The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007 01-18 J t c;rr•r of r~ , - .::-p \~ err ~ ., Ii~AHq '~~~, / ~199~3 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ~; ~~;, "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ' '-~ all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." . 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~~ X David Moe _X Steve Siddoway ,a X Michael Rohm -Chairman ,, 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: - . A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning F ` Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru ~,, window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for - Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: Approve f:~.~~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru `~"> ~~ establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a ~',~ residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS ::-.:~>~ Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: Approve ~: ' D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru x-y establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: Approve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting ~~ ~" [ ~ t~ -~ ier,_ p t t o.< a~ ~ w ,._, r ~ ~ ,~. e ~ ~f ~ y .~ r ~. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ C -~ ~K Yj~~ F« 1• ~~ Y'~J Y; ~. ,_ . „~3, ~F`~t ~ ~I ~ .~2 ippp ' S v ~ x ~r 1 M9 ~~ ~i'~ 5~m ~! ~ ~ ~ ! ; w f s i [its. Y ~Y F T~=7 f -i k~ . Y - w wk f. ~~ ~ ~ .~(` t: q y a e ~ - t ., ~ ~ ri.~ fi eid; * r. ~ ~ i ~~ i 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ f ~ ,y2 yy [ 3± -. -1 5 i~.. i ~ ~ "~~ ~ f. t 4•: tl - - _~ "r r1 r7 t~ ~, `~ } le t~o v }rk ? ro 'r 3~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ,' '~t~:'•~~W~Xb ~I pf '- Y ? ~7 .~ ~ F ,. ~k~ H '% 51t ~ 3 i~ ~+' ~~ f s A k~+ S J ~ . - , ~c2'E .S~~ e'L,L.S ~.' '" I' 1~.. I 2$ M ~ _ .,1 ",;~ ~}" i ~;~~ ` • ,, ~ ° 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: AZ 06-051 ~ ;"k Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Application Withdrawn ,, ~` ~~ ,: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: PP 06-052 .~~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 ``~'~_ :.; common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights ` Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 -~~~ W. Victory Road: Application Withdrawn . 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 `~'-~`, acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by ;~° ~~. Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Continue Public ~,'.~` Hearing to February 1, 2007 7. Public Hearing: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an O-T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an ~~ '^~`'~ R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 911 N. Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City ~~ Council 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS _ ~ by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: Approve - ? ~ Prepare Findings 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046 f Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval _ to City Council ~,~~ 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048 'nz'~ ~'~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots ~- ; ~~ and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt . t`;.~~' Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 - ` & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council ~~ 12. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-032 Re uest for a Conditi I q ona Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 4,~;~ 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 $ 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, ' LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Approve -Prepare Findings ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Z t ~ ~} ~ S ; ~~?) Y~ 1 t, t ~ R`§ S ( t ~ ~_~~ a`~ t t'a f'r i ~ ` '+~Yf ~. - ~~4~ ~ .li ~' f 4 y ~ r r k ~ . 1 . ~ ~ ~ F' ` ` , ~~ ~ ~ ~~t ..' ~) 1 ,: y 1~'y ryN ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ .. ~ 1LZ~T~ E"A' t4 a ~{T "__ _y'~ iv 1'~ t ~~ 1 r~ l i 1 *t,4~~~ ~ as 1i '~/ ~ .1 ry t 9 h 1 ~ ~ ! ~ t ~ t ~' tS,~~.; ~ ~ t t ~~~. r5 r 4 ', I ~' w ',~ 1s ~, _fyj _ ~" t~tt-~ ~.py 1, rvw*~°t 3 ~ ~i i f t ~rl~ 1j ~i ~ ~1~~ ~ J ' > - ~,~jN~ ~ICi .~ x +y ~T~i'/' k .~f flL'y Jh f N r (' J t' h ~'~ tGJ _ ~ ~'Sk -k y 1 ' ~ / l 1 ~a ati6 r.~ _ f Ri~ 1 i t ~ S. ~ -. ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~;f V yy ~~.wr :~, ~,E~di 3 . 4 a" N ' ~Y ::i 4 ta~ 1T ` ~ ~ {, . p~ ,~-~~. i :i'-~- y..-" .a ~~ '-Y'~: ,. -~ ,.~ ~1~~ ~0 ~r ,~,.. r. CITY OF * Y'~ -.,' ~Y1G~1~-12 IDAHt7 y Fc e ~R ~rRE,~„~v,~~ a~~E 7889 ~~b~~c IUotrce ~ I~heu,.,~s MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Vacant Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: k.- ~?.' i D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. -~----T ---~-~- -+, ~,~ ~ r _~~ ~~ ~ :-~ : l~jc.~j ~ .; r i ''i? ~"~~~ ~'N ~s .,~ ~ ; , ~ '~NL ~ '~ i ~i . `' ~~ ~ l ~ ~~~ ! ~ 9~' ~ ~{~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,r t ~ ^' e ~j Y Z t ~~, Y J '. ' • , i C ~ , ~r L 1 i 1 ~? ~: ~~ ~M .2 ~ ~'? N W . , ~ t - k r; ~,'L w , Y, tt ~Ph ~+ rKr ~ ~ ` r ~',~ ~~~; ~, 1~ ' ri ~ ~. 7 :~ ~ i a ~; , , Kurz ~~; K _~ ~ *t ~,~ ~ t ~ +.sr M.4A t ~~ S ~ ;~ , S r i ` a - }' L ~~b FBI.} ~tl' t ~~{` ~y r b-~ ~ , y,, y ~~ '~ ~ .y " )'f ~ ~ T ~ d' ' q ~` s. L ~ ~ Y i f ~ M { ~ a j 1 v~- i ~ i. L. f ~ ~ r ~ . y~ L. 5 1~ } r ~ i k k k ! t f t ~ ~ =i ~':. • • ~'; ;~, ., 3 . ~.,y I~ ,. _; ;.; ;, ., ~~~ ~' .l #: g,= ~, t M: ;a 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: 6. Public Hearing: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: 7. Public Hearing: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an O-T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue: 8. Public Hearing: RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 911 N. Meridian Road: 9. Public Hearing: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: 11. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: 12. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 8~ 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC - NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. is t ~~~~'e i _ '~ . ~r y £ ~ +~ ~~ ~ ~! b ~F 9^h ~( I ~€ ~ ~; ~ ,S.~ ~.. h 1' I I . ~..y . ~n~ f r ~ ~ rl~Fy~ r ~y ;-r ~: r ' ~k ~ F, t t ..} ]y -. . - "i a `c"; 'mo'd ~ ~.sr~~ r~, ii ~ 1~~i ~ ~'- 9i7 w ~! I 1 ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~~' `~ '~ e ~'t y "' , n , ~ J y `.J` { Y ti~OT' iC~l"y ~1 {L} ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~w t BUG r ~~ ~ ; ~ai~"~~I y" ~S~YI~:7' ~ a r .p ,;• .,ii;lr' . iaf I ~~ .~~[ a X71 ~~~~'. p4s' ~ ~ ~ ~'r: J ~ ~ - t~'~~ x•t_ w _ ~r{. .+{c 1.. ~ ~[ 4 t CN R J . j kw~ r ee ~~ ~ fT ?'DE[ ~~T~y, MMM ~' t.(Y t ~1 ~~ ~ G, f. (~~ y~ ' ~ 77 .: ~ 1 a L'. i~ ~ ' _ ; f'~ _ {~L~k " ~ Y y 3.A- 4E 1 y t ... _.' ~' '. 1`~c: ::u ' >`~a ~r~~.:a ,` ,'r :.. ;. ~~~ 1~.' 4 Y'; ~~ ~~ „~ ., •.'.ti:dir ~; ~t '~ , ;:,;„. ;~'~ ':~~3 ~..~i ~~ ~ .::; ~,. ,F, ~: ~•:}, "?y:f ,_ ,~,, +~ ~r -'-~~M ~'s_ °~.. -;; ~ ; ~., fi: ~'. <, -:~rp, ~k~ , .,_ _' Broadcast Report Date~me 01-16-2007 04:44:20 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Nama 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" ~l~~ t/'as-+ ~r ~ ~'l~,bU`C ~Urnc~e -~~+.~-S ~ J "`~.,~,~' °'" °" MERIDIAN PLANNINt3 AND ZONING /Y1.G'~"X~I~Hi - $ REt3Ul.AR MEE77NQ ~~+o AGENDA City Council Chambers 39 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 4ti, 2007 at T:00 pm. °~4/thaugh the Gty of Afertdian no /ongerre$uves swam tesbh'rprry, eit presentations before the Afayor and City Cound/are e~yoected to be iYuthfW and honest to bed of the abllHy of the presenter. ° 1. Ftolt-colt Aiterulance: Vacant Wendy Aiea~ton-Huckabay David Rflce Steve Siddoway Mkhael Rahm -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning 8 Zoning Commission MseNng: B. Ftndinge of Fad and Concius[ana ai Law for Approval: CUP 08.038 Request for a Conditk>nal Use Permit for a dm+e-thru window in a C-G none vanYhln 300 feet of s resident~l use for DPclcey's 13t3Q Drive-Thru by Cooper industries -2845 E. Overland Road: C. Flrtaiinge of Fad and Coneluslons of Law for Approval: CUP 06.035 Request for a CondHlortal uss Permit for adrive-thru estabiishmerrt within 300 feet of another dNve-thru faciitty and a residential dlsirld for Southern Springs BugdMg A by $RS An~itects -1780 S. AAerld~n Road: D. FlndEngs of Fact and Concluafons of Law for Approval: CUP 06.038 Request for a Coalitional Use Pem~tt for adrive-taro estabEishment within 300 feet of another ddva-ihna f~tlfty and a residential d'utrlct for Southern Sptings t3utlding B by BRS Arctritecte -1800 S. Mertdian Road: Mertden P~aroung and 2,~ing Cemmis~an g kgenda- .~amrery 18, 2008 Pepe 7 of 2 an materien premed ~ ~~ meetings srea home p~opmty orq~e cny m Meit~an. pleaea ~~~ aoaommodatiwr Ibr dfe~bgi0ee re4med to doasmann and/or beet6tg, ony Cnlit's ol0oe at ee&a4;~s et nom 4e holes priarto me puhlk maetng. Total Panes Scanned : 2 Tntal Panay ('.nnfirmari • ~9 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 559 3810160 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 Q0:00:00 012 1 - HS FA 002 559 8989551 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 00:00:37 212 1 EC HS CP21600 003 559 8848723 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 00:00:59 212 1 EC HS CP14400 004 559 8886854 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP31200 005 559 8985501 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 00:00:59 212 1 EC HS CP14400 006 559 8467366 04:18:32 p.m. 01-1Ei-2007 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 559 8950390 04:18:32 p.m. 01-16-2007 00:00:30 Z/2 1 EC HS CP28800 ~,,, i~ + 98 j,.';y~~.,.' .. ~-7 ~~ ;r ~:'., . '~kiti':: '1r~ `' ~~, i ~,~.~~ rz` i 5 { _- ;, ;'i r, . ~.Y,I ~.u $1 ~n~. p 'f ~-, ~ ~~ ~' CITY OP ~~ ~I"'~ ~ ~~ %'1~1 ~Y1G~1~17 ~ ~~ ~ ~, 1DAH0 ~~ hF j c~^ / "Eq ~ Tftensu~e V nt~Y i~os MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. " y' 1. Roll-call Attendance: a Keith Borup ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe ~ Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -Chairman x> ~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning ~..: Commission Meeting: ~~G„~~„~ ;; . B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru ~, window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for ~~- Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. ~~ Overland Road: ~~p ~®~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-035 Request fora Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a ~' ~ residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS ' Architects -1760 S. Meridian Road: ~ ~ ~ / ~ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS =,~ ,. Architects -1800 S. Meridian Road: yo~° Y' 01/~ ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. }' q ~~ , G¢'. ~;, :: :: _~. ~, ~r ,, ~> ; ~' • ~' ~ ~~:, 4:;' ~ ~`' '- is 4:, ~~ ~~~ i"== F.M: ~.. -.~ • 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: ~1p1~~'e~-~-i°c~r~ i~~~-~~"~ ~cls~ 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: ~~~~~~ ~;~~~.~~~ 6. 7. 8. ~' 9. 10. ,r~ 11. 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Public Hearring: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an O-T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue: Public Hearing: RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 911 N. Meridian Road: Public Hearing: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: ,q-p ~ ro re~e - p~ p~ ~` ~ ~ ~ Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: ontinued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3P46 ~alncon Drive: ~~~ ~~ ~ C~ ~~~~ ~ A ~ Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06`-90`32 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 $ 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: ~, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 18, 2006 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 hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~' It ~ ~ ~i;~ 3~~, ,? 1 ,.. ~', It ~ a•f_~i~ t ~ t ; a a ~i•r.: r ~~ ~'F r~ :~; ~~, jc ~ k ~ ` •Y 'C ~ * w ~~ Yi -'Nr`j ~,y ~ ,,,,yy~ p ~ Y ~ ~ ~ 5~ ~~ N t 1 I yy('j t ~~ ; )y K'} F l - ~ ~~ dd t [a SI 4 i' t ( S.^t~ ~V Y"~ _ rl y-~F.~ .. 5 1 L 7f f k 1 ~s ~,~K , ~. K! `M ~c f y ,, k k ~ ~" '~ r ..4 fi N I ~ ~~ "4 ~ ~ ~ _ 11 •~, G, .~ V - ~ ,J ..; - ;~'' ~ ~ t,ri 1 ~+, ~ ~~tv ^i~ ~ ~. ; ' ;:~ ,,hyfin:. - . Sr ' y u ~ r ~ T~ S t` { k~t: ~ .tAY~ ~ ~ 4 ~' 4 h ~ ~ 1. [[., ~ r ~ ~~jy4~!{y '~ Broadcast Report - ~ '~ ~ Date/Time 01-19-2007 10:04:19 a.m. LocaIID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Transmit Header Teed City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed y ~ (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" ~; :~'t i ~,~ u. t >~; ~„ ~'' ~: ~ ~.` ~~,: ~?' q ~~,~ L ti`? ~ ., -:. `e ,'iii ~' ~,~3 _2 h l s 1 ~ ?,~ Y 1 `: ~'~~!3,? ~-" :. x~a €~ - ,i;' ~~- ;. r~ ~1 ~ `~ fi :.. ?,*, ~~ 7. ~c .~~ r',; tM ~' ~, Y:. 7 . "'Y °" MERtt)IAN PLANNINt3 AND zONINCi ~~~ REGULAR MEISTINCi roaio AGENDA ~ City Councti Chamfers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, idaha Thursday, January 18, 2007 at T:00 p.m. Although Itre Clty of Meridian rro bnger requires sworn testimor-Y, eN pre~vitations before the Mayor and CNy troua+~t are sett to be truthhel snot honest M best of the abN/tY of the presente>:° 1. Rolf-call Attendance: ~, tCsf<h Bonip '~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay _~' DavU Moe ~ ,Steve 3lddoway Michael Rohm -Chairman 2. Adoption of the Aaenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve fVllnutss of December 7, 2008 Planning & zoning Commtaaion Maettng: /~.,,,~Y'Di/~ 8. Ftndln~ of Fact and Conehesior~s of Law for Approval: CUP 00.038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window In a C-G zone within 900 feet of a resideritlai use for Dickey's 8861 drive-Thru by Cflope- Industries -2045 E Overland Road: e„~ p Y.O,~~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusbra; of l.aw for Apprpvat: CUP 06.038 R~ueat for a Condit3onel use Permit for a drlvetlvu estabgahment within 3t3D feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs 8utiding A by BRS Archttects -1780 S. Meridian Road: /L„ p ~ ~, D. Ftradings of Fact and Coriclusforts of Law for Approval: CUP 08.036 Request for a Conditior~t Use P®rmit for a drivedhru establishment wittdn 300 feet of antlther drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southens Sp-tngs Building 8 by BRS Arohitects-1800 3. Mattdian Road:~~~,~~ Mercian Plennins e~ zadrt¢ t~mrnrdsefon Mesons Agenea - .Imruery 78. ~ Page 1 or z AB n~iwlels presented ~ puLila meeUrcga ~~ap becane f~aperly ottl~a CNy u1 Mteridian. Myone deakir+~ xetlm ~ diva flee rela4~d 4o tloaane~ endtar t~esrlr~, Pisses ~!!1~ Csy CI~1ea Office at 888-0433 e4 leeat 49 ho~as prior to 6~e ptdilk rtmet6~g. Total Paris Scannad ~ 2 Total Paaas Confirmed • ss No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 597 3810160 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:00 Oft 1 G3 HS FA 002 597 8989551 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:44 2/2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 597 8848723 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:01:05 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 597 8886854 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 597 8985501 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:01:10 2!2 1 EC HS CP74400 006 597 8467366 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:37 212 1 EC HS GP28800 007 597 8950390 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 5 ;~ 1 ~ { ~ Y ' ~~1 ~ ~'f ~ ~ L~ ~~~~ ~i M~ d ~ .