would need to `''~~ be the requirement for that easement or that -- whatever you want to call the nuisance easement, the odor easement, to be attached to this as a condition and, then, the ' common drives that would need to be a condition, since that's now part of the application, for Lots 9 and 10. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Borup: We have motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: I think it's obvious where I'm coming from. I looked at the list of people that received notice of this meeting tonight. We had 25 individuals. There were five or six that showed up to the neighborhood meeting, two of which are here tonight. The Dakota Rid a Homeowners Association received notice of this meetin I think it s ve g 9 rY obvious that most of the people that received the letter felt residential -- it's about time, because I sat on the Commission when we heard about Falcon Creek and the buses and all of industrial possibilities and as Mr. Wardle pointed out with the present zone recommendation they could go with a 35 high commercial plant of some kind. It's just very obvious -- and I guess we voted for the text change, so that's where we are coming from, that residential is the desire, for the most part, of the community, in my opinion, and -- based on either hearings, too. ,;. _ Borup: Right. Centers: As far as the density, I think it took some ingenuity with six acres to do something with it and to get the bang for the buck, as Chairman Borup pointed out, the cost of land, you have to get some density, and I'm sure it's none of our business what the I and c ost, b ut I'm s ure i t wasn't c heap a nd i is a c apitalistic s ociety. I f h e g of i t cheap and he's selling it high, then, more power to him and that's none of our business, but that's irrelevant, in my opinion. So, I'm highly in favor of the project, I think we ought to address the issues on the cross-access with Lots 9 and 10, and the adjoining lots to the north and south and I think that's the main issue. And, then, the landscape buffer width, 25 feet, plus the five foot sidewalk. To be honest with you, I think the applicant ~4~ i yy~ • 7 ~ , c ~ y L= 't i ~y ~1~' ~ „ y X Jt•~N !E .it'd '~. ~h.-~,~,.' ~ .~ 2i$ ,._ G,~,. ~~ 1} '• xY ~' fir ~~; [ ~ { F' .~r 1 Y- Y r. y 1 {yiG ~~ C ~ R ~ 1 ~ ~i"r5'~`x t '''" } ' I ~ s xti r 1 i",Ck' ,~ a ~fi ~a ~ ~~ , ~' ,~' k , ... - . ~_..,wx_....~.~- i .. ~' . ~,' f'-~~ ~ .rs:... t `vf, .~ 121 * h~~~ ~ ~ ~ S a ~zr,~ ~c yS.~U 't'~ +¢, ~ ' ~ ~ r rI:-Et: ~~l i~~ L~ i =~~rf'~ t ~x.- t r.~~ ~ , s ..~. j..~:... y. '~. .. +1~~yQ~~' y q KK + r'„ F[~ a - ygygypygyy 1 T Xy ~~4~ ,.y ?a 3:3~rv tr C= fi Meridian Planning and Zoning Comion Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 50 of 54 should comply with that. I guess I don't have a problem with it either way, but it's kind of a give and take situation, in my opinion. Borup: Comments from any other Commissioners? Rohm: I'm just a little bit curious why they were not able to work with the adjacent property a nd i ncorporate the o ne parcel i nto t his d evelopment. I d on't k now i f t hat's appropriate -- Borup: You mean the property to the east? Rohm: To the east. Yes. Borup: Or to the west, I mean. I mean to the west. Rohm: No. No. No. To the east. The one sliver of parcel that -- Borup: Oh. Someone else owned it. Rohm: Well, she wanted to have it included. She asked them would you consider including this in the development and I would be curious why they didn't just expand and include that in the -- Borup: I'm sure they would have if they could have got it for the same price. Rohm: Probably. And maybe that's not for this hearing, so -- Centers: And we had that situation on Locust Grove, Inglenook Sub, the neighbor to the south owned a five acre parcel, an elderly gentleman, tried to sell it to the developer, they didn't want it, and I think part of the reason they didn't was because he wanted a pretty penny and -- if you remember that testimony. Mathes: Mr. Shepherd. Centers: She even remembers the name. But, anyway, that happens with adjoining neighbors sometimes, they can make connectivity, because of whatever, you know. It happens. Borup: Okay. Do we need to discuss a motion or are we ready just to move ahead? Centers: Ready to move ahead. Borup: Okay. Centers: I guess, you know, I will just ask you, Commissioner Rohm, how do you feel about the project? ~.:~~- t :: 3i)f ~~~~at r`M1- f ';^w 1 ~ ~1 G { flKJK .