Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 19, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 59 of 83 Siddoway: We are. doing both, so if we could -- could we just reference the site plan and elevation at the' hearing tonight? Mae: I would like to do that. Siddoway: Yes. And I would second that. Moe: Make that a modification to the motion. Siddoway: And I will second it. Moe: Add those, please. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded with modifications to approve CUP 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of. the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C-N zone as allowed by UDC 11-2B-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed from July 5, 2007) Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of CUP 07-013 related to Cherry Lane Christian Church and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew. The property was previously annexed into the city with a C-N zone and consists of 39.47 acres. The site is located on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Road at 175 North Ten Mile Road. The application is only for phase one of the church development located on a portion of the property that lies south of the Ten Mile Creek here. The surrounding property uses are as follows: North of the site is residential agricultural property zoned R-1 and RUT, Ada county, and mini storage and vacant property zoned C-N. To the east and south is rural residential agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west is vacant property that is approved for multi- family and office uses, zoned R-15 and L-O. The subject Conditional Use Permit covers several different requests as follows: The first is a request for detailed site plan review of phase one of the church site as required by the development agreement. The DA requires that a Conditional Use Permit be submitted to the city prior to future development in the C-N zone. That requirement has been satisfied with this application. Future phases wili only be required to obtain certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval at staff level and must comply with the master plan site plan and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 60 of 83 master landscape plan submitted with this application. The second request is to exceed the maximum building height of 35 feet allowed in the C-N zone. The maximum height limitations do not apply to architectural features that are not intended for human occupation, such as the proposed belfry and cross, which are allowed a maximum height of 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Additional height exceeding 20 percent of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a Conditional Use Permit. With the aforementioned allowances, the maximum height is allowed to extend to 62 feet as proposed if the CUP is granted. Staff is supportive of this request, as the belfry will contain and screen HV AC equipment and will not be used for human occupation and because the height of the building complies with the height allowances mentioned. The third and last request is for an approval of an urban farm use in the C-N zone for the portions of the property that will be developed in future phases. Staff is supportive of allowing undeveloped portions to remain being farmed as it will minimize weed problems anq because agricultural use of the property will compliment adjacent rural uses. And this application also includes a request for the city to accept a letter of credit for the landscape area between the existing edge of pavement of Franklin and the south edge of the sidewalk until such time as ACHD constructs its improvements along Franklin Road. The road widening improvements planned for Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile are in ACHD's five year work plan, but are designated for federal funding. The construction year is unknown, because it is not a funded project. For this reason staff is not supportive of this request and is requesting that the applicant comply with UDC requirements regarding landscaping within the right of way. Phase one will consist of a 48,000 square foot church building capable of seating 888 people in the sanctuary, an administration office area, a fellowship area at the front entry of the lobby, and classroom space for the nursery children, middle school, high school, and adult programs. The church campus is proposed to be constructed in ten phases as the congregation and its financial abilities grow. The proposed hours of operation for the church are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The primary access point for this site is proposed with one driveway to and from West Franklin Road, located here at the bottom, and will be constructed with this phase. An access point to/from North Umbria Hills Avenue is also proposed with this phase at the west boundary right here. Staff is supportive of the access point shown on the site plan. However, the fire department has included a condition, an Exhibit B of the staff report, for a third access point to be provided at the east side of the church building from Ten Mile for emergency access. The applicant has met with the fire department regarding the location of the third access point and it has been agreed that the access will be from the north edge of the parking lot on the north side of the building to the north property line of Avis property and, then, go through to Ten Mile Road. Off-street parking is proposed on the site and will be provided upon development of the site. Ninety-six stalls are required and 481 stalls are provided. An additional 156 spaces are provided for overflow parking proposed on a treated gravel surface. This is a copy of the master site plan that the applicant is proposing. It's more refined than the previous conceptual master plan approved with