~ i ~ . ~L ' } . ~ . .yam i67 a ~- J!"~~%: yy ` i {: y ~ ~ ~ ,. rry~ '5.~~ ,~'t y_3 Y b { ~ ~_f ~ k~Sl~~ li~ '~ ~jIN ~ L _ ~ _. A „S )) R}) 'I r'1Y ~ ( 7M ~ Y '. N~j! ' 1 ~Y a e~f, ' 1 .ti. „ ^S~4 _ .. .f{s ~ '$r ~i r a~^-- -- ~ ~> e ~ t ~+=': ~ w l i ; ~ r i. tq y a `+ ;; r yr.'~'iA~. ~ .l' ~; ~~~ - c ! ~ o J'+ i a ~ ,~ m4 ~ ~ X j Ali 'a`rt} ~}.. f,'".~ : ~.:. _ `=7^ ~ ~+p xp T y ~ t ~ ~if ~l~f~ 1 F s+'- :~ y. rr Rrnr,: .; ~'p s ...,. M. ....... _. .., .~ Broadcast Report ~ ~ Date/Time 01-19-2007 ! LocaIID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 10:04:28 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Loral Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 597 208 888 2682 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 597 208 387 6393 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:01:04 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 597 2877909 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:01:05 2/2 1 EC HS CP94400 011 597 2088885052 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 597 8881983 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP28800 013 597 2083776449 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:01:04 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 597 4679562 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP26400 015 597 2088886701 09:33:37 a.m. 01-99-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 016 597 8884022 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:02:92 212 1 G3 HS CP9600 017 597 3886924 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:41 212 1 EC HS CP24000 018 597 8841159 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:32 212 1 EC HS CP31200 019 597 2088840744 09:33:37 a.m. 01-19-2007 00:00:36 Z!2 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive .~ - WS: Wafting send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct ,,.:;; - ~ 't' ~ sp:,L fry. ,` a ~ wa~4 ~ ~ _ r - :<-. ~ $ ~° ~iL YAM , ~i ~ ^j~"`~y ~R T ~` ~ ~ ~~~ ~t~l ~ ~ a;~ r ,,, 4 " - ~ a - `~ z~. rt ~ - i ~~ ` t C 4 t ~ ~ . T .._'_ ml`y. ~ y,r r 4 ~it~'~a - ~ '. }+. . } to ~ F. ~ ~~ ~:~ J ~( 1 S:~:g i~j+~ t ' r '` F i i t FYI ~vL~ k ', f ~~ ~'~i'~i ~ i; }4 i i 41~ e ` * ~ ~ , F,. ;~ ~;,y ~l..l~ ~Ari `'r ~~}} s rf `- C l}t ~ iry ( ~ 4 ~ i ~; ~ . an W r" ~ -..{ !K { _ 1~J Z~~ tf 1 yy Y~~ ~~ ~ 1S~ ~ P STS ' !._ ( ~~~~~~ ~ ' l { 9 :,, H • • y ;; Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 18, 2007 , ~. ,, a~ Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 18, 2007, was ~LN, called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. ' p~ ~ Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Steve ~ ~' ~ ~ Siddoway, and David Moe ' Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Wafters, ~`~~ `~~`'I Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis ~. .~ ~ ~ ~I Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: `` Roll-call ~~~ ~ ~~ =~~~~ X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup ;' ~ X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman ~~ Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I think we are now ready to go here and ` 4'" we will begin this Planning and Zoning meeting with roll call ~,, h ' Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: z ' • Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there are ;' ~: a couple of changes to this agenda and before we adopt it I would like to just announce 4. ` what those changes will be and the first change is the Kilgore Heights Subdivision F; application has been withdrawn by the applicant, so we will not be hearing that at all ~~ A" and it won't be continued, it will just be withdrawn. Items 6 and 7 on the agenda -- no, just six. Excuse me. For Waltman property. That item will be continued to the Y. ~ ~~ ~ February 1st regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning due to improper ~~ posting. So, if there is anybody here for that item, it will not be heard tonight, but it will be continued to the February 1st agenda. And those are the two changes and ~~: ' ~ apologize for those that, obviously, came to see those items. So, with that being said, ~:~ could we get a motion to adopt the agenda? "~' ~ Moe: So moved. ~~ Siddoway: Second. t Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: a ~ 1" f•~ 4~; ~ 1 :fR t'~." t ~ I` ii^. _~ Y :1. ~ ~ •'bY0. ~~ @ ,: 44 ~ i I• '?~ `:i. , r s Y{ g f ,~ :7` a ~ ~ ~ ') ~v! s r'~: k.C4~..1 ~ .. -.~' ^~ 1t ~ C~ I r ` ' " ~ 4~. Cy"p L 4§X~ ~S €~i`K ,1, i, ~ ~! 1'.n i 7 i ti I '• ~~• I c4~ a: ~ 'R 1 C `! ~. ' :~. :.~ ~ ' ~ ,•. :x • ~ ~ A ~ ff ° ;~ ~i s~r>a?'b 'vr'~a Y- ~ Vii;,. r ~ } It.: . • ' ' • • ~4 ~ y I (~ $ :~ ~F F ~ ~ ih I.F:. ~'~" f 7 _ a ~ fF.. , . ~ ~ ~ y ~ ' a, ~ I i ~ ' / ' ~s. ' yw,~,~ F '~':"T ~~ ~i~.: t '+. _' l,' 1 ' ~~" :. `IU". ~') { 6 : tV ~: F.~ ~=a "' ~:.... i a t , ~ : } I ~ {l' „ +-,< I • 3w" ! ' `.i ? 4, i :.n. ~ ~I '• •3 ~1. •, '•'Srt;: t { i , , . y .. . '! ~ ~ ~1 t J i P ~ s.1' ~ Jc r L i+ , l ~ ( M y ~ Fk . . ~„ K ' t ' P? ; 7 { • r; „ i s . J , 1 _ I ,. , ki~ ' ` ` " 3 ~ ~ { ~ ~ . 1!'EZ~•Mr:hi.`n~Y"K' T~f.Zi k ~l:c~.'4^'^'~"~1t4 C :~ ~`"'' '?C C~~ I P ~'C .. Y ia' * . ~, . j~!+.1° i 1 } ~ [ { ' p , 4 f k , ~=i?s . ~s :•• E z M,• • ' `` • I t~ {` ~ i b y ~ h a i a ~ .. . ~.-Y .. .) ~ 1 . Y s, ... .... .4 k 7~ , .. ` i f . 9 e ,~ . } . . a R . '~.` v •~.. ~N2•. ~.~•` n' 'i . ~ ~ .. ~I' yam,.:' _ ~ ~ 1 k r' (' ~ ' ''~"F~' ` . I,. '`fin' ~:'~ ~~ ~ ~~+.'TTmi .. ':~~'', ~ ~E:y, t ~, ! ~ '§"...4 A ~' ~ wit + ~ y~4 . 4. I {. 'G•• 't I I F Y :I ~l ' ~.~i'' t S'b~r~ ~. ~:1,., s L s '• ~f . r~ a ~ 1 :I ~~ i f ~ ~.~c ~ ' a ~ ~ . ~' r `'i ° ~~ J y,.' ~Y. ~>-' :, } ,i5 ~; ;, . s ~..~~I <;~ ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 2 of 40 A. Approve Minutes of December 7, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru by Cooper Industries - 2845 E. Overland Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-035 Request for a Conditional use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A by BRS Architects - 1760 S. Meridian Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-036 Request fora Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B by BRS Architects - 1800 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and there are four items on this segment and the first is the approval of the December 7th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Item B is Findings of Facts and Conclusions for approval of CUP 06-039, Dickey's BBQ Drive-thru. Item C is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-035 concerning Southem Springs Building A. And the fourth item on the Consent Agenda is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-036 for Southem Springs Building B. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda or are there any changes or modifications to the minutes? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the Consent Agenda as outlined. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ,~. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 k I ,~s~i~ < ~r ~~ ~ r ti..t ?.~ C ~ i., ` 1 3' cr j~ i ~ 'i~ a - _~P ~ r,t ~ t7 / P~ ~ .:,~ a~s:'{~i ~ i i., f `-. ~ v t° . -. ii r ,~' '~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ Y'4r ~ . j~ 4 ~ _ ~ N.. ' /~ ~~~ yeti L. 7 ~ ~~~.{ ~ r ~ x '. ' ,• Y ~ ~ `t ~ i , ~~~N '~ s'~Mk. ~i~~ '~ri f ~ '}! ~ 1 f~5 -y 1 ? + r yy yq qq ~ ~ P{ ~ F~K ' '1 4 ;OFF { }.lief ~ ' ' l ~. F ~ F ~ +~~,F~ r w ~ ~y~ t ~ F'T 1 i ~ t c "i,fii,~, W y, `r. ~ ~~ J t,, m ~~~.h~,': „~. `, ~ k { :r ~ti~~ ; ' ~ 1 . ~ - ~~ ~r rig e I~ ~ - ~} ~~ ~ i.`~ ,.-, r.;y ~ ~~`. ~~~ ~` ?' ; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 3 of 40 ;Y common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone 'for Kilgore Heights :~ - ~ .~ ° Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 _;~~ W. Victory Road: ~ <c " ' Rohm: Mr. Nary, do we need to even announce the withdrawal of Items 4 and 5 or with them being withdrawn it's -- there is no real purpose to open them I don't think. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you don't need to open them, you s~, «` can simply by voice vote move to accept their request to withdraw that and, then, move f ,., on. It was only announced you were going to do it. That would be the formal action of ~~ '~ the Commission. Rohm: Okay. }' Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept the withdrawal of AZ 06-051 and PP 06- 052. >, :, ';~,~; Borup: Second. kx ~' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the withdrawal of AZ 06-051 and PP ;~` 06-052. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. '~~~ , Item 6: Public Healrin AZ 06-063 Re uest for Annexation and Zonin of 38.68 9~ q 9 t~._ acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by ~, J~,~~ Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: ' Rohm: Next item on the agenda is to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-063 for the : y sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 1st. Could I get a motion to that effect? -~` _ ,::~: Moe: So moved. ~ ~ ~~`~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. ,,. ,~ Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item AZ 06-063 to the regularly .~ y; ~ scheduled meeting of February 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same _ ~' ~' sign? Motion carried. }F, ~" ``~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Now, before we open the next item on the agenda I would like to just speak to you for a moment about the procedures that we go through here and, then, we ~ ~~~~. ~,~:~R ~,, _~; - • Meridian Plannin & Zonin Commission 9 9 January 18, 2007 Page 4 of 40 will open the next item. Basically, the first thing we do is we ask the staff to make their presentation of each project from their perspective and what they will do is they will take a look at the project as it applies to the UDC and to the Comprehensive Plan. They will make a recommendation to the Commission based upon their findings. Once the staff has given their presentation, then, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to make their - presentation. Basically, that's their sales pitch. And once those two presentations have ,' ; been concluded, then, we will open it up to the public. The public will each have three minutes to speak and if, in fact, there is an individual that's speaking for a larger group, we will give some leeway there, but once that portion of the presentation is completed, then, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to come back up and speak to those items that have been brought up by the concerned public. Once that process is done, we will close the Public Hearing and, hopefully, be able to render a decision or if not '~ enough information, then, we will have to continue to a later date. But that's the `- procedure and when each of you come up and speak, if -- you need to state your name ~~ and address for the record before testimony begins. ~~~ ~, ` Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 06-013 Request for a Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an O-T zone for Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property by Paradigm Real Estate Holding - 39 W. Pine Avenue: ~~y, Rohm: So, with that being said, we will start with the next item on the agenda and that's . ~ r~: at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-013 for Shepherd -- Valley ~~`, She herd Church of the Nazarene ro e p p p rty and begin with the staff report. ~ _ l Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. I'd like to just begin -- the title of this ~' hearing is a little bit confusing. It is called the Valley Shepherd Church, but as you can `;~ see on the presentation I put 39 West Pine, because this isn't referencing -- this isn't ~~'Y" referencing the actual Valley Shepherd Church, it's a piece of property that the church . - '' owns or is in the process of selling and that's why it's going through this process to be `.=~7 x ~i rezoned. There is a -- it's changing hands and so it doesn't really involve the church at ~~ `"`' ~~ all, it's just a matter of the name of the project happens to be that. It's actually an existing home that the church owned and used for their purposes and no longer will do ' ° °' so. With that said, the subject property is located at 39 West Pine here in -- and it's approximately .43 acres in size. Very close to Meridian Road. Just to give you a little >; bit of the surrounding area, to the north is the -- is, obviously, Pine Avenue and this area `~`'~' right here is the Meridian Elementary School and all of that area is zoned R-4. To the ~`'~!~ east this parcel right here is -- is an approved office use. It was approved through a ` '''` Conditional Use Permit. It, actually, hasn't been developed as that yet, but it has OT "" zoning and has a Conditional Use Permit approval for an office use on that.site. To the a south are single family -- single family homes, along with to the west you have West 1st Street and also more single family homes. As stated earlier, this application is for a .';~ request to rezone this property, the subject, from R-8 to OT to allow for an office use on ~5 _i this site. We can move onto the aerial photograph, which gives us a different view of it. The applicant is proposing through this application -- let me go to the concept plan, ~`:' which will help us. Basically, to redevelop this site using the existing structure, so there -~ ~'~` will be no modification to the existing building footprint, but there will be some 3 ':~ ` .~ r ~ mucti i~ rem icy aeah.-.::.:-,-J- ~, -.: ~~As ; r r r ~~ + ~ ~ -; , r x r n~~t, ~ ~ r, k,~. Elf /.~~~ --?:•?,,~. 4 ~ t t ~'414rG Ica i~ y.K ~~~ ~ 2 ':ice: ~;1 ` ~,h~ ~t;r z ~ ~ ~ r{~ ~; , ,i< ~ Vi ~~ ~ 7 1 !~ ~r'O s s. it~., ~yj'7 i'{ ~ L 'J N +.~~~'. '' .,..' 77~Y ~ J .F.c. k ~ i ro 1 r "Jn~rp [ ~. `l ~: ~~ , j ~Q ~q ~ ` k. 1 '~'~ 7_ 1 ~~r~IF r ; G/S 3. ~ 7~is ~: ~~7+Jr / , ~,, ~ ,}y; ~ G tLL ~ ~• 1 '. },'iT •~ i ~¢yyyy ' ~~4rr{~ ~ f.S . Fa t ~:~ i . 2 ~ ~k~°J. . ,_ 4.~`~ 1 ~ ~ tj *Q ~ ,risk r_ a S .~~ r; ~ ~ ~" ~~ ~ LI .yl •- - '3 ~ - ~~'-~ .; Y'~_,~ 1 ~: yfl "' i :; t iii . ~ ~, ,:~:-;, ,~~ M. ,, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 5 of 40 modification to the site as you can see. One of the main modifications is an addition of the driveway, which is located here, is proposed to be relocated through the concept plan provided by the applicant to the eastern comer of the site and the applicant is also proposing to locate some diagonal parking to be used by this -- by this proposed office building. And the diagonal parking, the interesting thing about that is it's located partially within the right of way. At first staff was a little bit concerned about that, but after it was reviewed by ACHD, they gave their approval and staff is also supportive of this parking layout with a small parking lot here and some parking located within the right of way. Staff views it as kind of a unique solution to the parking problem that we really have downtown and it's a unique solution, because it -- it really -- the flexibility of ACHD to allow some parking within their right of way. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because currently this parcel is designated -- or this lot is designated as Old Town on the Comprehensive Plan and so the applicant is simply requesting that designation, which is consistent, and the concept plan appears to be consistent with the Unified Development Code also. There is a development agreement proposed to be associated with this project and some of the special considerations that are called out in the development agreement are, first, that in the future any exterior modifications or enlargement of this structure need to be consistent with the downtown Meridian design guidelines, which kind of govern development in the Old Town district. Second, the applicant really should only -- should be restricted to that -- only that one access off of Pine Street. Third, we are requesting that the applicant provide a 20 foot landscape buffer along Pine Street, which is classified as a minor arterial street. That's not really usual in the Old Town district, but because they are using the existing building, staff thought it was appropriate to try to remain consistent with other development along Pine and include that buffer. If, in deed, this were to redevelop in the future and they wanted to place a building within that area, which would be allowed in the Old Town District that would be allowed also through the development agreement. And, lastly, the applicant is going to be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance to make sure that the occupancy changes is done correctly. Other than that, staff is supportive of this project and recommends approval of by the Commission. And I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? a >; Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: One question, Justin. The existing driveway on the approved office lot to the -- just to the east of it, is it just on the other side of that property line? ' ~ Lucas: I believe so. It is just on the other side. There was some issues -- I did a little '~ research on that and there turned out to be some issues with a utility pole that's kind of existing right here and there is some guy wires that make kind of doing a shared access or across-access just not very feasible on this site. The applicant also looked at it and I did a site check and did verify that with the way it's currently situated it makes it very *rti . d` ,~ ~, , =r ,~,,~, a '~ ~ ;;.:; I rti, w K ~r1~.. 4 { ~, l ~t . ~~].f'iT i ~1~L. +-NF^ r~;G';x > ~ .. ~ i h #w;c `r ~ ti' b { S ItS s t ~ :~ .~, '" ' '-,. .,~.., s- ~ i ~? i ~, ~ tF y='~ _ A ~:.':~. ~- fps ~~ f ~`~ f ~~~' til fit; r ;. ~ ;?r4 :a ! r'. ~, s~ `~~, ~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission ~ '.~ January 18, 2007 Page 6 of 40 difficult to link those two access points and that's why we went ahead and said it would be okay to allow that driveway there and ACRD I think did the same research and found the same thing. Really, in the future to redevelop that whole area you would have to ~~~'. have multiple parcels come together and take care of that utility issue. :~ {Yfi'4~ ~# ~ ~ ..;.. ~~' Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? ;~,; ~..> f McCallister: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Gary McCallister, 702 West Idaho Street, °' ~~ Boise, Idaho. We are in concurrence with the staff report and in agreement with the ~'~ ~• development agreement. Don't have any issues. pr. ~~ q~ "~~ Rohm: Wow. Thank you. There is nobody that has signed up to testify to this application, but the floor is still open. If someone would like to testify now is that time. . z,~ ; Seeing none -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. ~-~ -~ Moe: Second. ~~~ ^" t~~' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. %; ~~ Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to `~~~ recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-013, as presented in the ~~ staff report for the hearing date of January 18th. End of motion. ,;; Moe: Second. "` " Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending ~~ approval of RZ 06-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion ;~~~ k~~ >:%~: carves. ~; ~~~~~~ ~, MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 06-014 Request for a Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School ~- District No. 2 - 911 N. Meridian Road: ~~~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014 related to the :- ,~~ School District No. 2 and begin with the staff report. s ' k~ 's r~~~: ~x~;,: ...~ ,. ,~:a ~~~~ ~:~ _ s r~:: ~~~., , .. . . f Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission ~ ' January 18, 2007 ~ Page 7 of 40 II'' N - Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a r , 4 r~, rezone request for a property located at 911 North Meridian Road, which includes the ~;. Joint School District's administrative offices and elementary school site. The subject ~~'~ ~ property is generally located on the northwest comer of North Meridian Road and West Pine Street. The property is surrounded by single family residences. You can see here on the aerial. Zoned R-4 and OT. And a medical office directly north of the site here on z,= Meridian Road. The property consists of 15.58 acres and is currently zoned R-4. The applicant is requesting a rezone to the OT zone, which complies with the ,a, Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of Old Town. No new - ~ development is proposed at this time. The school district is in the process of relocating ~:~~ their administrative offices to another site and would like to sell the portion of the property where their offices are currently. Rezoning the property to OT would allow for commercial and office uses on the property, which are not allowed in the R-4 zone. The elementa school w ould al so be a e rmitted use in the OT district. T he administrativ e ry P '` ~~ offices are accessed from Meridian Road and the school is accessed from West 1st Street. Let's see here. At the north of the site. No landscaping improvements are ~' required at this time, but will be required upon development of the property. The historic preservation committee submitted comments on this application late that were not included in the staff report. They would like to have an historic marker acknowledging ,: the education heritage of the site installed on the old Pine Street school site. The old ~ school is located -- I believe it's right there on Pine. They would also like the applicant to address at the Public Hearing where the school will be relocated. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezone as requested by the applicant and stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Stiles: Shari Stiles. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario Street in Meridian now. The school district asked for our help in -- our help in rezoning this property, so that they could sell off the excess property that they will no long require once they move into the Jabil site with the administrative offices. The existing Pine school -- or Pine Street school is there, the old historic building. That was done in cooperation with the school district and the city and the superintendent of schools for the Joint School District No. 2 ~_~ and the Mayor will be working out the details of relocating that. It may be put on the site there. Definitely once they have a buyer for the site where that building is situated that will be included in their agreement that they know that they have to wait until that building is relocated. We did have one question, if staff could clarify for us. It's on Exhibit A under the fire department comments, under 3.3, it says the applicant shall work with the planning department staff to provide an address identification plan and a - sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersections. I'm not quite sure what that means. The school district will not be developing the site that they sell off. Each -- you know, it could be somebody buys each lot or it could be one entity buying all three lots. But they certainly want to work with the Planning and Zoning staff and want to meet all the safety requirements, but they just -- we had a little question about that particular item and how we would go ' i' 4 ~. KL'4* Y { ~ l~ i ~ ~ ~, y `y~y ~. ~999~~ 1 ' ; ~ ' t ,4 µ~o j HW ~ ~ W 1 ~ ~ ~i '3 ; _ .r..,;'~ ' s ~'~~ K's~ y ~ ~~ ry - ~ t S ~`~ ~1%L ~ 1 G j .4 7 ~~ ~ tiF ~ - I ~ ~~ - t 4 y 1 ~ f ~~ !z ~ ;_ ~~ fit~5 ' r: ~2 '} ~ `~ a ~' ~~ f , ~~ yV ~r~ c W' ,~ ~~~ ~f~ f ~,, ; M, ; ~ii is x ~~` „~, ,~:!'r ~' ` ~ ~{ a ~~ u -. - ` ..:in•~F K ~ ~ ~ , ~ _ '~YF YSy,~ . z 7 ~IS~S t ~ _. + ~ti ;f 1 tY ~,~f~".Fr_: 7 ' ~s h" r c ~ - c ,X r 4 F ~~ ,. + ~z ~ ` y r ~ ~ ~~~ q~'4 _ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ' j 's: }~~ `1iyl }~ {~` "' `` Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ~ January 18, 2007 ~~'y ~ ~'',' Page 8 of 40 about that. Basically, the school district is doing this at the request of the City of ~ ''"~ =.~3~ Meridian and to make sure that they have buyable pieces of property left when -- when -`'' L ;; they adjust those boundaries. Right now, being zoned R-4, I don't think very many =~~_' people want to live in a single family home on that comer, so -- do you have any ~.; <;~ questions? ~~'' " ` Rohm: I don't believe so, but let's see if we can get a clarification from staff. ~: -,. ~; ~, Wafters: Commissioners, from what I understand, the elementary school itself is ~~ ~ addressed off State Street. The administrative offices are addressed off of North Meridian Road. State Street does not go to this property. State Street goes to the ~`' center line of North Meridian Road on the east side. So, the fire department was ,;., concerned about emergency access, you know, finding the site should they need to, you know, in case of emergency. The applicant was asked to contact Tricia Bieren in ~¢ the Public Works Department to coordinate a new address for the school site. Stiles: And we have no problem with that. It was just about -- talking about addressed ~~ } identification plan and a sign which meets the requirement at the required intersections. ;4 - I'm not sure what -- :~ , Wafters: I'm not absolutely positive what the fire department would like on that. I'm assuming maybe that they meant if the address wasn't changed, that they would like a ~~ ' sign, you know, directing people to the site, but I'm not positive. The fire department could clarify that for you. Stiles: Well, Commissioners, the school district would certainly work with both ~,~. ~~ departments, Planning and Zoning Department and the fire department to make sure ~~ that there are no safety concerns with the addressing. ~~ Rohm: That seems reasonable. Thank you. ~> Stiles: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? ~~ ~ Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. z.;s v Siddoway: Shari, for the existing old school, right now there is not a specific site that is to be moved to. It may -- it may actually stay on site or it may be moved; is that correct? ~.,,, Stiles: It will be moved from where it presently is. Siddoway: Okay. Stiles: Wendell Bigham is here and he could answer more specifically, probably, they F{ do own a single family home that is on their property and they have been discussing the ~" ~: v '. ~~ + } . ~ Y _~ 1W" " ~ { ~ ~ r~~ v 1~ ' ~!~'~~~5 a ~ Y ~~ : : Y ti ~ ~~ Y yt ;:y I ~:'C ~. • t ~ ! - .~ n ,<Y ~i_ o J T7 'i . s ~~bK ° ~ P t t `k! {}' Nx? i1 .M ~~~ ~~ wF T ~ _ ' 1 C~ ~~ 4 ~~yy{{ l ~ i ~ _ ~ ~ } i K.~ a ~ ~y _5 ~ p ( ~} j (Y~~!rd~ l ~ ~ .. ~?~~ Y. w.r ~i~Y ty'~ '~; L,'1;1:; ;i~ ~j if ~~.~ } S' t ~'.1Y ~ ; !. .I d - i~ ~ .r ' 1 . y~'fi; ~ 1, . ~,i19 4~ ~h x ~~ i f~ ~ 1 ~~~J i ~~~ ~':_ i ~~`1 ~ ~ "~ ~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 ~ Page 9 of 40 r ~.,,., _+: ~, ~~ option of tearing down that home and moving the structure to where that home was. understand that they have got an agreement with a home mover that has volunteered to s ~ ,~~~ • do that at no charge for the city. `';~j Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. r, Stiles: Thank you. :i, ~''~'~ Siddoway: Could we hear from -- Mr. Chairman, could we hear from Mr. Bigham? ;` .: .. ~~ Rohm: Absolutely. ~; ~~ Bigham: Thank you. Wendell Bigham. Address 911 Meridian Road here representing , ;;~'j Joint School District No. 2. Briefly expand on where the house -- the old school house - -~ --' k~ - I think that sitting (right here is the existing Pine Street schoolhouse. We own a house ''~~}~~'i right here. We cleverly call it the west wing. It currently houses our substitute ~ placement office. Our plan for our house of cards kind sounds like this. We hope to ~~` vacate all of these facilities over March spring break of this year, last week of March, at which point here in the immediate future we would like to offer up these three parcels for - sale, with the condition that we move out of here, we move out of this house. This ::l", `'~' ~ house is, then, razed, the site is back filled, and a new foundation is placed and the ~~~ ~`:: I Pine Street school moves from here to here and any of the agreements that exist . i between the City of Meridian and the school district for care, custody, control of it, .~ ~.~ _.I continues the way it is. We own the land, the city owns the building, and we are just simply moving it over here, at which point it will be contiguous -- I think the Y now has the building here, but it will be contiguous with the Meridian elementary campus and probably will reside there for perpetuity. Siddoway: Okay. One follow up. I think the best way to me to insure that that takes r place is probably -- since this is a rezone, with a development agreement that would just say something to the effect that that historic structure needs to be moved or maintained on the elementary school site. Would something like that be acceptable? Is that too specific at all for you or -- Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, I don't believe I have a problem with that. That is truly our intent. That is the discussions we have been having. It ironically ~.' took quite a period of time to dig through actually who might own what when it came to 4, that old school house in terms of the agreement, but I don't think that's problematic. w. ~ That is our intent. It's the most cost effective way to do it and it preserves it in the neighborhood where it has existed. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. ` '.... ~ ,. :.~. ~ N _ F ~ r, rnF #. 'S; :i h • 5'~; ' a- J• 5+:. :. ~ `:.; ., ~~ e cam; ,r x, : +, ~I R' . ' ~, IJ :s ,5~ {~ k } zi; .:. ., t :~5.. ... .......r:~ . ' q ,: ~, .. 4 . ..... .. r... 'E 1 . I .. .c :,~~: ~........ .. .... .. .. .,.. ~ ~.:. ~ .... LL ~ ~ I . I ~ ' ' ~ ' ~ p• .:.C:~ .r... T{+ ~J"' • l `? _ .~'~~`d '~,u F 1 ` ~ • ' ~1 Y ' . I A :'j :: ^ • ,€~ s `;~;e` ~, , '~a` r:~;•~tg.'},J Y ~ . Ea , k ;~ ; 7 ~ . ~ ` ~ , Y, ~ 'i ~~. '' +~f x~ _ ^j $ x F I yv ~ '~ .f3 1 ~ S i 3;'~ 1 : h~ + 1r ' .:~1'~r • F n,'W.p::;~f • ' ,, . ~ 4 fi ~, .KA.., ,~ , n ~ '.k iy.. F . i ' ~ ~. « F. '~1 t" : i fa " "' fi ' L' `t lF • e i. <~ : %=t i}`^f= £ '~% I: ~` i~ ::.~ ~ E ,x r ;. ~ : ~ ~ .Y... ~.~4 ~ ` , . . :b :i3 1 ` 1•r :' . Yia , ~ ~"`. 'M`.