} Y~Yy !~ 1 „q~" 71~ ~~. ~ s~ `~ ~i .k4~ i~:.'~.,' i t ~, ~ >~, i 5 ~ r. ~er rC`k° ~ii yi ~1 ~.v .,.-_::.i[i~.:.:-1 'rte"_ _ •-i ,~... n ~~ i -'i E; , a~'~ r; ;',~ ~,;; f! ;~~,~ ~ jp1 y ~ ,.. e ~ n T ~ .; 3 ~~ .. z:.` !C.''kJ:~i_~ rn `~'T, i4'~~ ' K t 'l Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 51 of 54 ~~k, ' Rohm: I think it's a good project. Borup: Okay. We still have three hearings open. Centers: No. We -- Mathes: We closed them. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Centers: I closed all three. Borup: Thank you. _'~ Centers: My motion was the intent to close all three. '~-' Borup: You probably did, if they said so. ~~''= Centers: If I didn't, I amend it right now. Borup: All right. Item No. 5, the first one. Centers: Come on, Leslie. Borup: This would be the rezone. Mathes: Brad, you're going to have to help me on this one, because I don't have a clue what you were talking about. On those A -- where it referred to the thing we just did. Okay. So, I make a motion to approve RZ 03-009, request for a rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, including all staff comments received August 15th, 2003. Now, I'm not sure where to go from here. Do we include Jonathan's thing? ~~~.`~ Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think that would cover you, actually. Mathes: Okay. To include a memo dated August 21st, 2003, from Wardle Group. :r °: Centers: Then, I have a question. I had on my notes when I reviewed this, the odor easement, let's call it, should it be mentioned in the rezone or -- with this project? I <;?~ mean that was just the text change. Should that also be mentioned here? Borup: On the rezone or on the plat? Centers: They have mentioned that it was going to be a note on the plat also and on the CC&Rs. ~ '' ~y.- I F~ 4 I ~ ~y~~}.~ Y~ -;~. 1 ~ k i - y~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ R a ~~ ~ ~ _~ > i~ - i sw.. ~ ~,x r~r 11A ~ 9 ~ ~Y t r . ~I~~~ ~ ~ ,r a , wy µ ` , r ~ ~t,.. '~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ Y -1 fBpk ~~~ x ' is,~ ~ ~ ~ };h i ~ E ~ R;Iz~ -1 f T y }.-.~.~ ,~r_ ~ 3a , ~Y,. 1 t' t! ~ .. -a' ~~µµ i ~ ~` ~~ f Y i ~ ~ r ~ ~~ y tik'! r 7 ~X p~~,~,',x i~ ~ ~ ~~~~ fi ~'` `l , r . ~ s '~ `~' - p i , ~ r i -, : ~., , E ~ ' ' r+ a ~ a v r, , .y , - am( T r i ~ i~ i, i T ~ ._ c ,~~yy 1~ F.3~"' t T _. t i i ~ $ ~` ~` . _ r ~Ye n ~~~ ~ . !f'~ J ! ua` '* ~~ r ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~Y ia ~r,~ r . ,Jt' S{~+ r, f .i.'; 'f t p ~ ~ 1 $S}~!1': ~d f ~ r.3 ,~E ,t ~w ~' + ~ r'"C~~ ~. ~ ~ 4+'.,, kk- s 2' ~~ f .i ~'. ! ~ ' .~ y~ F pp ~~ , I i~ ~~; 7 ~ a2.~rw~N9 9 lyr'~Fr_- 1z~P' ~ ~ , .P ~~. ,. ;' ~: ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting `' "' September 18, 2003 . Page 52 of 54 ~;: ~, f., S, r ~,~~; Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And I guess it's where -- if you want to -- you know, they have ~~~<; submitted a consent waiver that would be a part their title process, that the buyer would sign, and they had an easement. -~~''~ Centers: Yeah. But we renamed it. Not a Consent and Waiver, we renamed it to -- or ~1.~,~~ at least our recommendation to Odor, Noise, Lights, and Dust Easement. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, then, that -- an easement would become part of the plat. Mathes: Not annexation. Hawkins-Clark: No. Mathes: Okay. Centers: So, we would want to mention that in the plat recommendation. Okay. Good. Thank you. Borup: Now, would these next three items be subject to approval of the Comp Plan amendment? Does that need to be stated in the -- or is that just assumed? Hawkins-Clark: We will -- staff will prepare the recommendation to the City Council on each of these four applications and, you know, we will state that you have recommended approval of the Comp Plan amendment and Council w ill receive them just as you -- Borup: Because these are all a mute point without that other amendment. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Centers: Right. Mathes: Right. Hawkins-Clark: They will all be on the same City Council meeting, so in the same order as you had them. So, I don't think you to need to reference -- I think the main thing is just referencing the -- yeah, the easement and, then, any revised -- you know, there are a couple of differences in Wardle Group's letter that you, actually, disagreed with and wanted to support staff on, so I think -- but those were plat issues. Centers: Okay. Well, I will second the rezone motion. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? 7 ~~~i~ ~F~~x? ~' ~ . ~'.~ti t z; ~, .x„ ~;~ 1 i `~' liE-~ ~ i , C ~ ht z ~ E *t. y ~ ~~ ~ '~~~~~sr k?4; ~~~ r~ `~ '~'.. I ~~~~~~ t4 ~ 'e t t ~# ar,~~" z I i~ tF. '. ' ~ ,, E ~~K`~}t ~C~'N ~~1~'.~A ' ~ t 4~~ K t- .~ ~~.t .F..,. ,,M,. i~r ~a Fb ~~' z~n ~ ;~ aj ~ S.~ ._ F ~{ ~ ~ nth x~°', N~ ~, ~~ ~ ifs ~ ,~ y r , ~ v. t d~ y ~',k ~~ F e, f.~:: qg ~~3 ~, cg~~ ~' I Y;I~ k H 1'~ i , icy x ~ ,i, ~~l. Yµ ~.Zf x.~}-0 E ! 1 S 1y ~Y]~'~,. YFk ~~ ~. ~,~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ;_~~ ~', September 18, 2003 * ; Page 53 of 54 .~i ~~~ ' ~'' MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 'a;, °~' Mathes: I recommend approval of PP 03-019, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and five other lots on 5.93 in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed -:'~~ Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, including all staff comments dated .'~; August 15th and the memo dated August 21st from the Wardle Group, with these ~~ exceptions. On page eight, item five, Lots 9 and 10, are to have common driveways with -- nine will be with eight and ten will be with eleven. And they need to comply with ~.~~~- the 25 feet street buffer, plus the five feet for the additional sidewalk. Is that right? °~`~ Centers: They have that as their site specific as number seven, so -- Mathes: Right. `'~~'~ Borup: So, it would just be keeping that staff comment, then. -~=~'" Mathes: Y es. Keeping that staff comment and making sure that the new Odor, Noise, ~".'~~ Dust, Lights Easement is written on the plat. `~y'~~` Centers: I have question for Brad, too. Earlier in your presentation you felt that we ^i~ should address items A, E, and F of the annexation and zoning analysis. By not ti addressing them in the special consideration -- in the considerations, are we okay? Hawkins-Clark: I think the fact that Mrs. Mathes referred to Wardle's thing in her ``~ statement, yeah, we -- ,~~, Centers: And that was backing up. I'm sorry. I second that motion. J,:,;: ~'3 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. 's'' MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~ ~ Mathes: And the final one. I request approval to go to City Council, CUP 03-034, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development fora 39 lot subdivision •~~ -- is it 39 or is it 39 plus five? Hawkins-Clark: Thirty-nine plus five. Mathes: Okay. A 44 lot subdivision, to include a reduction in minimum size lots, side of homes, minimum square footage on main floor of main level home and setbacks in a proposed R-8 for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates, to include all staff comments received August 15th, 2003, and to include the memo dated August 21st, 2003, from the Wardle Group. I think that's it. Centers: Second. ,, , ~ •,-, f r. t,'~~f ~~~. i~lla l., ~~ ~ yes{ ~ w .I. ~ ~~ ~ t .. {'1t. I ~F ! ~y ~ ~' ~" # aY u { s ~ I ~ 99999 " ''~'?'~ ~ . f t .~,~'lA~ s;.,~ ~. 15'r* It ~'~~i Y ~~~ ~ ~ ~ S' ~.~ t y 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~yt ~~r~' 11 ^,f ~ W 3 f ~ , E ~~~~r ~~ ~Sy ~ a ~ ~ f. _ [. ~ X' y ,~~:~e'' sF'~ + ~,' ~~ G Ria ~~ ~ 4" h~`~ 9 ~ k ~~}.~~ ~' I~ ,3 I IIS ~ ~~ ~ r r :. a 'h "~. h._ 1 Y; ~ ~ ~! ~ l h Y ` t J-.- . f E a, ... ~ ~, `~ ~~ ~tf ~~~75 n ~ ft r 6k ~~a.^T ... ~rY~~ 5' ~> 'Yl• 1 n ~~ ~ 1 J~ Y ~.~~'; y/ ~ ,~1'F ~7'% ~ ~% 1 h ~ ~ • tl~ y ~1 ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~'.Yi b ~ i.:. i ~ E~~ '~ . z F i ,3 ' f , ;t ~ ~~~~~~ ~~_' S ;Y _. . Lt { ~ 9' o~-Y,u ~~..