the annexation. The layout and traffic flow as been revised at staff direction to break up the visual connection of asphalt parking to Franklin Road, with a less rigid landscape island configuration and a relocation of the admin building for presence and representation of the church at the Gateway intersection of Ten Mile and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 61 of 83 Franklin. The admin building is now planned to provide a retail function, likely represented by a future bookstore or cafe down here. Landscaping will be provided on the site per the landscape plan and conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. A 25 foot wide buffer is required around Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along the west property boundary adjacent to Umbria Hills Avenue and the future residential uses in Umbria Subdivision. Because this property lies within the area specified in the Ten Mile specific area plan, staff is requesting that a berm be provided within the buffers along Ten Mile and Franklin to satisfy the purpose of the plan regarding screening of parking lots visible from public thoroughfares. And the applicant has also submitted a master landscape plan for the site that coincides with the master site plan. Elevations of the proposed buildings have been submitted as shown. The building facade is proposed to consist of three different colors and the construction materials shown on the plan includes stucco, cultured stone, and metal siding with metal accent bands. Because the church building proposed for this site is over 7,500 square feet in a C-N zone, the applicant is required to comply with design standards per the UDC. The staff has reviewed the design standards applicable to this site and found the building and site in compliance, except for the metal siding proposed on a large portion of the exterior walls. This slide shows a sample piece of the metal siding. The design standards require that exterior building walls demonstrate the appearance of-high quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tenant or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels or stucco or stucco like synthetic materials_ Prefabricated steel panels are prohibited, except as an accent material. For this reason staff is requesting that the metal panels be replaced with an acceptable material as allowed by the UDC. If the Commission deems the proposed siding a high quality material, the Commission may remove condition number 1.7C in Exhibit B. The applicant has also submitted a perspective elevation of the proposed church building at the south entry and the southeast entry. This model concept of the final build out of the church building was also submitted that shows a view of the church building and the site from the south. Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated by staff in the staff report subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have -- Mr. Chairman. Sonya. So, the reason this is before us as a Conditional Use Permit -- did that DA require a CU, you know, for the future development of the property? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, the development agreement did require Conditional Use Permit approval. Siddoway: And the request to exceed the maximum building height, is it only for the belfry or is the actual structure exceeding the building height as well? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 62 of 83 Watters: The code allows for architectural features that are not intended for human occupation, such a belfry and cross, which are allowed at a maximum of 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Additional height exceeding 20 percent of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a Conditional Use Permit. So, they are requesting an additional 20 percent. Siddoway: Okay. But it is only the belfry that's exceeding it, it's just exceeding it -- the rest of the roof line is not. Watters: No. The building is exceeding it by 20 percent. Exceeding the maximum height allowed in the zone. Siddoway: Okay. . Watters: And, then, beyond that the belfry and cross are allowed to extend an additional 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Siddoway: Uh-huh. And can we grant that through a Conditional Use Permit or is that a variance? Watters: No. It specifically requires Conditional Use Permit approval. Siddoway: Okay. Watters: But it does allow for it in those instances. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Sonya, I just want to make sure. You got it in here in to -- the CUP now, you made the point that other -- the future phases will just be staff level, even though the site -- as long as they are in conformance with the master site plan is what -- okay. Because I see quite a bit of difference in -- well, between what they are proposing to start with and there will be a heck of a lot of asphalt that will be deleted out to basically match up with the rest of their site plan. I'm just kind of curious that staff will take care of that, it won't come before us again. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, that is correct. It will not come before you again. Moe: Okay. Watters; This Conditional Use Permit satisfies the DA requirement for CU approval. Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 - Page 63 of 83 Rohm: Any other questions of staff before we invite the applicant up? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Woodard: Good evening. My name is Larry Woodard. I'm one of the ministers at Cherry Lane Christian. We have actually changed our name now to Ten Mile Christian Church. So, all the legal documents I would ask now read Ten Mile, instead of Cherry Lane. I live at 1701 Almadan Street in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. As the file indicates, our congregation purchased these 39 plus acres on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin in 2003 for the purpose of building a new and larger church. We appeared before you folks in the spring of 2005 for annexation and have signed a development agreement with the city. At our initial hearings before you a couple of years ago, we presented to you a conceptual plan of how we intended to develop this property and for the most part that concept has not changed. Last year we received permission to move a rental house to get it out of the way of a planned widening of Ten Mile Road by ACHD and in the process we have developed a 34 vehicle parking lot, a gazebo for outdoor weddings and musical venues and a memorial rose garden and this little -- how does this thing work? This little three acre park is over here in this corner. Just shows a part of it here. But her:e is the gazebo. Here is the rose garden. And we have moved the house over here. We call it the church annex. In the future we plan some day to have a group picnic shelter there and outdoor basketball court and we believe this little three acre corner is a good addition to the expanding community and our church to date has shouldered most of the expense for this mini park. Up in the northwest corner of our property -- is there. a better -- that shows the whole piece? There we go. We reserved this corner up here for city well number 27. They have drilled a preliminary well, but have not come back and finalized it and I, frankly, don't know where the status of that is. But we have reserved that for them. They have put a major trunk line across the property about right in here and we have been involved in that. We have been active participants in the Ten Mile study and we are pleased to see that the final plan identified our property as the sole church site in that study. Our proposed worship facility is in concert with this recently adopted plan. We have also been active members of the Ten Mile interchange steering committee. Now we come before you with a plan to build our primary and first phase worship facility. It is first phase and we envision other expansion as the congregation grows. We held a neighborhood meeting at the gazebo on May 14th and no one came. We are still out in a rural area, unlike our friends who were just ahead of us here on Meridian Road. For the past two years Compass Charter School has been using our current facility on Cherry Lane and this past month they completed the purchase of the property and are now remodeling our church for a charter school. If you have driven by our old campus on Cherry Lane, you notice that the crosses are down and we are pleased to see that a publiC school is going to be able to use our old facility. But we now have the clock ticking to get into the new facility by the end of 2008. So, that's why we are here today. What we have before us is plans for a new worship facility that will seat over 800, which is double our present facility. We are a church that averages about 1,400 people a week. We do operate seven days a week, by the way. We have something going on all the time. We expect to start construction this fall with Kriezenbeck Constructors as our general contractor, and they tell us that they think they can finish it in 12 months. Before I turn it over to Steve Pardew of BRS Architects, who Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 64 of 83 can answer some of the specific questions you might have about the plan, be aware that our congregation is stretching its financial capabilities to get this building in place. So, when it comes to the landscaping requirements along Franklin Road, we would simply ask that you give us some relief there by deferring that landscaping for a few years, just so we can get in there and get settled. I think we have demonstrated time and time again our community spirit and we are just asking that it be deferred to a later date. I leave you with this thought. This is phase one of a long range plan and as the area develops petween our church and the freeway and to the east, we will grow also. In fact, this corner here of Franklin and Ten Mile, is the first stop light when you come off of the new Ten Mile interchange and for that reason is -- one of the reasons we changed our name to Ten Mile Christian Church, because it's going to be easy to tell people to find us, go to the interchange, go north to the first light and you're there. So, do you have any questions of me before I turn it over to Steve? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. What is the reason why you want to exceed the height requirements? Woodard: I'll let our architect answer that, but, you know, it's just part of our design. We want a structure there that has some height to it that can be seen and we have got a plan that's expandable and it just so happens that once you get out to the third tier of seating you're going to be talking about an auditorium that will seat thousands and for that we need some height. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Do you want to bring your architect up? Pardew: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Steve Pardew, BRS Architects. Address 1010 South Allante Place, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. 