~ ~i3 A'. aA~ f 'i~ ' _ ~ ~ .f ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ R f r~~ '-~. N,~ ~~ t f t ~ , _ ~' - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 18, 2003 Page 54 of 54 "rti Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? A, Ye 1 ~~k' . ~~~ MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. rise<° `~;~~;` Borup: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And we have run out of agenda items, "' Commissioners. ,,. `' ~' Powell: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I would like to point out that Mr. ,~~,4, ;~~.~F Jonathan Wardle was last again on the agenda. li Borup: We worked hard to do that again. Yes. Do we have a final motion? .?T `~` ~` Mathes: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Or adjourn the Public Hearing. ;~ ` ~,?~' ., Centers: Second. ;,~ Borup: Adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 9:27 and a half. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~ ~ KEI BO UP -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK ~ ~i~ ~„ M >~s~ 4 ~~ V ~ '~ h ~ t ~y,~ : ~' ~: re- f f ~'. .Yr ~- dt- ~ e fi S ~ r~' ~ ay ate. e` i ~ fj ~ ~u ~. ~~ ~ 1 '~' W. lk7 r~s 'sc _ ~,Y_ iir. t~~ '.:; ~p 1. E ~ ~S tip':. , ~~ 3 ~ °4 + H f ~~ t t.~r i~ ; » '~ } Frz ; , ~'~ ~ ~~~, 4~ -~ r .,k,~ . °f~K~~ur~T" r i~:.i"ti ~ - i r ^ ~ e, ~~ e ~ '~ r ;, f af- a vy ~ Y ~ t ~~; ~.' ~~ - - ( } r,';l~ q .~' ~l~~ 7.~ x,~ ~~~ 9 "- ~~~I~ ~~y r ~ ~k,~ ~ t7 f Y~~t 1~'X. _ Xn- ~t q.v~x. i >~1V Yt - - . 1.s w-_ )~~ r 4 ff `. t:: r_: ~~tiy+ ~d ~' c~~ yy~y { ~ i` ~ ~ k k r L l tru'~ ~` a :~r t` ~..,., ~ Y° i~ s'~~Av~'~s~.~-.~yr gi aygS~I r ~ n i ~ ~~~ ~+,1 ~ ~P u ~. ., r k~ zz{ lid ,l°] ; ~',~ r is~ ~A~ ~ ~F ,t. ~~ ' t~ .::.. } t tis~ ,. ,i 3 F>,' 1, yn~,! j ~I `*~ c' T~ '.J: x'„' 4; °~~I~~, ~r ,' y ~~. ... ~:~ ',? ~f ~~ ~~ >- :~ _F~i ~;'f s;, c~''1 .i September 15, 2003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-~ REQUEST Approve minutes of September 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular 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: Mat®dals presented at pubUc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. g01~1~ ~ ~'! 1 µ ~ y I~~~~+h'~'li yk Nl ~ $,~ ~ ft .. ~ ~~~ ' '~ i {S~ e ~,+ ~ ~:',~ ~' ~ ~ Y~:S K ~ t ~, ~ti ~ f-~. ~ { , f ~ ~ ` ~ 1~ . ~' ~+., '~ '^P~'~k' ~ ~ ~ rot , c ?~ C ,= Y ti i4Ny'~' : Y .F L .t ~~ i4 a ~4 ~~ ' ~. p@ ! P "~ 2 ~ i. E ~ 5~ ~~ ~ ~ ' 4 k , - 1~ ~'~~ R ~ ~ ,:~ ~ ~'r~ ~s 5"~- . ~ ~ h ,~_ ~ ~ c . j e ~ ?''` w d "bra ~~_ ~5 ' ,.~F~. L S t l~,_{_y .l.~: ,,., t ' om. «~~. tom{ F ~ii '` ` ~ ~; ors T. na~~ i E4 y p'4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ k~i ~ .~ 2 ie4 t .y A'~ r 3'~ .. ~ ~ ` 1 ~ 3 ~ N~~fc"' - ~ti3. f. k b. ~ ~ . .. rid .t~ s``~`r< _;, "~~ ~w =~. ;:kf '~ j. ;t'?; r~s ~ ~~ :: -',?;c ~~ t„ _': `.:,;~< -F ," `,'~;; -;-: tit ;u~ ~~5 r ~_ ~' qy~7 .`~~`, ^~~ ~, x f. _: 3i4' `,r o ~ September 15, 2003 CPA MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT Wardle and Associates ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 21,2003 -Request for amendment to the of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for proposed Stapleton Subdivision - 3680 West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ s~~ 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: See atFached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initia{s: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 0 Sept. 15, 2003 RZ 03-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT Wardle and Associates ITEM NO. Jr REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003 -Request for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed Stapleton Subdivision - 3680 West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~~e ~~ 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emaiied: Staff Ini#ials: Mat®rinls presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~r~, ~;« ~ i , ';a,. ~' ~?' ~~x? • o Sept. 15, 2003 PP 03-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT Wardle and Associates ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 21,2003 -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93 acres in a