83709. Sonya, could we have the landscape master. As Larry mentioned, that is really one of maybe only two items that we have request to you for additional consideration. It is specifically the landscape area between what is this meandering sidewalk at the front -- the frontage of Franklin. It is proposed and agreeable to the church to go ahead and do the landscape buffer adjacent to the residential zone to the west, as well as the landscaping adjacent to the Ten Mile area. With our most recent meetings with ACHD it was discussed that there is possible postponement of the improvements to the Franklin and Ten Mile intersection, whereby it could be as late as 2009 when that would actually be improved. That's all that we are really requesting for your consideration is a deferral via the letter of credit for the landscaping south of this meandering concrete sidewalk and berm and ten -- excuse me -- ten feet of gravel adjacent to the north phase of the asphalt on Franklin and the landscaping south of that meandering concrete sidewalk. The other item that staff mentioned, which we would like to also discuss, is relative to the metal siding that is proposed. We have an actual sample of that product. This is the actual sample of that metal siding specifically. And I just brought that per staff's recommendation specifically, so that you could see that it was somewhat residential in nature of its scale. It's not the concern of what staff shared with us in it being a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 65 of 83 prefabricated corrugated panel, similar to like an agricultural or an industrial type metal siding. Its intention" is to be smooth in nature and it has -- you can show that one. So, that the seams specifically or any relief that really is caused specifically by the shadow line of the two joints of the siding coming together and I do have some color handouts of some other buildings in Meridian that have used this product before. The church is agreeable to reduce the overall square footage of that metal siding that is used in the elevations to be more of a specific accent detail over a cultured stone area and as more of a repetitious type element or accent that would help move the eye in the elevation of the building. The reason that we have proposed it initially is that we felt that it helped modernize and add a fourth element or finish to the stucco and cultured stone and just creating interest in movement as you looked at the building. The specific photos that you have in front of you are from Sawtooth Middle School on Linder. Moe: What gauge material would that be? Pardew: It would be gauge adequate such that you would not have the oil canning that you typically se~ if! a smooth face panel, probably a 22 or better. And the intent is that it is specifically an element that would catch your eye. There is some very very expensive panelized systems that are anodized, which have a tendency to cause maybe more of a high tech look and that's, obviously, not what we are trying to achieve. We just wanted kind of a detail element that would draw your eye on the building. Moe: All concealed fasteners? Pardew: Yes. And the second example that you see there is in the Silverstone building complex. It's a retail function. So, we do concur with staffs recommendation and I believe per the current code that does allow for that metal panel to be used specifically as a detail element, instead of the amount of square footage that is currently proposed in elevations. And those are primarily the two elements that we have in request for your consideration and would stand for questions. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pardew, do you know what the reflective properties are relative to sunlight reflection off of this material and do you know of any issues or concerns that you have heard about when a whole side of a building has been up and the sun hits it right -- in the right way, whether it may blind motorists or other people or residential areas? Pardew: Understood. The residential zone specifically to the west would have some exposure to that. I believe the offset, plus the orientation of those residences may not be directly at the church, but, like I said, the elevations as proposed specifically to this west elevation, the'metal as shown would be reduced purely just to a square or width and height specific to an area over a door. And so it would be a very minimal, maybe a six foot wide panel. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 66 of 83 Pardew: SO, not the entire west side of the building. O'Brien: Okay. Pardew: As any longer. O'Brien: I was concerned about having the face of that thing blind somebody. Pardew: One Of the other reasons that we originally considered it was it creates a very clean and a very modern, somewhat reflective appearance here at the entry, but the main concept and the intention of the elevations is to cause movement of the eye and also a specific focus to the center -- the entry the focus of the cross. And so at the southern elevation that there would be specifically an accent of that panel, possibly over this cultured stone element and, then, you know, every other window or so, just as more of a repetitious element, but not a large expansive metal to be used. O'Brien: I have one other question. On the -- could you put up the landscape view, please? Excuse me. Now, your proposal is to -- on the Ten Mile corner at Franklin is to put a ten foot wide gravel buffer temporarily? Pardew: Our understanding is that in this that there would be a -- until the improvements of the ACHD widening of that intersection occurs, that staff would require a ten foot strip of gravel at the shoulder of the existing pavement and, then, this additional turf -- basically this edge of turf, then. is where the gravel stops and that irrigated lawn begins. And so the deferral -- O'Brien: You're going to put a grass lawn, then, in temporarily? Okay. Pardew: Yeah. And so what the request is that the trees are left and the lawn behind that meandering walk would be in place, we are just hoping to offset some of the cost of the irrigation and that lawn previous to the construction of that ACHD widening. O'Brien: Who is responsible, then, for the maintenance of the ten foot wide gravel buffer as far as maintenance goes, the weeds, et cetera? Pardew: Well, specifically, if it's within the property of the church, I would assume the church would be. That gravel as well as, per the existing right of way for ACHD, versus what's proposed, are two different things. But the church would be responsible to keep it weed free and maintained. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Pardew: There was a previous question in regards to the height of the cross and the belfry . O'Brien: Yeah. That's right. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 67 of 83 Pardew: The height of the belfry and cross are specifically developed for that mass model concept. As Larry mentioned, the sanctuary, in approaching the second phase -- well, what we are calling the second addition to the sanctuary, then, the potential third addition to that sanctuary, continually increase in height and the intention was that this belfry -- you can imagine if this was ten feet or any distance specifically lower, the real center point of the cross and that belfry would become somewhat of a recessed accent to what the whole purpose of the building is for. And so that's why this has been developed such that there is almost a humility in the going down away from, you know, their primary symbol and concept of a church and, then, also creating some movement of the eye in, you know, moving your eye around that element. So, that's why the belfry is as high is in looking at the proposed other phases of construction that in this concept are two story and, then, at the back phase three story. O'Brien: I think it's a very unique design. It's really nice. Thank you. Pardew: Form is following function somewhat. Any other questions? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: You -- well, I'll stick with the height for just a second. Can you -- is it more than just the belfry that is exceeding the height limit and, if so, I mean are all of these buildings exceeding it? I'm just trying to get a gauge for how much of this structure is exceeding the height limit. Pardew: In phase one and probably upwards of at least the next three or four phases that would not be a concern. And that is somewhat of the unknown in the future phases that as the need for that space is considered, obviously, there is a consideration also for additional parking and so this is a concept at best guess in regards to the ministry and projections of what the dream for the property could be. But it is a possibility that these back classroom area wings could end up being just a two story. The sanctuary is driven by the vision triangles and ability for people in the auditorium to be able to see the platform and the other areas of the presentation and so that's what's driving it to be higher and it would at least match that belfry and we have to further consider the engineering and the actual heights of that. I don't believe in our latest building sections of studies that we have done that it will exceed that 58 and 62. Siddoway: So, currently drawn, the two classroom areas and the sanctuary are -- exceed the maximum height. Pardew: In a future phase as a concept -- a potential concept that it would. Yeah. In the phase one there are none. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 68 of 83 Siddoway: Right. But we are acting on the whole thing tonight; is that right? I thought all future phases just went through staff level. So, we have got to decide on those future -- Pardew: Our proposal is not to have a building exceeding the 58 or 62 and I was somewhat apprehensive with Sonya to even show that, because it is -- it's trying to allow for the future, but the allowances of what we are asking for tonight is specifically the 58 and 62 on the belfry and the cross. Siddoway: Okay. To the landscape plan for just a second, please. One thing I'm confused -- that I am unclear on is you're saying -- you said you wanted to defer the landscaping that is south of the meandering sidewalk; is that correct? Pardew: Right. Specifically this irrigated lawn is pertaining to that request. Siddoway: And how far from the intersection do you want to defer that? Pardew: The entire frontage across Franklin Siddoway: Do you expect that that entire frontage will be impacted by the intersection improvements? Pardew: There is already construction into the Umbria access, a deceleration lane that takes a portion of this as asphalt and that's already in the works with being constructed per the approval with the Umbria -- what was formerly known as Silveroaks, the apartments ove.r there. Siddoway: Done as part of this development, not done as part of the intersection. Pardew: That is cor.rect. That is correct. As far as the -- but there would still be the trees and the lawn improvement behind that meandering walk. We are just trying to basically request that cost savings for the church and, then, also we feel it's a better blend, the construction of ACHD's improvements, which they have and are the latest plans that we have seen that tapers and comes out all the way to the primary entrance of the church. Siddoway: So, is the right of way that's shown on here not the ultimate right of way? It sounds like they are going to be chopping into your site with these improvements. Pardew: In later phases there is a potential need for a deceleration lane, which would be an aspect of the final phrases of the site plan development. Siddoway: Because I would want to make sure that we have 35 feet of landscape buffer beyond whatever the ultimate right of way is. So, that was one concern. The other question I have is the -- you were going to provide a letter of credit to bond for the -- those improvemen.ts? Pardew: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 69 of 83 Siddoway: Most letters of credit expire in a year and it sounds like we are looking, you know -- Pardew: For an extended agreement. Siddoway: -- two, three years out. Pardew: Right. Siddoway: So, do you have