proposed R$ zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision - 3680 West Ustick Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See attached Cammen#s 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 Clay of Merldlan. • Sept. 15, 2003 CUP 03-034 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT Wardle atld ASSOCIC1teS ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from August 21, 2003 -Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development fora 41 lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes, and setbacks in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision - 3680 Ustick 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: See attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®se~ted at public m®etings shall became property of the Cyr of Meridian. - ; ,~ . ' .•~~:Y ~ ~.~~: , , a~ ~:<..;< .,;;~- +. '.-~.4~ ~~y~ _;~..: 4 ,~ ~i" _.t <;` y,; 1 5 ,k5~ `. . ;, ,;_ `r~'~' ,;= ;, T X '.'~:- ~.;- ``', I ;;~ ~: ..:~ :;~, 1 f~~ 1 J,I'.. "'M. ~,~~4 ~;, , ~.;~~.-: . s:. _~ ~- ,Y. ~~~~ . .: ; ~ ,,.' ' ~.~ r•, ~~~` - ~~; ~~~- r'~:~ ~ o Sept. 15, 2003 AZ 03-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 {PD) and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 -south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See attached Comments CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Comments MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letters from citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials present®d at public m®eflngs shQll become property of the City of Meridian. ~;; ~~ ~. ~ ,~'' .; n ;,~m1 ~.~~. :-::.~ :.,.~, ~- ;:_, € ~ . ;:; n: ~u ;, Sept. 15, 2003 PP 03-024 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 20p3 APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~~_~- REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots on 90.29 acres in propose R-S~PD) zone for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 - south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See attached Comments CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: See a#ached Comments 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: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letters from citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at public me®flngs shall become properly of the Cffy of Meridian. .. >'; ,, ;. ', /~'' ~ • .~, _ Sept. 15, 2003 CUP 03-041 ,'=.~. ,} ,R MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 18, 2003 ~' APPLICANT Packard Estates Development, LLC ITEM No. ~~ _ REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, tot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes, and increased 1 s. `~ block length for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 -- s/o E. Ustick and e/o N. Eagle Rds ;~s' Vii;' AGENCY COMMENTS .~ ~1.'.' CITY CLERK: ,~~'~`,''' CITY ENGINEER: "` ~ ` s `':, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~; CITY ATTORNEY ~~,~~' ~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~`''`'' CITY FIRE DEPT: See attached Comments ~~ .`' CITY BUILDING DEPT: . CITY WATER DEPT: -, ,__ ; .,;;, ""' ' 4. ... ~. R~ ~:. CITY SEWER DEPT: . ~~--'~' CITY PARKS DEPT: See attached Comments f ;~s; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: - SANITARY SERVICES: ~.`` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~`,, NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See attached Comments , t ~_, . :~'-~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See attached Comments IDAHO POWER: '"'<1 INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letters from ciflzens `'` ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: -r,. STl _ ~. Emailed: Staff Initials: .~; Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~;' F ,k nrt ~r.: ~Y h ~_~ ;,a : r ;_ F~ ~t ~~ r "5~.!~~1~ t '~ < ti'<.yr 5~ ~ .y ~ ~~t ~. `~ s - r„~:m 1 °T ~ S~ ~ ~"~, ~~ ~ a 8 M A ~, " ~~ M 'T~ 4 S r~ ~ k i A q~ ~( b... 'r~JL''1n'M1~ t.~J~lSi i . V 1~; 4~ sx'a ..~' f j~, ~! _ i,~'i~~~ y L F . ~, ~4~~ / ~ ~~~~ , ~} ~~ `J'~_1 ~~ ~ . _ ~ ++,~~}} P 1~ t -7 %~^''~_r b ~~ ~ }. '' ~.~t~i, "k r r Mr '.1F4 y~l! .. wSr i? b ~- JY ,: M 1R' 1 C [:~