a way to address the extension? Pardew: We would be agreeable to whatever the extension would need to be with legal. . Siddoway: Okay. And, then, the final question has to do with the metal siding. You were pointing out areas that you would say would be limited to for access. Do we have any elevations that we can act on tonight that show how the siding will be limited to accents? Pardew: Well, my current understanding of the design review process is that that's approved through a staff level review and that the current code does provide a means of having metal siding used as a detail or accent. Staffs primary objection to this proposal was the amount of square footage on the building that was covered with that -- Siddoway: As a siding material, an accent material. Pardew: -- that was covered with metal. And one of the original considerations of doing that was that as this plan develops and other phases around, that all the exterior walls of this current building become interior walls at some point and so Ulere was a hope that that siding could be possibly recycled and reused, versus the stucco, which becomes something you cover over. It becomes disposable, so to speak, in cost. There is no recycle value. Siddoway: ThalJk you. Pardew: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay:. I have none. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. I would like to clarify one point. Commissioner Siddoway inquired about the building height, if the Conditional Use permit, if it's approved for additional building height, if it only applies to phase one. This application is only for phase one. If the Commission desires to approve that request, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 70 of 83 you should make it clear if it's only for phase one or if it applies to the whole development for future phases also. Rohm: Thank YOtl. There is not anybody else that is signed up to testify to this application, but if someone would like to come forward at this time and offer testimony, now is that time. It doesn't look like we are getting anybody else up there. Newton-Huckabay:. Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Sonya, on the building height question, I'm still just confused as to how we can -- we deal with the -- with it as a conditional use. Can you just tell -- point to where tha~ provision is in the code or just tell me how it's dealt with? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, just a moment here. It's UDC 11-2-8-3. Essentially, the building height -- you know, the maximum is 35 feet in the zone. It's allowed to extend with Conditional Use Permit approval an additional 20 percent. An additional 20 percent of the 35 feet is seven feet. So, that allows it to extend to 42 feet. And, then, the additional -- the architectural features that aren't intended for human occupation are allowed to -- the height limit is 20 feet, as measured from the roof line. So, 42 feet and they are allowed an additional 20 feet to extend. Siddoway: And are they within that allowance? Watters: They are. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: With this application. Steve mentioned that this building did not exceed the maximum height. I was under the impression that it did, but the -- the building height is measured -- per the building code is measured to the mid point of the roof. I may be mistaken, but I thought the mid point was 42 feet on this building. The applicant's stating that it's lower now. Not a lot, but a little bit. So, apparently, it's changed from the elevations that were submitted. Meridian Planning & Zoning . July 19, 2007 Page 71 of 83 Siddoway: Still exceeding the height, but within the 20 percent allowance. Okay. Is staff okay with just a general requirement that the metal be used only as an accent and, then, leaving with the interpretation of that up to the design review process? Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, staff is okay with that. However, it's not really necessary. Everything on this site will be subject to design approval and part of that design approval does require that metal only be used as an accent material. Siddoway: Okay. So, the staff report as currently written would still allow for the metal accents. Watters: Correct. Siddoway: Thank you. The issue of accesses didn't really come up. Is there any -- are the accesses all okay from the staff review? Watters: Chairman; Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, I have not yet received a report from ACHD on this. Staff does not have any objections to the access points proposed with this application, but I haven't got comments from ACHD yet. Siddoway: Usually we -- you know, we have been unwilling in the past to send on applications without ACHD's comments. So, is staff comfortable with this one going on without those? Watters: Caleb, our planning manager, is telling me that he's fine with it going forward without ACHD's conditions or comments. Siddoway: Okay. That's alii have. Hood: Mr. Chair, I do want to follow up on that, though. We will have comments from ACHD before it goes to City Council. That way the whole picture is there. I just don't envision any problems from the highway district with this application. In fact, they reviewed it when it was in annexation form only and provided comments. I believe what the applicant is now proposing is consistent with those preliminary comments that they provided last year when this project was annexed, so -- Rohm: Does this go to City Council? It's a CUP. Hood: Yeah. Excuse me. No, it does not. But, again, the project, though, is consistent with those original comments that ACHD provided when this was just an annexation. I do apologize. You are the decision making body. Siddoway: I know that we have the Findings at the end of the agenda, but I feel a little uncomfortable approving Findings without ACHD comments. Would you agree or do you -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 72 of 83 Moe: I guess I would be a little bit curious in regards to their requirements when we are considering what we are doing with the landscaping along Franklin Road as well. As to whether or not. you know, to keep the requirement in or not, so I'd like to see those as well. Newton-Huckabay:.1 have no comment. Rohm: Any further discussion? Mr. Siddoway, are you prepared to make any kind of a motion here? We have closed the Public Hearing? Siddoway: We have. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Siddoway: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay just asked if we would consider continuing until we have the ACHD comments. We could either do that or act on it, but defer action on the Findings until we have those and they can be incorporated into the Findings. That's where I was headed. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a good idea. Siddoway: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Where do you come in on the landscape on your motion? Siddoway: One, I want to make sure that their -- one of the reasons I want to wait for those ACHD findings is I want to make sure we understand what right of way they are requiring along Franklin, because I want to make sure that we are getting a 35 foot landscape buffer beyond ACHD's required right of way. Moe: That's kind of why I wonder why we should go ahead and continue it now and get those in and act on everything at that point. Siddoway: Okay. That might be smarter, since that's still an outstanding question. I'm fine with that deferral of the area south of the sidewalk. I'm wondering if it really needs to be across the entire frontage. But without knowing what ACHD is doing there it's -- we just don't know. And, you know, assuming we were willing to defer some or all of it, I would want to make a condition that the letter of credit that's provided, you know, be good for three years, not just the typical 12 months that we usually see. And I don't know if -- I'm not familiar enough with the bank process whether they could issue one for a three year letter of credit. I would assume they could. Typically, though, I have seen them go, you know, 12 months and, then, renewal, but -- but -- Moe: I would anticipate it would be a 12 months and they could renew, you know, every year for three years, something like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 73 of 83 Siddoway: Sonya, do we have an anticipated arrival date for the ACHD comments? If we just defer this to our next meeting is that long enough? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, I had anticipated that I would receive them before tonight's meeting. I had planned on including them in the report and thus being part of the Findings and they did not arrive today, so -- Siddoway: Okay. Then after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file. ntlmber CUP 07-013 -- we didn't open the DES one; right? To the hearing date of August 2nd. 2007, to receive ACHD comments and respond accordingly. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 07-013 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 2nd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would just recommend can we put this one early on the agenda on August 2nd to move it through. Siddoway: I would agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: I would kind of guess it's going to be a big agenda on August 2nd. Hood: It's not too bad, but I will put them first anyways. And just a point of clarification, the Public Hearing" is still closed, so that's all that's correct, that wasn't part of the motion to reopen, just to give you ACHD comments and you can kind of digest those or -- Siddoway: Do we need to reopen it to accept ACHD's comments? I probably do. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, given that you don't know how you are going to reacted to those comments, I had anticipated that the hearing would be reopened for the purpose of deliberations, perhaps taking some testimony from the applicant on them and it only makes sense to leave that, but for that one issue. Newton-Huckabay: But we don't have to open it -- well, if we talk to the applicant we have to give public testimony, too. Baird: With the ground swell of public input here, I would think your risk is minimal. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 74 of 83 Newton-Huckabay; I concur. Siddoway: I'm ready to do this. Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- for clarification, we reopen the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014 -- is it? Is it three? Yeah. 013. And continue it to our next regularly scheduled meeting on August 2nd and to be placed at the beginning of the agenda, specifically for the purpose of receiving ACHD's comments and accepting any related testimony to that. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen CUP 07-013 at the regularly scheduled meeting on August 2nd, 2007, for the sole purpose of reviewing Ada County Highway District's input and associated testimony. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I-L and L-O zones to a C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from June 21,2007: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C-G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Rohm: Moving on. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21st, 2007, of items number AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008, all items related to the Pinebridge development for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 16, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Mae: Second. . Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 16th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.