•TE,it~ K"FA;' •:fi• . .y . •^ _ ~ ~r :`. a~i , ; ~ x ,R : `~".=• ' $. `. F ~.!'~ ~ ~ .i~ ~ £, I.' ~.n ~ 3 3 } ' !'+r ,k 1 1 , A't• ~ ~ • . .?-•'i':S` 3 ~ ~ } •' Yip ' ` ~ ~ n ., . _11': ` .. J . . ` F ~ ~ ~ ~.a+1. ` ~! , . , , ~ C"<y`,d.e:;,(i, •.S ~ .}~ ``~. ~• 3:. A , +'~.i I{ 1 1. •~- I r } '`~ i~ 7 1 , L y 1• t<~ t . f. = Se:.:k~ . ]! ..s . ` ii~t ~ ' N,i~, +~ly } x • , . Tii' ;~ .r .~r,'B.YY~A,F ?y; • ti`• j ~ vl•: 7 I, ~ r I ! .~ t ~, ~ :S E t ` i e~ i p : ~k i * ;.}., ; Y `; wt''i'.; 'I: ~` r~•wi L;`i,~ W. y 7 ii •:: Y 7~ ~! •k_,' { ~'.~ t h ~ ::'•i". fF ..3t9~J~~n F.`,. t+ 5~~ ~' 4 . .¢-c+ ::. ~r~~ .r . r a t : `:; •.,.~..~`.?'i.. :'x , ~kf~s I i. t ` ~ :~I ~. I ,• '• i ~ ~ ~` ~',•s;;:~:,;^ z~ c`xy7~*t ` 7.. .. :7i5~ "~' '~ t R[F ~' ! ~~ '-7 "~( F K ~ hF; 3°... ~ - ' ..~• r },y :t , . r .. 3 S. ~s,. '~f- t s ~ . , 1ii~ ' ~ `~i' ;~ ` . t •~"s?,F=}~, rar'i~+. .~'. ~~ F', ~' ~. .I' R J , ~.' I k ~! 1 1 f ` {{ r . .;• 6i ~.. !E. ~yw~ "_ r~r, .~: M}'y ~ ±:'~i e~~ Y ~ :.j .. ~ t' ~. i , °i ~' ~: l' ~. ~ ~ i i IyN i ',! St µ` } ,ltq TI3 ~ Itt; ' .;~. ~ ` LS:,:. n P ~ .g.,~'w .. .y.. N +Y• 'E , a . . 1 r PL3 r ..S<~ ~Jn. t&3'~.: ' i , - • ~ ~ f ~, ~ 3 A ~ ~ `~ a ~ Y~ • ~ ~: F ~'~:•,;= ~ F ` + ~• ~-~ fir;,. : i <} ,'1F[1 t :F%' Y 9 • i f y I j I ' ' tf 1~i .,$ : ~ { 11 ^ RFII l' ~.. r 4 ~..a .n y ~ " f - r ~ ` ` a _ . ~ Y ~ .. ' ~ . 1' ~ . ' f , ~ M1i ,v t ; . ~ . ; 1. ,c ,~ ( ~ ( ~~'7II F jj ,. t` 'I ; T ' R , 4, .[ ~ ~ ' . ~,. . t~ . c, f ~ '•``~4c ; . ~. „ >~ ° ~ "Y ~~ iy ~ S i :. ,x~~ }} [[.~~~'~ 5 ] ~i ~%d Mi ; lr v . : t ;, ~, ~ Ad S`~"~ ~ 1~ [} ~. ~~''~.";.:a``y~~ (VVV Y !i. .i. ~r: i ,~'f. 1., ~.~ e .! 1 ~ , a`r~_>'~"M~• F.~V ,_. ~ ~ Y .p ~`... .n ~4 ` ' • . ~I. ~ a k l ' • ~ • :i^• .~ e x ! . L•, i 7 ~y ' ` I K'i i- ° II ~. I I . L '. 1. ~ ti 5~.. ,1 ,', Y k ' ~ 1?• r ' 'f.a ,~ ~ }$~~ i' ~ t t ~ J ~. .R Y F t. i e~ ' " ~ ~ ~yn,'Si ~`'h~; j,4; ,,;~'y vy r KS 1 ~~ , r• .. . . ~ , , a r ~~ ~ . .. ~ ~ 33 ~k •:.°"{ ii< 3 , _ f I , 7 f.: I ~ i t . ', ~ FI ~, ~ I ~ '• ~N y ,[.s~~~, a Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 10 of 40 Bigham: May I ask one further clarification? Shari was bringing up the addressing concems. As a point of clarification, I'd like to know if we -- and maybe this is a staff level discussion -- whether or not we have the option to maintain the State Street `- addressing for the school, which for way finding works only because the school has been there for 40 years and everyone knows the address and where the school is. Or, more importantly, this is now the main entry of the school. There is a circular driveway in here. I don't know that this photograph shows it all that well. But a change in addressing we would probably be in support of the West 1st change or the ability to somehow get a sign out on State Street if that is, in fact, State Street, to identify the school. So, am I interpreting it correctly that we have kind of two options available to us to talk to Planning and Zoning about? Because, as Shari said, I don't understand that -- that sign comment. Probably the best solution is the change in the addressing to that West 1st. Wafters: Commissioner Rohm -- excuse me. If I could answer that. The city staff would like the address to be addressed off of West 1st Street. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, then, our -- our plan would probably be to have that addressing changed the summer of '07 when school is out, so that the school opens in September of '07 with a new address. Just in terms of time. Wafters: Staff has no problem with that. Rohm: Again, I think that's going to be worked through staff and -- as opposed to this body. ~~~ , Bigham: Thank you. } Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. We do not have any others signed up to speak to this application, but now is the time to come forward if you have additional comments or concems. Seeing none -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014. ':~ Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-014. All I~ those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Siddoway, you had a couple of good ideas and, possibly, if you wanted to make the motion. Moe: Before that I just have a question if I might. ;l 9111 ,~~ f ~ S t l ~. f gkkg,~~ ~ ~ f, } s~~ ' .,~ { .7 st (a i i y 3 ~~ t _ _ o a ~ Sa ' ~ ~« ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Kja'y r4 '4 . T ,.14.~;~ ', ~ ~ ~d fv- r . ~1 ~ ~'~ ^ . . n ~~ ~~~ r T~ ~i ! ~~~~; p y ~~Z '1( ' t r i 'ff '~ ~ ` ' ~ + m ~Aai~, r Q h ~ ~. ~r F ~: } I if ( .t 3rtLf~. i ~ I ~ i.r tin f ~ ~ ~` ' j ` ~ -. ~ ~ ~~ . ~.> ~ x y Y ~1+ ~ ~ `~~ ' t ~ V t ~1 - ~i 1'. EM.~N.'. J1 .;{~ z R;'' , Y ~~ Fi Yi. ~- ~S]!~Yy N A12 j a~ k~=~~ a +~ y it ,,.~' ~~ ~ ~ '~ Y;R ;, , `;~'~ i ~ ~+ :.~ ;:~ ~ r ~a _, ~: "' r ~ ~#:~ .7k ~u r, i ~' ~..~, {.~'; ~~;:.- _i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 11 of 40 Siddoway: Yes. Moe: I'm just kind of curious. Would the fact that the city owns the building already -- I mean I'm not opposed to adding something to the -- you know, the agreement, but at the same time the city owning the building already, that prior to it being moved and whatnot, the district is going to have to work with the city on that anyway, so I'm not sure -- Rohm: It might be a bit redundant? Moe: That's what Iwas -- Borup: Well, the concern is a place to put it. Siddoway: Yeah. I'd like to see it kept on the Meridian elementary school site if at all possible. Moe: Okay. No problem there. Siddoway: The other thing that I'm wondering about, Mr. Chairman and Sonya, may be the -- that condition of approval regarding the addressing. I'm just trying to determine if there is any additional wording needed to clarify, because I do think what was discussed is reasonable. What was that condition number? Borup: 3.3. I think it says needs to be worked out with staff. So, that leaves a lot of flexibility. Wafters: Commissioner Siddoway, you could make that a requirement of the development agreement if you wished to do so, if you are requiring a development agreement. Siddoway: To work out the addressing situation with staff and the fire department, with the understanding that it would not have to be changed prior to the school opening in fall of '07. Wafters: Correct. Siddoway: All right. Borup: It wouldn't have to be changed prior to the school letting out in the spring. Siddoway: Letting out in the spring. Borup: Yeah. It wouldn't have to be changed prior to that. Siddoway: Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman? ~ ,I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 12 of 40 ~:: ~ ,`.L Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. r. „~i Siddoway: I'd like to make a motion. I move to recommend approval to the City Council { ~~ .' of file number RZ 06-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of January ~''~I 18th, 2007, with the following addition: I would like to add the requirement to enter into "'~~ a development agreement, which would state that the existing historic school that is on ' ~ ~~'ll the property shall be moved and maintained on the existing Meridian elementary school lot prior to development of the parcel that's in question on the comer of Pine and ',=~! Meridian Road. Second of all, in that development agreement I would add some `° ~ '' clarifying language that the addressing for the school be worked out with the emergency ~~ services and planning staff with the address change needing to have happen after t school lets out this summer and prior to school resuming in the fall of 2007. ' Moe: Second. J 4 ,I ".: jv , Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-014 to include all staff comments with the ' aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: ;~ Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Ada County Emergency Medical Service facility in an I-L zone. The vicinity map's overhead here. The subject property. The property is generally located a quarter mile west of Locust Grove on the south side of East Pine Street at 963 East Pine. Directly north of the site is vacant property owned by Ada County for future development, zoned I-L. To the east is industrial property zoned I-L. To the south is Ada County Weed and Pest Control building, zoned I-L. And to the • west is rural residential property in Ada County, zoned R-1. The Unified Development Code requires Conditional Use Permit approval for all public uses. Also, a condition of the plat for Weed and Pest Control campus subdivision was that all future uses obtain Conditional Use permit approval. One 4,100 square foot building is proposed to be constructed on the site and will include an enclosed vehicle bay for the parking of two EMS ambulances. The interior spaces of the building will include a visitor's lobby, kitchen, day room, and sleeping rooms for the employees. The facility will operate and ' be manned 24 hours a day. Here is a close-up view of the site plan. This portion of the property is -- of the application is only for the southern portion of the lot. This site plan x` ~'S ~'• f ~? i I, i `I' 4.f t f;F°a: ~d , ~ .. ;. j~Y ' r [ 1 l E r l L `~` ;~nt I %~ y~ I ~s. " I ~ it . ~:~ # , ~ q' .In..~ ';..xL t f ~ } Il . I: ~ ~ ~'~ . ' i #n: } i' ~ Sr~Y.r ,...~ 'I ' F;`K~ o: '.r .'4! . '~ d , !U. T R Y.Y z.. . . ~ : ~ S . . , . n Ci . • ; f: ~. F ` '>> E±ri :~~Et.~. 'i :. ' a ~ J j ' I • +s ', !` f 'q4, r.. ;)~t tt •~• .x ~3 :~ ,A`: .:{`' ';p' ' ~ 1 d 1 t '£~ da ~ ~ ' ~1 ~ ~ ~~ 1 ... Y ' yi'^ '• s~i ?~Q ~ „ 1yt~ 1 ^i~ ~'c ,~•Wt.•<` ~" ,~ e f. '~i:•~:" • F {~: , ~ ~ rt T ~ ~ d '~ ~` ~ pp. f~ x; ':T•^~ , : ' , G h .~ k - .~ .r( .f`r..~a,"Y .. R•1 p $ ... Y. • F .. s . .. ~ u .Y 1'1:, t• ','xe\::a 'u .,. ~ .. ' s ~t 1 ~ ~ ~ ~, 1 4 . x l / { . . ' , ' 1 { . v ) • +Y ~ ,. s ' - .{{ ly irx`;`? * i e• 'ifs. '.~ . ~~ ;" I~ ~ - i y'g~ ~ ! . ~ ~~ . ., ~ ~.•. I~ '•'", ~S ,` .: .; : K ; t,^ :. ~ y ~ , .. .. a • I `' ~. r . ~ ~ , ~~ •, .. a~~'• , Yi. ..t" ,.~, ":'< i i'r e.'%.•`. ~ '' s jl ' ; ?S' ,. $ f I tl { € 1 ~ ' ~ I ' .L ~ .+ ~ . r +. 4 "' ~<k} ~ '". y~,' . I 9, ' s .. e .} yfi•, {.- ( . I d t.l } ~ ~ .; <<, . .( ~ x ! .4' J1 „~~ •..s,,x fix 3• ~..1` J °' I. I ~ s: I I• C 1. ' : , 3, r°{i•. .~ih~'A.e •• I Y y y. .1~' ! r fF . II ~ r .. S O ~Y ,~ • . x_ ~ •,. . 1 . . ~y ~ ~ :~„' c ~ : ; ' ~ ~ 6~~ f I q :~ ~ ; ' . ~;~ w~~ ;. ~ , ,; ~ ~er ; ~ i :~- I ~ ° I T { 1 f , . :. y ,. a 11" .ti ~ 1 ~I . .. ~. . fl }}~re:'4{.` j. •' ~' IL• ! ~i i I . 1 } ' •'~° ' : 1 i ' ' ~4 w "ri;~ ,: l ..,dj'A,::' ' ' ,I ''1n' ~ Y i , •.~{. ` {[~ ~ I ... S `i r . 4,: 'p ~"!~s.lY ;i i'i'• 4..^0 . 't I?i~~,~ I''Y 2Y'„ tiY.::'~, :y I. A 1: ~ T S,. '< ;. ~ {..: : ' _ * i~ ; k"d .~.: ^2S; ~.,~ t: f yt~~ ~~':;, • ~~ sf •.:.iy I. t j t ( ' 1 S I ¢ t , ~ "K ~ ~ i . 1, I I • II ~ I 7' ar: n~3~~ .:~~ ~ a. ,'Yt`s .a9~ .i: S , . i . .a y'%ri A;h • ~ 1 ! "F : . 4r ,: l ~ I`' ±^ . ," '` ~ t ~ t •~~; Ji~it Y . . , ^E~ ~ 'r ~ Y ° ~~ ~ i F 1 ~ 7 , I'.. .. . i , ' k ~':Yr . . "" . #° 't .~"' .~ ~: :~ ~9~F If ~ ~> :~78 5 4 ~.~ i : ~ i :z: +w~.$: d `; ^ ~.. . .' ur~•:.,~.si> :. . :`.;ti ~ ,~ '; rv ` ._ , I . ~ a li s I N ,~, ; Vi i 1 r_ ~ ,.x;"l. .4 -. { i' I ' °R• , ry, 5 N k S ~ = tt ~ 4 ~' " ~ % ~' ~• I k y '1,' • -;1~" 9 , r •Y ~ v I • Y .1 (p {p~ . ~ ~ 4 Pi l Y~i TSY•~ ! -, ~ ]~ ' ~ " ~ ~ • 't l h _ ' ^ t ~ t .t F :l. . ~f f S ; 1 s I i£" r ,:.. ~ L} }'' ' '& ' .I! Y ~'" „`£t 3 .~ , ,^ .... ,.. ,,,... ::.Yra : . .,• .: vv 11 ja .,l } , .q~;~V .; „ ~ . • •.t, i y.: / . .. . +. . }.5 4~.. ;`i•-:: r," •' •w{ ~ q . ~Q 2`~ ~ ~ .. .. < ; ~`,p• ~`~y` '3 a`" ~ t~ I` J~. ~ ; i l • c' L'" ' = ~' ' Q . . , y , s r; i F ~ I ` : • . c A,f P n i :r ;ti;~4. , ! , { ' .1{1 'f I r.: ~ . { ° ~ , . 4 -, ~ : ~ % h: . <'k'r r ; .':fir',. ' . '~ ;. ti.: :='i$ p _.'Se :'t .i.. '. : .~1 Ii ~'ji ~~~ 9 I 9 7 f Y I ..4 t,+Jl'i~ ~JJ ' ' s" i ~ ~:. ~,. j y `1 ' 5 7 ~ ~' ~I I ~ .f . ~ M F ~. k I t • :h ~' ~ ''~ t " t' ' i .' °~: S` t .,.' ,¢ ~` r } a r„ .$°,>r,. ~6; ,s t:;~r.. ':~ .. p 1 1. ~ A li .I. ~ ~ a?X j i ~ "~F` ' Y • ~ ~'. ~<3 : 5 t „~.,, .: t s. ~' ~~~ ~ ' • ~ra " - ~ i • ; , ; i ' g. J ~ C ~ { ~ t i i. e ~ f w , k r t, i . i` • w .. . e J s . ` ,A.. f f (l.e+: ~ '` ~l . ~ • ~7 d G- ~.. ~ z ~ ~ ~ F ~ : " ~ '' g Yr'• } ', cE a, y W " ..z iny'~`:X. iii , ` . _ k T` Y '~ • :';::: y( 1 r"t ~ k IS .1 il 't ' `' .l n~~ I ~ ~ . r . . ai' i ~ '~, ` °~"' '%'Y•. • % ' {' ° k : d ~ L ~-.<•' ;~Zrti: pRp" ; • ,1:. , r { 9 , .ia ;Y. = • \ a rfi:' ~• $ . I Y ^ • P } ~ ~~y~, . . , y~ s ~ f °y` 11 " •.t.•. Ii I k ; ~ ~ ~ 11s - •. ~. v k~: •n` .. , ..+g,. r,n E .. ~`,:.<. F i~, %RS't ~ ~ ~` i.t~., ~I ,t_ ' I 7 ~ "yam y { 5 1 i r .4;, 1' ~' _ f},~-'' l +~ H. Y[;. 4 ~+"` y'4=F`'R; s :. ~ ..,:,. i~ •' S.i::F . ...5 ' : a.:.., .t.'. • i 1 ~. a ' _ q .~ .t ty, e~'n 11 ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~' _ ,~ ~: , : , Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission ` r ~' January 18, 2007 ~: Page 13 of 40 ~R ~ ; , shows the entire site, but the applicant has shown future buildings here north of the site. t ; Additional parking spaces were required by staff above the amount normally required in r" I-L zones as shown on the site plan, as the proposed use is more commercial than -~'': l industrial in nature and requires additional parking. Access to this site will be provided x . "y f from East Pine Street via a northbound private drive constructed along the west ~. a~ , ~-.1? boundary of the subdivision that serves as a primary access for all the lots in the r~ ~ subdivision. It runs right -- you can see it right here on the west boundary. A cross- >`~`' access easement was provided via the plat for all lots in the subdivision. The applicant #~ ' : is only -- excuse me. The required landscape buffers along Pine and adjacent to the residential land use to the west were constructed with the subdivision. Internal ~_ :~,~~`; landscaping will be provided on the site plan for the landscape plan. Building elevations ~~ were submitted that show apre-finished metal parapet roof, stucco, and concrete block <~~ walls and metal down spouts, as you see here on the overhead. Staff is recommending ;,~ _; " ~ ~'-' approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated in the staff report, subject to r -: ~~I the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has ~~ ~;~ questions? Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come ~- ~ ~` _, forward, please? ~; , ~;:E' Wendell: Yes. I'm the applicant's representative. My name is Scott Wendell, I'm with ~~ ..a. ~~ :S Lombard Conrad Architects,1221 Shoreline Drive in Boise. And we have reviewed the °` ~ r l staff report as the staff has presented it and we find no objection to that. We are totally ":>~ r: ;:- in agreement with it and ready to proceed ahead. With that I'd stand for questions. ~. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Thanks very much. ~' = Wendell: Thank you. :~ =~ ~.,,, ,~ _ °5' Rohm: Boy, things are going way too smoothly tonight. Okay. Again, there is nobody „ '`~~', signed up to speak to this application, but if someone would like to, now is that time. And seeing none, once again -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-040. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~~' ~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. >>.;~ ~' ;: ;,~: {~ z. i ~ rn ~s . a- ~, ¢`' ~k ~: 3 a` f .. r <. a,` E t: ;s ~~ >>`~''~ ~; Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 1 S, 2007 Page 14 of 40 Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Finding document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 1st, 2007. Siddoway: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. We have three seconds. That ought to be sufficient. All right. It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-040 for the Ada County EMS, to include all staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from December 21st, 2006, of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. Both of these items are related to the Harcourt Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Harcourt Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat approval for 60 single family residential lots and five common lots on 23.05 acres within the R-4 zoning designation. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before Planning and Zoning on November 2nd, 2006. Prior to that meeting the applicant and the planning staff were notified that ACRD requested relocation of South Zepher Avenue -- punch forward to the site here to show you. South Zepher Avenue is right here. Harcourt's access to Victory Road to align with South Bay Star Drive, Sutherland Farms' access to Victory Road just to the north. And this ultimately prompted a substantial redesign of the preliminary plat. Harcourt is generally located on the south side of Victory Road approximately a sixth of a mile east of Eagle Road. The primary access to the development will be from Victory Road as stated F,~~ ~ ~~ ~:~~ _. }; ,~, ~- . - ~ t~? y ~. ic~w r:y ~.. ~fi + $ J Y ~ ~ Ii v ~ W [x ~ L 9 ~~`; t ~~ ~1111, Y y,~yR. - 'F'S1!~i 3 ^4 3 ~ _ iH t. Y~ S~.( '~ ; 71^~+} ~" _ fi .~~ .. "t.: L` E cT f' 1 ~~4;-i}i, s ~ f~ ~ 3 ~ <-~ r t{ei ~~y; x 1 yn. f+~ , , ~" ;z .~{ ~ ~ . v ~~ ,t . ;{ t~=rSq :+ i~tiM1 ' .Ch4 ~ 11f~~: r. 3. .-~'"d Sa' ` ~ " Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission 18 2007 , January t Page 15 of 40 before. Right here. The second access to the development will be via Falcon Drive and that is a public street constructed within the Golden Eagle Estates Subdivision, an Ada County subdivision. And that is along here. Three stub connections to the east will be constructed to provide connectivity to the county parcels upon their redevelopment. ~;~~ There is the first one, the second, and this can potentially be a stub in the future as well. City staff is supportive of the proposed street layout. To the north, as stated before, there is a proposed Sutherland Farms Subdivision No. 1, also zoned R-4. Also to the '` , . north in addition, to the south, east, and west, are residential properties within Ada County. All of this is Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed ~~ preliminary plat approval of 60 residential lots between 9,000 and 22,250 square feet. ~, ,, ~ The average lot size is approximately 12,000 square feet. The two existing homes on `'~~ the property are proposed to remain. The applicant has provided 1.42 acres, which is _; ~,: ~'~ 6.4 percent of landscaped opened space, meeting the five percent minimum required by „ k -,:.: ;~ the UDC. The majority of open space, as you can see, is provided in the form of ~ . ':I parkways throughout the entire development along all the streets. The only issue to mention here is that perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or the preliminary plat. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be ~~; installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be installed -~~ along the micro pathways and adjacent to the common lots and the applicant will. need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission as ` ~~~ questions. ` Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Amanda, you mentioned the road down here as a possibly -- that it could ' ~ possibly be a stub, but I want to make sure it is proposed to be designed as a stub with r the -- to be extended in the future. Hess: I would imagine that would be more of a question for the applicant. Siddoway: Okay. Didn't know if the ACRD report addressed that, that it had to be signed, but I'll wait until the applicant's testimony. Okay. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. Staff did such a bang up job describing the application I'm not going to go back through it for you. I would simply point out for you that your Comprehensive Plan does designate this area for low density residential. That allows up to three dwelling units to the acre. We have designed a subdivision with lots that average about 12,000 square feet and I don't think I have anything in here less than 10,000 square feet. We achieve an overall gross density of 2.68 dwelling units per acre, so well below the three that's allowed under the Comp Plan. I would note all the public services have been extended in this area and , ft .~l ~~;,f~ ~ ~ s `> » 1r- ~~ I~ M1I~. ~ i I °' ~~hAI y i ~ 1'; it .h`a ~ li 1 : 1J•}bn'h°'* Ea~'.. ~ti: ' a«i"' , -~" ' l r s yd,~ 2Y'} , ri,` F ~ t 7 .E.: .. d~ lj II D ~ {; ~, :I"~; }f ~ 4 ,..., ,,•~,f. ,. ~ I.:'^~.~ ' a .I 6 ~ TTTt l '.I ': if l ..~,"~ '.: £~~ , r :r, > t. 9 o, I - ' ft k 'i, ' ' ~ ~ % ' F ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ..y}} ~~ ^ ' '~ r ~ ' I1. ir:~'~ •. I , i ~ 1 i i 4•+ ~ ~ ~ l F j I , $ { Xi ~ ~. S:?.a :ir } .f E ti"~ ~+ + i `k;:s ~ ' a Zre . .;} . r.. is siY; x ~ RR i . ~~,lll ~# . ~, . x , ~. .II. •, s m` . ,; ~"I~: r ~ ~ I .. ' ` . ~. ~ ~ ~ . q~;,; i ;.I r: y~ S ~ pa f i ~~ c~ a l j ~ C 7 ,a ,'~ • `: a~ ~ lia , { ~~ ` ' ~ ~ ' ..d.. > i. :"ii; :'7: r ~ i c.>d.,.~ { ' ~; ~ n A' ~ ' ~ II } ~ i 1 ~` pl~~ N J r ~ I ` .• {I j ~. f { f '~ . . : iy Kra:>: f ~°9':.'. , a :i~e"f , . tv ,$ ~ ' ~ ~ ' , . , . g~..i ~t :. ~~ ° * ~ y E t ? . , ~~~ ~ ''3~ .r ~3~ n , y Y_ ~ W ` `S'tixr. .Y~::~ ~ { ~x k.,{. { I ti. S v ifS'i?:F 'I ~{ y e I ._A~r' ': N •.. .~ ~ t}} } r ~ ~ a< '~ i : .r' • f•~'v~ 4 ~ , ,M° V ~ . 1 4 =2 '~ ~ ti:~ t ,T . . .. ' r ,I° :-3;:ra~"':, , ~~ is q I r. • 1 li ' .t { 1 .I . • '~' ~:. . ~ ~. I p t-h.,. u }} ~i ' . : ~ . s .. .. . ~ ~' I I ~ :. 1 ~ fA ': yz ir'i~. ~ ^ „ ,~ ~ ~.A . ,.' p , 4 ` ~t~. ~ „"" ~',~,' k.. ~ : °.y •. ,t, , t ~ : ~:..'zi ~" t ~ f t .c ~; A 1 [ ~4 .r } 1 d ~ ~C' R s " ~ s i' :f ~5 r. . H ~ F i ., . 7ff ,',k~.:i :ii Ck r . I . ~"~~• i' =i1 : w lx Ir, I f ~ ` . I f:. 4 `Z ? 1 ` ~ .1 i i~ T 1~ ~"I •e } v , . '1Mii. ., :lY Y ~ . , n ~ . k S. .I' I; . , I 1 q 9 ~ Y ~ { II. 1~: ~ e : ti!. ~ ~ ~ +r~ : , ' S ~' .l Y ' : . .. + •Y ~ , ~ ~lT I ' I } 4 , f '; _I ' qtr, , ~ i'..I4 ~Z~r., f ~fy~'M ~.. + `," ~"• ,lr. ' ~ i ~i .. {' .~ '.:)F, f; R I I ' ~ ~rk d ..!";~. 3 I ~ c P' '1.3 i I ~ EL....lr` K i4 "{i 'a ' . ~ 111 ~ ;,i .S''l,~r.!' i':.. , t. , ,,r t} ~~' 7 >,+... .x~? ~'K '~.. I ., • . . *.. ' £~ ~ 1~ i » ~ g.'~L^ F x ~ ; ~ Y } i 1 . tom ' ^~y `~1.1'• ~ ; t ~ I .. ' r . ~1. ,'.Y,},i ,~~ };:~: ~.h ~,: ~ •. ~W. '~' ~ , 4.`: 'k r 'ri~ ~':~~r : '"` ' _ 4 3 ~ { ~ II L ~lil j ` ~" r:. "•. r~'sa .'Vi'a ~. r ~ . , ; - y ^.j 1 w,.CxJ=iR~ ~-1' '~. , ' ~ I . ~- ., •4 F r '~~` .?; tr F I ' ;r~ ~~ ' >: x . a t A t~ G E F } T y; ~',f ~t i,' d ` , ~3, rf: 1 ~ e ,; ' 3. , :rte ~ ~ u^..in. .:~~ . * ~, le ~ ~ :,.Y° Y ..' rrF •' 4. : : '' d'~ ^ . ;,• . , i ~ ` , ba; i.~ ' I ...{i ^id.r : 'y..h ~`. 4 ~ I . . i II ` I ~ w.~ ~ a . l ~ ~ I y l r A ;~ p k :4' ~ ? ~ : i ~ ,~~ .}r. r. • ~:: •.: h":' ` :~ xmh.5.2 l,si.' 'y ' ai ° •~' ~;YV i 1• • r ~ a • i ~ ~ i t y . 4 { . a~ r : ~. '~ - ~. x '~` ;ti ~ ~,,n%: ~ C . ~.~"+. 9 ,F.1 ~ ~ r ~.w~: Jj mac '. r.~.,1:~-:7'i..~..~Y: ~'t. 1 Y { " II ' J ' ~ i 1: >~ t'~ '~ 'f f'' ~ •` ,r fig'^iki: ri u ,r.y .t y I r I ~ , ~ ' , ~ ` ~ ~ ~ . .. F E ,. a i, ~ ~ . q h .kr .y 5'^ l : • ~' :..~ ~ '' •• ..' y ~ ..v. ~ #„` ~ : ~ '. .. . d's K ': L [ F 7 a YA ':1 ~. ~ '1 i . i i V' ~ . ~' M"` ~ ~.. .ivy: c'' :a .. ,.~ . 1 k S .. 9: ' . ' 4 ~ ' ,, t . ~.. `~. x1h~ • Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 u Page 16 of 40 are available to serve the site. This is a prime candidate for an in-fill development, as ;a your code recognizes. With regard to the question of stub streets, this is not a stub, this is existing Falcon Drive here right now and it does provide access to a single family .. dwelling on this five acre lot, which is not a portion of the project. So, this is not a stub, it's an existing cul-de-sac. We have the two stubs along this property line here. With regard to surrounding land uses, this area has been transitioning, as you can see from - the aerial. My client did develop this project to the north. We are endeavoring to extend the irrigation -- pressurized irrigation from this project to the north and piggy back off of ~. `` it with some additional pumps and we are trying to workout those details with the irrigation districts right now. Currently there is gravity irrigation that serves the property. That ditch that runs through here, as you can kind of see. And it serves not only my - client's four parcels -- one, two, three, four -- but also Mr. Aldrich's property right here. We have been working closely with Mr. Aldrich to accommodate his needs with regard to irrigation and, of course, we will do whatever we have to do to maintain, since irrigation is required by state code. This property right here was approved for an assisted living facility by the City of Meridian. That has not been built to date, but I understand that is still their intent to build that facility there. There is an existing single family dwelling right here on approximately an acre and that will remain. This property here was re-designated by the city or your Comp Plan was amended to designate that for commercial land uses. We are in general agreement with the staff report. I don't have any serious issues. I would just point out that condition 1.2.8 should be modified to match page two of the staff report, which accurately states 1.42 acres of open space or 6.4 percent of the total. Condition 1.2.8 has some other numbers in there and those should be corrected. I think that's everything. If the Commission has questions I'd take ~- those now. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ,~ Moe: Can you address the fencing? - Fluke: With regard to fencing, my client generally prefers to allow homeowners to choose their own fencing and put in perimeter fencing and so we would be doing the construction fencing on the perimeter, temporary construction fencing until the land owners were to build fences. The CC&Rs do require fencing, but it allows for a range of options within that. With regard to the required fencing along the micro-path, we will certainly amend the landscape plan to include that. Moe: Okay. That's -- you just brought up my next question. Basically in the report here on a question of staff it says that the January 4th landscape plan was not approved and ' ' so has there been another one since then? Hess: That is correct, Commissioner Moe. And, no, we have not received an updated plan to date. s ...; ~ ~yJ~~ ,. ~ f ~~,~ ~ ' 'S' }} h h1'.,; .. . . J ~t ~ ti ~a '7 k . ~~ r. ~ ~Y. ~ ~` Y4f~~ p k ' ~ }' ~ i x ~ i ' : • ~ . " j ~ ~d t 1 ~ e. ' i ;~'i' '' x ' ~ rf~ "-F' yd , s,^11?SiC~t i,. ~ _t.. ~ y,~-., rw 5,+ ~ ,.~f..~,, ~ kk ~~ ~ ~i r: W ». .. A ~i ~ Q1.• 1 ,. i ~ 3 ~' W~~yth ;~ ~~ ~ + `. ~.~; a f ',. ~~' f .` Z ~ u."t:~a ~~ '! 1'r ...i i ~;k.. ~; , i ~ us: ~~ " a ,~, ~:~, A a ~rtt E r r ~ Y . A..YS.•{i1i~±~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~J t ~E, a'.~~ ~ ~/O~~ ~; 4~ ~ 7 3- ~d i ` ~' j h ' ! t~ '~°-'.fit s W ~~ i ~ -` ~ o-~t3~ t ~f ~. i~ ~ ~ :~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~ , ~_ ~ } ,'.vey;'~', Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission f January 18, 2007 Page 17 of 40 Moe: Okay. So, that will be taken care of prior to Council? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I viewed that as a housekeeping item that the :: plan is in substantial conformance. There is a few little details that need to be changed 1 and certainly we will do that prior to final plat or whenever you guys want us to do it. Rohm: The fencing being left to each of the individual lot owners, have you done that before in other developments? I guess where I'm going with this is the consistency of fencing has been something that we have tried to promote in all developments and have requested that they have a continuous fence all the way around the developed property and I'm not sure that I see any reason not to do that with this development. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we have a problem with that and if that's something t ; the city wishes to see -- and this is a high quality development with large lots in here, I mean those are -- that's a cost that can be passed to the buyers of the lots, so if that's something the Commission feels strongly about, we would not oppose a condition of approval to that effect. Rohm: Well, it's just for discussion. I don't know that I'm necessarily prepared to make it a condition of approval without discussion amongst the balance of the Commission, but just typically that's what we have seen as projects have come before the Commission. Thank you. Moe: Another question in regard to that, I guess. I would say -- you said you guys have a multitude of types of fencing. What would you anticipate in that subdivision? Fluke: Well, I would anticipate that either vinyl, cedar, or wrought iron fencing will be `~ ~ allowed. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. "' " Siddoway: Daren, back to my question of the stub street. This existing cul-de-sac -- you mentioned that you're not -- it's not considered a stub street per se. You also said that it does provide access to this lot east of it; is that correct? Fluke: That's correct. Siddoway: Because it would be my desire to see in that this -- if this lot were to ever redevelop that it would be able to have access to that and that would be the case, would it not? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in our plat that would prevent that from happening. In fact, the owners of this parcel are here tonight and I'm sure they may have some feelings on that, but if somebody wants to do that in the future that owns that ._ a . ~~:::r. . 4 r .yam -.. a ~' ~. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commissi• y,~,, 1 January 18, 2007 Page 18 of 40 lot, you know, that would be their prerogative upon redeveloping. The photo doesn't show it very well, but that is an existing dwelling right there at the end of the street. So, there is nothing to preclude it, other than the house being there, and the desires of the landowners. Siddoway: There is no land on the plat between the edge of the cul-de-sac and that - the property line? Fluke: That's correct. That cul-de-sac is existing right of way. This is a public street. Siddoway: Okay. Cole: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes. Cole: A quick glance at the plat shows that there is 92 feet of frontage along that cul- de-sac, which is plenty of footage to get a 50 foot right of way through there if the next property so desires. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions of this applicant? Borup: Just one clarification. Mr. Fluke, I -- you mentioned you're in agreement with all the staff comments, the one on adjusting the lot line on 13 and 14, so it did have the double frontage, that's already something you have looked at? Fluke: Actually, that has been corrected, I think. If it hasn't, we don't have a problem with -- Borup: Yeah. That's pretty minor -- Fluke: Yeah. In fact, we found a couple of those things after we submitted -- resubmitted the plat to the staff. I should have mentioned that we were ready to go long ago with this project, but ACRD, after giving us an initial go ahead the way we had it laid out, wanted us to change the street design -- or the street location onto Victory Road, which completely messed up the layout that we had done and necessitated all sorts of redesign. And just to prove that no good deed goes unpunished, we did lose a lot by doing that. So, we are trying to keep everybody happy. ~, , ~` i~;l • r .. s { Y' "; ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 a~: ~ ` Page 19 of 40 ~? ~~ ~' Rohm: Thank you. At this time would Margaret Stem like to come forward, please? ' Did you want to speak? Oh. From the audience she said that she didn't want to speak, " ' . she just is neutral on the development. The next name on the list is Michael Reedy. ' k ~~ Reedy: I'm not much of a speaker, but, anyway, I currently live in the Dartmoor " ` Subdivision. ~¢ ~~:~ Rohm: Would you state your name and address for the -- f- Reedy: Oh. Michael Reedy at 3702 South Caleb Place in Meridian. I live in the ?-~ ~ r 1 Dartmoor Subdivision on the -- butting up to the Kingsbridge Subdivision that was just ~~ ~ ~' gone through your -- the hassle of the experience of the comprehensive deal of Victory, t,,l ~~., W to Eagle Road, to Cloverdale, to Amity, the majority of those lots are five acres, 20 : ~' } acres, I'm currently a 1.3 acre lot. Kingsbridge is an R-2 approved, which has so far ~> been a really nice deal. They put a solid vinyl fencing along us that's four foot with a "'' _= lattice on top of there around their outside -- the rest of their perimeter. I feel that this R- 4 is a little condensed than based on the rest of the subdivision -- the square mile. It : , has been -- you know, most of it is less than R-1, although a lot of these lots can be . broke down, but Selatir is five acre lots. Tem's is two and a half to five acre lots. The ' couple that -- I'm sure they are here that live on that lot that's isolated in that big comer ,~ ~'' there. They were part of the big battle with Kingsbridge that we had. I'm just a little '' " concerned by the flow of drainage coming off the property on this lower half here as it comes down to our neighbors and comes -- which would come into our ditches that we ~" ' have come -- these come off the farmland and comes around. Anyway, I don't know how to explain that very well. But it comes into our settling ponds, it is our water source for pressure irrigation and fire, because we are not part of the city limits, we are not in { ; the city limits, which, then, they would be, but we are concerned about that. . ~: ~~' Rohm: So, you're concerned that you're going to lose the runoff? Reedy: No. We don't need the runoff anymore, because we are just concerned by the y runoff coming from their streets, because it is sloped quite a bit from Falcon Crest down. ~~ Siddoway: There is a pointer -- ` Reedy: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. Okay. This is Falcon Crest right there. Okay. }. I'm sorry. This is Falcon Crest right here, this is sloped quite a bit and it used to be when it was farmed all the time -- the same way with all this back here, there is ditches that run behind our subdivision and comes through the property line right here, that -- what used to go into our settling pond right here and the concern about that water flowing off of their streets is contamination -- that was the biggest thing with Kingsbridge of getting their plots changed and getting their settling ponds -- they had to build a new settling pond back here to prevent the overFlow off their streets, because that is quite a bit of slope. I'm approximately ten, fifteen feet below. I ~ I fI ,~~ bis i a~~ ~~ ~}S d&~ I'~li` '31 i' p f ry ~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~„ P ir> ~ f~ j ~t< ~? , ~t'1t3 i~ i x . ~ 1 a ^ S 2 l 3 ,tC~~t ~ ' ' 5, i ~ ~ I I ~ 1 y~: r ++st ~ I. ~ , , - ~ ~ ... ~ n~~~j ' i f i ~ r ~ tl~ ~. .s , . . 1 " t i IX f'7[.~ ~~.}' .. ~ i J~1 f kT 4 `~~~' :'J 'cii ~~. ~ ~ o~~. ~y~ •1"~ i ...~ s q K~~ ri « fS~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. it 3 ~4r r S ~ ~ U~ [rl K, lY ~ ~ : t . i r r~N t ~' S i ~ t~f g _*r ~, -C "~ ~ FC,I +~s <i; ~ 4 ~ A'R~~ `b,.,~ ,ii 1 ~ ~ ` 'i~ ~ ~ S ry~ ( ~ ~ ' 1 ~'~ ,~ ~ }t i ~ ~ +4 i - ~ ~ •,~ s e ~ ~ .. . Y rYnJF - ~~yt?k3 .fir x ~; { a.'1-.r'(z ~. Ic ASh'' . 1'i ~ ~ - ~ ~ r ~ ...:.:ti ~ ~' 2 • • - ~ ~. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission ,, s..:.,... ~~"'~`°~ January 18, 2007 Page 20 of 40 r'` ~• `' Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I'm sure the applicant will respond to your questions. ~~ ~ Thank you. Bob Aldridge. -. 1 Aldridge: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Bob Aldridge. It seems like I have ~;I been living here. We have had a number of projects in this area. I'm the house right ~~;rt~a here and -- ' ~~ Rohm: State your address, please. Aldridge: 3300 Falcon. Rohm: Thank you. r _ Aldridge: I guess now technically East Falcon. We have been changed. The two areas that I think are of concern to me I think will be dealt with. One is the fencing along here. p ; This is, essentially, my back and front yards. I would concur that a consistent fencing would be nice, as I intend to live in that property I would hope another ten years and it would be nice to have a single view fence along there, rather than something chopped up. The second issue is the irrigation. Currently there is a pump house down here and pipe that comes up and, then, there is a split here that originally served all the different properties. Trying to integrate the pressurized irrigation in this area with flow irrigation ~.' here and, technically, on this lot and this lot, which haven't used them for decades now, - is going to be difficult, but I'm convinced, in my discussions with Mr. Fluke, that we can work that out. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a pipe that comes from over in this area off the New York system, comes along Falcon Drive here to the front of the property here, comes under the road and is serving the property across the road that's being developed and that will have to be watched for, because there was no survey done of where that is. I have an approximate rough idea, but it was done by a guy in a t ; backhoe kind of wandering about. So, that's the other concern is that there is that `=' irrigation that will have to be preserved. Subject to that I have no problems. I believe k . ~ , it's good use of the property and I think that the type of property will augment the area ~~: well. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this individual? Thank you. Harold Kruzinski. r ~ Kruzinski: My name is Harold Kruzinski at 3475 East Falcon Drive. So, we are the property in question here and it is correct that our house does sit right about there and we would certainly prefer it not become a stub street, because we don't intend to change things, and certainly one of the things we are concerned about is the change. We, essentially, lived in a nice, you know, five acre community and all of a sudden it's a subdivision and we want some assurances that we are not going to have encroachment along our property line and certainly having -- if there is going to be the subdivision there and fences, we would prefer some consistency and we had spoken earlier back in June, there was a neighborhood meeting where they discussed the plans and we were given some assurance that there would be fencing along there and Trevor Roberts, I believe, was the owner of the property and he had indicated they would probably put ~ I1 i ~}3~F ~ _ d ~X~ r~+t :J _~~ ~ } 5 t d yp ffiT - ; 4 ~ T.. ~ ~_ Y . ~ ~ 1 Sfi~%.,.~C I 1 M a w ~ . ~ ~ Y ~r ~~ ~y; ~ F ~ c a},;; ~ ~ Kri' ; ~ 1a Y~" ~ ~ $F 4 ~ ~1 N ~J ~~~ 1 1 ~ ~~ f i:~Vta",~ ~ y ~-,~ Z z , f. f p~Y~ '~# ~ f't7 6 ~ ~ a+ ~ v~„ k~. ~ i E ~ ^~L 1 t' rh _ a n 3 '~$' `~ a~~i k Ili a:r N fir' ~~` l... 4~ ~ ' ~t ~ + ; ~ } tk r 3 ~. ~, M aJ kH ~ ~; ~. y . ~ ~~~~t. ,+ - ~'-I ;,' ~.' -! ~; ~I ;a j_ I ~; -° ~. ,~_~ .,_, :_I ~F Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 21 of 40 vinyl fencing there and we just want to make sure it's something that's attractive and consistent with some of the other properties nearby. We were a little concerned when Kingsbridge came in right about here, they came across our property line with the stub street -- actually paved across the property line and put a manhole right on the property line, so we would like some assurances that anything that happens along the borders is -- that there should be no encroachment. I can't see anything that would cause them to have to cross the property line with utilities or anything and we'd like some assurance that that would -- anything happening would happen on their side of the property line. The cul-de-sac, of course, is a county road at the moment. Our irrigation comes off the ditch right here and floods across our property and drainage comes out here and I believe, as was just pointed out, flows into the culvert below Dartmoor. So, we would need some assurances that we have a way to drain our flooding there and we also have another ditch that comes out here, currently floods into a ditch along East Falcon and want to make sure we have some way to take care of that with piping. Of course, we were very appreciative that the agreement with Kingsbridge turned out to be R-2. And, obviously, the less density we can get the better, although they have a fairly decent plan, but no huge complaints with it, but, obviously, density the lower the better to keep consistent with everything that is currently around there and that the cul-de-sac we were wondering if we could get the developer to work with us on some way to maintain our front yard there. There is a lot of large trees in front, which looked to me like they are going to all have to come down for that cul-de-sac and if there is something we can do to work with them to find a solution to that, we would certainly appreciate it and anything we could put down formally now that would make an agreement where we would have the ability to negotiate with the developer for any of those kind of issues would certainly ._ be appreciated. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Kruzinski: I guess that's -- Rohm: Yeah. And I'm sure the applicant will address your concerns when he comes back up. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman Rohm: Before you sit down I guess we have one question. Borup: Mr. Kruzinski -- and I appreciate your comments. I still was confused on your last comment on the cul-de-sac and the trees. Are some of your trees, then, over your property line? Kruzinski: Well, they are. We purchased the house from a previous owner and, obviously, they landscaped back when it was county -- Borup: That used to happen a lot, so -- [ ._ ~ ~ ~~ III r ti ~ ~ r . ~ ~Yn;: ~.U k. ~ ' ~ ~P:dr i~. .. ~~: ~ ~. { : - ti c ~ ~ : ~ 4 g.c ~, ~ i : w1- - ~~~ ~~ ~ ~aVL~`{a ~y nr~l2 n~ .i.vF 'ib ~ i 1'{h~a ;i h ~ ~ i. ~~. _. Jy~- l C . ~ s t t iV hl Ztr .-. i._ ~~ . ~ .. Y r~, t e 1 i' f, d l ~ ~ + Y', J - y~[ sSi i a~ ~y~a °t, ~~ ~ 1i ;~ ~i t -, - ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~~~ `~"- t.> _ tie+'' yt ~ 13,9ti.:~ ~~. 3 i ~~, 4 ,~n~ $.. 'i 3 ~._.~ F V y~ tl I~~'F{ S',. + ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 •i5 ~ i j i X°9 ~ _ x ;ti ~, ~ ;~ j~. h ~. ~~'Lt ~Y l i, ~~ r.2l~r Y~~ ZS:t ~ 7'4 mar :~~ ~;:~:= ~y; ~ ,u' a, r„..(,• r« ~~ ~E ;.; .; ~ ~,~, ~; -~ y -- ~~: } I~'2 ~~: ~<- •.~, -~: '`; °;~ ~x ..~; ;::; :: ~~~._ :~, ,a _:{.~; ~;a ,~., r~. a ~.~ ::~ `r _t :7 <~~: ,~~t r~ s }-~i yr. -'vjz :A<' ~~: ;::,~; . • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 22 of 40 Kruzinski: Excuse me? Borup: Yeah, that used to happen alot -- Kruzinski: Oh, I'm sure it did. Borup: -- back a number of years ago. Kruzinski: Now, we spoke with Mr. -- I believe back in June and he -- he indicated that he didn't think they would necessarily need to finish around our side of the property, but I'm sure that -- you know, I don't know where that would actually go when time comes. Borup: So, they can work something out with you you think? Kruzinski: I would hope so. And in here -- Borup: Well, I'm sure they would just as soon not take any trees out if they didn't have to. Kruzinski: ACHD, essentially, said that they did not require East Falcon Drive to be redone in its entirety, only within the boundaries of this subdivision. Borup: Yeah. Kruzinski: And I guess I don't know that little 90 foot frontage there if that's considered within their boundaries or -- I don't know how that would be viewed in -- Borup: I think they are required to have the -- they are required to have the cul-de-sac, so a vehicle could tum around, so whatever they can do to do that is probably what they need to comply with. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but it's still an open hearing and saw you folks come in, so I presume that you're going to testify. Tumer: Sony I'm late. I wasn't anticipating being through the agenda so quickly this evening. Rohm: There you go. Newton-Huckabay: Nor were we. Rohm: Please -- yeah. Please state your name and -- Tumer: Yeah. Good evening. My name is Brady Tumer. I live at 3678 South Caleb Place, which is this property right here. I am the president of the Dartmoor Homeowners Association. I'm speaking for myself on behalf of the Dartmoor ;:i ~~, .t; ~ :'~, ~^ ,:;' >... Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 23 of 40 homeowners this evening. In addition to my written comments that we submitted to P&Z, my letter dated October 24th of 2006, I would like to reiterate -- add the following concerns with the proposed applicant's development. We have expressed concerns of this development to the applicant in letters dated April 11th and May 27th, 2006. To date the applicant has been unresponsive and has not addressed our concems. Transitional lots. Kingsbridge Subdivision lots directly adjacent to Dartmoor range from 23,000 to almost 25,000 square feet. In contract, Harcourt lots range from 11,000 -- excuse me -- 10,000 to 11,400 square feet. These lots are on the smaller end of the sizes within the Harcourt Subdivision and, therefore, cannot really be considered as transitional lots to the acre plus parcels within Dartmoor Subdivision. When we contacted the applicant again within the last week to inquire if they were planning on having an informational meeting to review their revised plat, we were told they were not, since there was no significant difference between the original plat and this current plat. We disagreed with that statement, since the original plat is part of the applicant's September 19th, 2006 application had lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor ranging from 12,000 to 21,000 square feet. This further supports our argument that the applicant has been unresponsive to our concems. We feel that the lot sizes adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision need to be on the order of 20,000 square feet, consistent with Kingsbridge to be considered transitional. The City Council has also agreed with us that this area on the fringe of the Meridian city area of impact should remain estate style low density housing. This is supported by the R-2 zoning of Kingsbridge. Furthermore, Napoli Subdivision was approved with mixed zoning of R-2 and R-4 with lower density adjacent to surrounding five acre parcels in an area where the Comp Plan called for medium density zoning. The applicant has also not documented any landscaping transition to mitigate the impact of their development. This would include landscaped berms and fencing between Harcourt and Dartmoor, as well as 25 foot rear property line setbacks on lots adjacent to Dartmoor Subdivision, again, consistent with the Kingsbridge Subdivision. Since this development is also uphill from Dartmoor and consistent with the transition between Dartmoor and Kingsbridge, which is also uphill from Dartmoor, we ask that Block 4, Lot 6 through 8, be deed restricted to single story homes to further mitigate the impact of the development and avoid large two story homes staring into our bedroom windows and help to retain our foothill views. It was discussed already drainage from the applicant's property flows directly onto our property and into our irrigation water supply. The applicant has not explained to us how they intend to retain runoff within their property to prevent contamination of our irrigation water. For these reasons we ask the Commission to deny applicant's request for annexation and zoning and plat until our concems our adequately addressed. Thank you for your consideration. Rohm: Wow. Thank you. I think we are going to let the applicant respond to your ~' testimony, but thank you. Again, there is nobody else signed up, but would you like to speak as well or --okay. Thank you. Daren, would you like to come back up, please. '~ Fluke: Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. Let's just go down through the issues. I don't think there is anything here we can't work with. I'm going to group the issues into four categories, density, fencing, drainage, and ect Y 6 n i~~l~°' .:I} •i• I {{ ~ }}3 ( I I ~ f..`3~...e .r~'. rye i~ _ i~ ~. .f'~ {~s ~sr"~,. ..~~: ~ i .. ~,.~~~I ~ ~ 1.~ F.~w,~~~ ~i;.~y~~_.'~i{" aa~ r ~z ~r~ . ~, ~:: ~~, s ,";,. , ~ ~~?~;; - ~~b '~: ~ <_;;°~ , 1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ f ((yy ~ ~~~ rfh>l 4 t i4 a ~ r iA u~, ~^`1~ f r r , ~ ~ _vp: T i i ~ 1 ~k . •l J,~'~ 1 '~ Sd ?4~ b ~r~? ~I C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~&rL ~ + . ~Yf ~ ~ f 1„gj. { ~.. r yy,~. ~ Z 2 " }! t ;~a~~ ..1 j. ~~ l `l ~ r ~ ~ f e~. I ~. ?.. , y~,.~` r ~~yi 3:'c~ , '.ri 'r 1 (qi i^ ` . 4 3 `y,~l. '.'a~ y &2Jt! ~~!t ~~ ,fr. ~ L f, ,,~i t :~ S k r~K S`;ar'tc ~ } ~~i y , i:. F.. N' : .' ~'~ ' is - A; " ~ `; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 ' I Page 24 of 40 ~~ ~ ~.; transitional lots, and we will dust deal with them in tum. With regard to density, I would ~;; .~~ submit to you that in the 1970s when Golden Eagle Estates was platted with five acre ~ ; lots that that was a big change from what was out here. This was a very rural area with `~ `"~~" very large parcels, ag uses, and five acre lots looked like a high density subdivision ~~ '~;`~'~ when it went in next to what was next to it. I would submit to you further that when ~- > -~I Dartmoor Subdivision went in in the early'90s when I was working at Ada County, that it `~ ~`' ' + was -- looked like high density development next to the five acre lots and the other large ' ? `"I agricultural parcels in the area. And so it makes complete sense to think that 12,000 ~'•? ,; foot lots on average look like high density next to acre lots or five acre lots. However, ~~-: when you have to build a subdivision that has to extend sewer, water, street lights, you l~ ~~ ~~ ~.,~ have to make accommodations for parks, you have streets with curb, gutter, and :5 ~ ` sidewalk and wider street sections, we have to deal with drainage that, all has to be ' I - a piped, rather than swales next to the streets, that -- I would submit to you that that sort ~ . :. i ; ~ '~~, , of density is appropriate in this area. The City of Meridian has made a large investment ; .; in infrastructure, including upgrades to its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate q .'~ growth in this area. My firm worked on the master plan for the City of Meridian and know very well what the city was planning for when they upgraded their treatment plant ,, `' ~ and when they did their Comprehensive Plan and sewer master planning for the area. i/ `''` So, this is what was planned for the area by definition, three units to the acre and less, is low density development. With regard to fencing, as I stated previously, this is not a ~: ;~ deal breaker for us. If the Commission wants to see perimeter fencing and our ~ neighbors want perimeter fencing, I think that's something we can certainly do to be good neighbors. I would prefer to confer with my client before I tell you what kind of fencing that is, but I will commit to submitting a revised landscape plan before the City ~` Council hearing that has fencing details on it, proposing either vinyl fencing -- I assume {° the two choices will be vinyl or six foot cedar fencing. So, we will certainly do that and ">> do it gladly. With regard to drainage, as the Commission notes, we are required to s accommodate all drainage within our project and we will do so. In certain cases you are F° allowed to discharge at historical rates and that is a number that you can calculate ~~ ~~ based on the land area and assuming some rainfall and other things and we have not `, `~ yet designed the drainage system, of course, because we don't have an approved "' ~ ' project, but we do have conditions of approval that we do maintain all of our storm drainage on site and we will do so. So, I don't have the answers for you about our exact solution to the drainage issue, but we know that we have to accommodate the drainage coming onto the property now and we know that we have to -- just like we have to ~; accommodate the irrigation that comes onto the property and leaves it now, those ~~ details are worked out at the final plat stage. But it is a condition of approval that will be ~` dealt with. Let me just -- I had just done a quick exhibit for you, because I anticipated that this transitional lot issue might come up. I have seen it come up before. Quite s:. honestly, I disagree. These are single family dwellings against single family dwellings '~ `` and I don't see what the incompatibility is with the lots that we have proposed there. I'm ', going to go ahead and pass this picture around to you. What it shows is an aerial s' ' photograph with Mr. Turner's lot on there, in addition to our proposed lots against his ~; ~ project and detail the lot sizes on there as well. Amanda, could we see the plat, please, for the southern portion. What you will see here is that the Turner's house is approximately 124 feet away from the rear property line. Right here. Their house sits in tlfj ,'s.! ~ ~f. I i I~ r I l P 1 ~ 4~~. .~ f ~~ ~' n 1 ~ ~ i a ' 1 r} t i I ~ : , i j i ~~ 1 ` '~ ,i:`.A .. ~~. ~Yy.{t : . M 4 ~ L ~ ^' I ) ~ r ''~ . ,. 5 .1 A ,~~ ~~' r:A+- iL4~'. 'w I r ~ "A e1'. ~ ~ r ~ J ~rl~)N~yt '.A>~p ~.i~ -'t'~ - " ,~ •"k. ':.i., c4. ;'~/:f" ~ ' 5{ ` IY ^4`• ~I~ Y I`.`F:3 A .{ , ~ ' . rr ~i1'F ,~ 6!~:, _ ' 1 I ' -1'~. rY r. •,Nti ' •1- ~,:.: v : 'y . ,. E .I~~ ~ t Y I . Sx~~:i fY ~, AK. •~yI Y.~ ~i ~~ ~ ~ ^ ' . ~•'' 'r.~ ~lA\ ~.b i t.. w..r 4 " - ' S a . , . Y~ ' ~ I . . e ~' (~ ;.i ` :Y•' .. ,~s:.•.~ ] ~' ~~ ` ` rt~ x,•. i;: ~S'r +; a i,k a , ~ _ N~ ~ ., i I LLr< M + . ~, I ' ` ~ , ~ 5 • ~ ( '}, ~ ^ , tv , :A' ~ ~~ r' ~~ i a . ,~... J_ ' u.: l ,,k3}?n , _ l:~.v ,.~' .y~ 3 t . x ~'( x' ~ . ` ~ ^ ... .. t~ ' ,.?d . 'a ' ~'~ ~`v 1 ":, ~ '^m Y~{ Y . ~ ~ ~1~ 1 ~ ~ { , ''6 °I ,~h 141 fib •. l~ w'~y~•-'~` y ~ ti ; _ ; M h ^!` "' . ~ t~ '~ . • ' 4 . . . I k. .. f ~ ' , < , ~, i i '~ 1 ', i'E ~ ~ ~ ~+ )} y.. ..,~ i . .i . .. x` • } _ . i ` ~ 4 I i . +1 ; ~ ` p ~ ' ~.; ° ,::A:ti: ~ '`•i r', j. ~ ~' i ~ _ . .r' ~"~"p f• .. kl ~ r :=i'~rr'~[,.. 2:~=.~'. i'=s ~`~~"«~ '.'~,~C , P ~ ~ ` ~ ` ~ a n eY>, ~ f .i .{ 4s , .r ;s' ` ~ 'li F : `3 •i. .t,. , I ryry ~ c . '- 4 Tr j ' ' ~ ~ . 1 , c r 0 a ;-~; s; %. : j Pi < . . : ~ •t;. ~ .~ :'~ :>,:~ .'P; '.. fir . F I ~; v ' .+i<Y ~ ~.~`-' "FTC : f pp i Z '~ j :fir. , . I i . t i ~ Y: ~? .:,~' ' r N ~ i . •.• a. •i, tq..' r ~ i ~ ,¢ ;:#1~,•a•"-Asp ., i~•. f a lri.~ .a ~ f. $. }'~y. d `r~~,.~.^a a'~'~S Cf'y~ :,ci ;.. # ' y, ':t. l'.~ "''. `4; *:"r' 4., s`ft".°.:f.. s'r }.~` E f ~ I€ ~ .i L t ~i °~''Ui ,....; .k,,. V 2 ~I ~.. ~ ;,•iE, , n~ : n 'l.~ 1 ~,! "v y9~ : t 4S'. ~ - '~F t ' 4' b i. 4 r' ~ ,~ ~ ( ,-Y~ }' 1 t I 5~ ~ .. ~ ~er~A..t, . i ".{ ' s~ 1' / I~ i~ .~~":';?mss ' Y ' "'n ' , ,~ ~ 1 .i ', t'f ~ '. I ! I, :, .1~> ~ ~ I. ~.Y i;1.e `_ ,{lt e:8 i: gy =•• .1 , .. I n. ;r `. ' ~ >. }^;~; y~: ~ " 5;~ I " +, ` .,. .1 I ` ~ ~ vi z f 3 5.~. ri ,i~s; t } } ~ ~' ~~ i J H• ~ ~. `~; w».':se 4. ~.S~r,~,~~t . ' ' ' a °h~k k' ". .. gg~ "u ° ` ri .. ,,r .. ,~ ` , ~ 3,.. . t , a ., r i ~; 1 ,. ' • i ~; . ire:' ~ "'" Lti'.:'•` 4i ,xi .-'ran'. > ~ of ~ ; J~ 1, ~ r ~ F 'a~ - ~ + : .+y F '4.~~ Ey, iYi .. ,:~ ..1 i' 5~, .i ~ IJJ 7 4 , : ,y^ : 1 : I . a ,i ` ~~ , .I ! ,xwr',S~e~~~` 'a~~;i. y ;, yy ., ' r . a., ., .:,.m. 7 ~ ..a.: .. d!1 d., .....:.. ....w..:a~:.:~s . . ~.~; '~ ~..:i .„ , 4 ~ ;:+ ~~~ 1 • b ,: ~~`'i f i ~; ,, . z:. -~ Y . 3 Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 25 of 40 this area here and it's about 124 feet away. You will further see that this lot line that they have across here, because of the cul-de-sac configuration, is 336 feet, approximately, across. That presents a real design challenge for us. We went through a number of iterations of trying to make this five acres work where we looped the street. We tried not to bring a new street in here, because our neighbors here didn't appreciate that or wouldn't appreciate the street coming in and so we did a number of things. The first plat that we submitted, the city staff really didn't like the solution that we had for this five acres, so when we went back to redesign because of what ACHD asked us to do here, we went ahead and reconfigured this more in align with the city staffs wishes. What it ended up with was one additional lot here, because of the way the streets fell in here. These lots are about -- this is about 130 feet right here. I think the shortest line is right here, which is about 108 feet and I think we are 111 right there, more or less. So, what you're looking at with the setback off of the property here, which is 124 feet now, and a -- right now there is 15 foot setback that would be required on this rear line, if the neighbors feel more comfortable with the 25 foot setback, we are perfectly happy to do that and we would submit to that conditions of approval. Go ahead and give you this now and finish up my comments. If you just want to pass that down. We are further not in favor of restricting those lots to single story units, just because of the fact that the lots are so large. With a 10,000 square foot lot you would be expecting at least a 3,000 square foot house on there and it makes them awfully difficult to sell if you're telling somebody buying a hundred thousand dollar lot and looking at putting a 300,000 dollar house on there that they can't have a second story if they so choose. So, again, we feel like the setbacks there are adequate now. The house is well off the property line. We will submit to the larger setback and we think that we really accomplished a decent transition there in trying to maintain the wishes of the staff and ACRD and, you know, do what's right for everybody. So, if there is anything that I didn't hit on, I apologize, and I would be happy to take questions or touch on those subjects now if you can remind me what I missed. Rohm: Thank you, Daren. Any questions of this applicant? Siddoway: One, Mr. Chairman. Daren, I was looking at a copy of the previous plat, which had a road that comes down to this area, and it had, I believe, four lots that abutted Dartmoor. Now we have got four -- five and, yet, you have lost a lot in here. Did the lot sizes elsewhere increase or -- can you go over again why you ended up . losing that lot? Fluke: Well, when ACHD asked us to realign -- or to relocate the street here, we had j previously had the street here and had a couple of cul-de-sacs over here and a single stub street approximately right here. When we came back in and realigned it here, just the way the geometry worked out, in addition to the Meridian city staffs requirement to put an additional second stub street here, we just ended up losing a lot. So, they didn't ``~ necessarily get bigger, at least, you know, 50 feet of it went right there to do that stub street. And if you -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if you look at -- if you're looking at the old plat you -- I'm sure it stuck out to you right away how awkward that layout was ,. 4r` `y;, 0. 6 fif~~ (sr r e~ ,~~~ it - ~ 'a . t h ~`r.. h ~ift4. ~, .~ ~,tk-:, ~^ : y:. , ~ a ffi~3: 1~~y1 r ~ Z+i" tt:y i j ~ ^ ,~ ~ ?qa ~.!~;yyi. V1 Y> x ~ 1 ~ f r~ ~ , t '; ~j~~~~ ~ ~ 'J.r;.. ~! 7v1. ;:~ ~f Y (~"~~"Y'{~i ' J' ~ \F ~ 11 f s ~ a~i7t ~ w ~ F ~ r : xkM ~ _ ~"~4`~_. w ~ ,, ~i ~~. € ~ '7 ~~ x ~~t , . ~ p 'b'~~ ~` ~~~ ~ '. ~FJ' ~`.It it (( .~ dl~ '. 1 1L' i{{ !t'K.'~AL!2 ~2 i a ~3 is ~. 0~7~ S ~.~ €= +t Hr'~',~. ~, r Q ~ :t'4 1 Y ~i~' If :, ., `° d~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission .. January 18, 2007 ~ T Page 26 of 40 ~ ~, ; ; ,. r , down in that five acre piece. We spent a lot of time and effort on that five acres and this y ` is about the sixth iteration of something and we feel it's the best layout. ~ Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions? N Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fluke, I -- obviously, there is a lot of concern on the ~ :~~~ drainage and you mentioned that would be taken care of. So, again, for those here to - x'`~ emphasize that. And lassume -- you said there may be -- if there did need to be any i r,'' discharge on an historical basis, I assume that, again, would not be going on to ~ a ~ ~ adjoining properties, that would be going to an existing drainage area or -- Fluke: Well, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, just as we are required to maintain drainage that comes onto this property now, so are adjoining properties. Now, our preference would be to design it such that we don't have any drainage leaving the site, but it's dependent on a number of factors, including topography and ground water levels and just what we can fit into the project. What the irrigation districts have historically allowed, but are now moving away from, is for us to discharge our predevelopment rate at the historical point of discharge. So, we -- we might have the option -- and I don't know until we get into the drainage and actually do the talcs and design the system, whether or not we are going to need to take advantage of that ability to discharge at historical rates at historical points of discharge. _ Borup: But there wouldn't be any at any new locations? Fluke: There would not and I would further point out that everything that we do will be ,. new and piped and so all the storm water that we captured through drop inlets would be run through sand and grease traps and, you know, to clean the water up somewhat before it leaves the sight, because now it's coming off the streets, rather than coming off of agricultural fields. ~ Borup: Okay. Then, the other question I had was on the fencing. Mr. Kruzinski indicated at one of the neighborhood meetings that the property owner indicated that they were planning on vinyl fences. Do you have any reason to think that was not what was said at that meeting? Fluke: No, I don't. That's entirely plausible and, again, we don't have any issue with the condition requiring fencing. Borup: Right. And I mean if he made a statement to a certain type of fence, I think that, _ in my mind, goes a long way. If he didn't want to do that he should have not said anything at all. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. ~~~:,~ ~ . ~ 1 ~F. ~ - C , ~ I, F , ~ ' `1 ~ ~ ~`t~ ~Y ~ ~', _. ~G , .3 ~ 3 i :tr':~ t _, ~ ~ .,r off. (~~~~.s'` ~4N~:~. f ~~ j ~ T $~ T l 1 fh'~.1~ 1 ,}~ [F`T~ f 3~~~~I~. 9'~ '.1 } ~ ~ ~ ~ G ; . T ~~ t ~ '"~.'y I' g~~ 1 k"` .c':b'c. K ~ ~rifi `` ~~ ~ of n ~' f k ~ L d. ~ ~ Sw ', ~~ ~fi~ ' = . - ~" : a., 9 ~ '~ _., ~' M1;- „,. `' ,: ., ~'~I Y,11 ~J ,k~, .~ 2 ., ~,~ ~?: ,. ,.~ ~. ti }. ~,: y ; t;~:, ~,`' ,I ;;'~ ! 13 l i 2 ~, "~ ;a ,,. ;, f ,~ '~' -.y -~ , - w=; ~~~:~~ ~' k ; ,, t ,: ;,, ~~I Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 27 of 40 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to ask a the final decision was on the Eagle Victo City Council -- that got denied, didn't it? question of staff. Can you remind me what ry Property Alliance? That didn't go through Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that Eagle Road Victory Property Owners Alliance application, the Comprehensive Plan amendment application was approved by the City Council. The annexation application was denied. So, they approved changing the designation to mixed use community, but their request for C-C zoning, L-O zoning, I think a strip of R-4 zoning, that application was denied. But the Comp Plan did get changed. So, that designation on that one -- one five acre piece right on the southeast comer of Victory and Eagle has changed designations to mixed use community now. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Thank you. We heard about the existing trees at the end of the existing cul- de-sac and I'm wondering if the landscape plan that was submitted shows where that existing tree falls in relation to that cul-de-sac improvement? Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, no, it does not. It does not show any existing landscaping on the property or adjacent property. Siddoway: Is that one of the changes that you required for the landscape plan to come into compliance? Hess: It is not. I have not added that as a requirement, no. Siddoway: And, then, a question for Mr. Cole. We have had a couple of people bring up issues related to drainage and maintaining an existing irrigation. Could we just get on the record Public Works staffs perspective on how that will be handled through the final plat process? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far as the drainage there, they talked about drainage leaving the streets and entering their property, as Mr. Fluke stated, he's accurate, that those will all be routed through catch basins and taken to some sort of a -- cleaned up through the sand and grease trap and, then, taken to some sort of -- either a pond, a drainage swale, a seepage bed, something along that nature. Sometimes they do allow historical discharge, but they s ,~ ; . 4 4 ~{ ' ~C~ ~ `} ~ 2 : , `L ~. `1. " [`~ ? s~ 'Sk ~1'- ~.;T~ ln~ ~ ~ # yz-=~C •. ~ ~~~b~~) 1~ -. ~i~ Y h e i ~'~iM#i~ L~'~ I f ~k'- ... ~~ ~~~ ' 1 ~ ~ • ~ 1 M { ~ {$ i 1 ).~ 7+ 1 ! riTM' °i .:;' ~`~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission ' ' ` January 18, 2007 Page 28 of 40 t 7 have to enter into a discharge agreement with the receiving body prior to that -- to that leaving the site. In fact, all of those plans will be reviewed at final plat stage with the ,`,a~Li construction plans by ACHD, the drainage leaving the roads, and to make sure it meets ,.~ all of DEQ's best management practices for cleaning up the water leaving the right of ~ ~i way. As far as the drainage -- or the -- I'm sorry, the irrigation lines, those will be `~ reviewed by either the entity having jurisdiction, if it's in MID or Boise Project Board of Control, they will review those plans. If it's a user's lateral, Public Works reviews the plans to make sure that they are engineeringly sound, but we also have a new requirement that they get downstream user approval prior to construction plans being approved. That means if the ditch running through the middle of their site goes to the -- the water running through that goes to the western parcel, they will have to get a letter ~` from that landowner stating that this system meets our needs and is going to deliver our water adequately and we don't approve the construction plans until we get that. That way they can't build it. There is an out in there that if it's being unreasonably held, the city engineer can make that determination that it's a sound system, it's being ' unreasonably held by a landowner just to stop the development, we can approve it in their stead, but state statute requires that they deliver -- state code requires that they deliver that water to that historical point of discharge. So, it's all reviewed prior to plan approval. '~ Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Typically, what I have done in the past on applications like this, I will poll the Commission and usually start at ,~ one end and move from one end to the other to get final thought. Commissioner Moe, would you like to speak to this application? Moe: Yes. On all, I think that the applicant's done a pretty good job representing the project. There are a couple things that I do want to see and that was going to be -- I would anticipate that we would want to have a perimeter vinyl fence around this property. That would be something that I would definitely want to see put in for acceptance for tonight. As far as the transitioning and whatnot per the Comp Plan, I think he is meeting the requirements of the Comp Plan and so, therefore, I don't have a real problem with the transitional lot sizes and other than that I think it's a very good project. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see a vinyl perimeter fence around the entirety of the property. I would want to add the condition of the 25 foot setback for the houses on the south property line. And also I would like to see some resolution or some comment regarding the trees for the Kruzinskis. And I apologize if I misspoke your name. The only problem or conundrum, if you will, that I have is as we sat through the Kingsbridge development and all of the arguments and passion and redesigns that went into that project and, you know, we did require that developer, if I remember correctly, to put those larger almost half acre lots on that west side of the property against Dartmoor and . qg:. L• ~' .4~ti M ~ r ,~;:. 5•- .q£~.~~- ^:~' ~~ w '~~ ; ~~ ~ % ~ 4 I. ~ ~I ~ ~ , .~_ ~ I ~ ~.~;~ ,`',~ }. jF `.. ~~' 1 & ! e ,~, C `~ I -,t. i. %7:'? •I y l w P yyY ter. :l>,,~: ~.. 1. I' .. "•' r..,y(, 4' ~ ~i•,rf,,' ~.I. i di ~ . Y . ~ S•~,jS,C1' Y T 3 ' ~ , I ~ ~ . ! 1 i ' '• ,y ~ ~ i z 11 f .: ~ j ~ 1, ~, , 'l f kF~ R J ~ ~. .: I Y ' I ~~'~ ~ a ~ ' } 4 ~ r~ ; ~ ` ;~ r •`A I: ' ~ "`~ • ~ ~ Is " "r e ' .I ,y>~~.,, r~ L a,it '~~' I .,,, . ~~ ` n .. : ~ ~•: " F ., . . .a td :44. ' a •: i I~ E ~ ~ ' r...~ 3 . -:~ .: t !•~ ,r, 'r ~ ~ I ~I rw: I I '~ • 4~ w~/ ~ 5 } r • 13 :.~,~. :.~.d"ai: I ~ ~ , f f I i I ,~+I. _ ~::. 1 "~~ f~•4 }9. .~ . 7 4:. .. - ,{1~ ~ .. v . • .I . i ~ i. .i ,.~ •;!~' ~ ~f~ si " t a:,. i.. 1 .'. ;,. '~ . 1 ~' i- l , ,' . J t J ' V ~ . . V ' • Y' .:r I 1 I ~ ; I I ! p ;s ~ ;lr: ,r' :i'. s~=i . ~ ~'[ + "el•' q ~r ` ~, • i 1~ >;: F !s~ (k~~ i ~ .~ ~ ~ t3 M, '•:F :>~;~ '!S µ;~y~ ' , ' . h .;bhei '. ~'t:. c ! -'', Ii. 3,`.i-•` '.ka' ~ ~.R ~ +L. E ~' ,ryI ~ 1' ~:'. t~~ ly , i I ' 1 ~ S I k { ' t {~.: -. kl. t ! { t f ~ h_ i '~','a `•`r" ` II . . ^ `y ; `~£:':fei e"l~'. ,u, ?x: Ij Y ~~~`i a 3 }] yslj bl C~ •, S f f '.i 1 ~ 1. AI 'C I ~ f .~ F.i "' y .`[ 1`L;~ ~ g Y C • ! . , ' ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ' h : S'• • ~ , u ~: :~ ~f=~ ' ~ : I ~ • ` L f . .. z , . r r ' ~ 1~ 1 ~f . ~ . ~ y ~' ' J. z. .:7 4 i > .y ~" •t:' . =~'~ ' ~ ~ is ~al~* . , ~ ti a ' I .~ 4 _ .~ . ~ - ;. , ~. n: if ~: ~ I ~+ c '.. ~'~ 7 I ~ ~{ R b ' ~' ~ 'R ' } ,~ I•. t '. 1 I~ a E , '' 1 is ,i ~-~ , I try] v,,. •, 1 ~~' ~ ~I 4. " ' ~ •" +~. `~~'3. ~~~ ~.: ~ y ~ ~ : ~:f ;~ y'}r• eeA .2, 1Y.•.. ' F ~t e I ~'1'~ ' ~~ ' ? P . .J. 1 r ( ' , ` , y ' : ' ' ' " . e 4 ~ \ ~ ' t ~ . ( ~ C S .I•. .:f~~~' ' I . 7; ~ t a, . .Y .lk' I . ~~ 4Y r . 1., ~ vs„~.~ j'i' ^ ~ , ' '' :` L. ~ a F . { A .. •,.k C .{ ~ Y .rit i r' ,;W. ,•~~: .9~ T . <. ,,S.a sft ~` r. l ~ A i a ~i . F ~" '"S rr 'F ' i •I 1 ~ ~9~" k s I,c 'ed ~ ~'.i. ~a r"j"~ . •^ 4 1 .' ~'I' . ~ ~~ .. , ~i ~ .R •.^ , < ~. .. r ,'r YL: ''{'.,~a ~ . J :':.~e ':~'bli ,.' * . : . ~ I ) ~ V f n ~ I I S v , ~ rl . . .. € + Y I .~ ! ,~ ~ r ~'~', ~ i d `a l d } I :'~~~, . to -. -_ ~ : s,~ fKiF. ~' x . ' r ; ya7r~ ~5' da , f , "~ 1 Jn b 1 kn ,:'~"' .'k ~'. 4': ! R '~ ~ I 'I I I : I . : ~ ~ ~ ~ E l . ~ ~ 'I f i m' ..` a . ~ = ~1 wM m a,~.. L .i ~ r` } {~ 11I ~ '` 4 r~.: <' b .4 i~ i' ~ , y ~, X bl r .. f q (e~. y . a , t.~:.'1 ` •a ~ , i' ~` ' a ~• I [ ~ r . ~ .. q I a 3 ~I ' ~.;• I ~~ ;. X ~ f ~ tr ' • 4 r ' I ii • . :'<` ry + ~ +` ` ' ~ ~ . `+! r N r ~, ;.ir,~ ~ { e .s; ~:~ t r F s ~ ~ y r • ~ t rr~~ r ~ ; . ; ~ . _•~ y ~ '.~ 'I . : Li-.L:;~ : ~ I g W , + • Aar' ~I b."°p !'sP'e ~ , o e+~ T t` ;, C i ~ ~~ f I ~ 1 . •~ , i , , i, ,~ . f t ,' :... f 1 ~ A I . ~ I 4 , ` a . . I f f w } i ~X 1. , _ ~, a l 3 ..!~ ~~:i ,t. , .4r,.. i ~f . . - ,,. ~ ~. ~ .. . yI f.1~1. r;.' t4 it r.; k , ~~. ~. i...r: i i~;. k ~4. E~ a ... "` N1 -. .. ,r. .. ~: '~~ ' ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission -".' January 18, 2007 ,~' Page 29 of 40 ~~: _, ~; : ~ :~'~ whether that logic still holds today, I do have trouble not applying that same logic to {. i~~'` `~'~~~, another subdivision. Although I mean there is some density closer to that, but, again, I • do -- I mean I do remember the logic behind that. I suppose I would like to see maybe ~' ~:f one less lot on the south against Dartmoor or shifting of some lot lines. I -- they have ~` ~' ~ ~ done a really good job up against the Kruzinski's property only having -- it looks like they ;~~ ~~~ ~~ have got a total of four properties only backing up to them and given the way their ~`' `~ `"~' property is wrapped around by the development, I think that's -- that's done pretty good ~k` ~~ ~4~! there. That's the end of my comments. ' a ~I '~~ : Rohm: Thank vou. Commissioner Siddowav. ~5' ' `` ~:: ', Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the issues of drainage and ~- irrigation, I do believe that the concerns are adequately addressed in the safeguards s~; , that we have in the conditions of approval and the process that will move forward. ~~ '; Second, regarding fencing, I would concur with the requirement for vinyl fencing. `~ ' Regarding the landscaping and the Kruzinski's existing tree, I would like to see that existing tree added to whatever additional changes are needing to be made to the landscape plan to bring it into compliance prior to City Council. Regarding the transitional lots, that was my only conundrum also. I was on staff when the original $; ~~ Kingsbridge came through that had a lots roughly this size up against Dartmoor and ~- was denied and, then, a separate application came through later that increased those „~, . lot sizes to the 20,000 square foot range up against it. It would seem consistent to '~: apply the same reasoning here if that was truly the direction of this Commission and F , Council at that time. To do so would require losing two of those lots, though, and ,, ~~ '~ might -- knowing also the cost of extending things like water, sewer, street lights, things :' that Mr. Fluke mentioned if we were to lose any, I'd probably limit that to a single one. ' That said, I am conflicted. The additional setbacks -- you know, these are still much `~' ' larger than average lots for the City of Meridian. In general, those smaller lots tend to 4`, be better maintained than the much larger ones. I'm not saying the ones in Dartmoor ~~~~ • aren't. It looks from the aerial photo that they do have nice landscaping, so I don't mean ~~~ t~ to imply anything there. But I have seen instances where when the lots get too big to ~` maintain that they tend not to be as nice. So, I have conflicting emotions on that one, ~~' but could support a reduction there if the Commission felt going that way was consistent ~~ ; with the Kingsbridge. Finally, on the two story versus one story, I believe that this ' s the end of my comment. project should be allowed to build two story homes. And that Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I think -- I agree with what's been said on drainage and the tree mitigation for the one property, other than ACHD is requiring a turnaround and where the streets need ` ' to be extended and there is trees in that area, I don't see there is any choice on leaving those. Well, I'm assuming there is probably some of them that can't. The statement -- expounding on transition. I think there is one difference here between this project and Kingsbridge. Kingsbridge Subdivision accessed -- their entrance into their subdivision was through Dartmoor, right down the middle of it, driving down, you know, the streets they had had. So, I think there was a much direct impact. This subdivision has got q , ~` ' ~. t r'a ti~~k'`: a I '~'; ;s I I 4 ~ ~ t I ~ o'S ~ n=~' rs~ ~ r 1. ` 4 ~ f . ~ 1" ~ I I I a A ~ ' ~^Y1 , 9 f _ c~Y ~l • f T .. ' 1 .{ I q . 1 r ~§ f I • f .1. ~ :7; +~" l ' I h_.. . `1 •~ ~,i G( .. .^ ~ T i'' i ~ s', i ~ . , .~~•• t % y.X .. ~ •'i,; ,,: ~„ ~ 1~ '` ~` r ; s ~ f ~. t tff ; ,~ Il,:~ ; y 1 :;,'"• , : n ' . ; ~: :;^ fi y, .•LI ~~ ;I,~.~~ Y h A:~. ; ~ '~ F .fls • e ~ E'Y _ 5 I C y. II.~~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~~ i' . ~ - ~A$~' ; ~ • I• r ~,,~~' ~.'ils; ~ p „ ~'• {. ' 4 ~ f ~. of .y- . 4"~ ~:: _ •i;. ,;:-.7: U `t ~ . ~. . ~~~ ~ . ~l I • t1 ~<, li' 7 I " y ~~ t' } i1L ~I$I 1 ' : I ~..Y: ~ ' ~ r ~Y ~' L l ,.'S 'F :.I" ' ~i-k'.~'L'.' ~ ~ { N A ' i F~ 'I' . ~,rP' . : ,. [ t : ~ y.':..~L , y ~ ~ G ~ '$ 'M •~{ r * ' , I.. I 1 { 7 j l ~ . • , `~,^ : X~• r f~F ~4 .~ , r. ~ ~ ~ , , , ' ,£ . ,a ' ) ~; ~ tH : 6 j r V '(k ir1 ' ~ ~ ' ` ~ ~ •• " Tl"~~' ;` ~ r ~ +T, {` ~}'F j `~ti~. ' ` ~ sZ' +~~''~'v~ ` ~i{ r ~ a~a 4 F .•~ ~ at ''i.; as"". ~~ ' k .:.,i ,1• ~:~"~ t ` y }~`.`{. ; `V 2 '@ 1 s~' ( I 3 77 ~t?~ ~, , `{ :k I ! .~ fK I .cf, °o ? f, .C ~ . *4.,: . : I ~(" tH...~:x. n. Cu ,y ; .~ 44 {+ '2 ;~,, ~3 . fY. 1f 1. •1'~IrJ L:l:f r~ ~ ~.h i~ 1 . i 1, ~ 11 L ~ + I~ 3 1~~ t I ~.. ~ t y I . I ~ l.. i. ,r~ii • lk' • 5 .[[.a 1~~'v~ I .•1+ ~, ~ n .~Z vT:. T R. .>.7 ` tY•^ ..f ; 4 , 4 R I I ., ~, ; : rb 1 :~ Jv. {~: rs..~`:k e a L . ~ r i'+ ' ^ ~ ` ~. " l ; f q, k 5 ' ' ~ L ~ + t ; ~ : " C} , {. ~ , 1; r ,~.. i " ti° .~ ~~ •' ` :.F:, i`I y . i~;> r i - : i' N _ ~ :. v i e . 1 • Mai . ~, d. .s ' , 1 , jt ~ 1 ~ f ,f''^ ..~. : '~ ^ ' ~ ''r - x.r }` ' I : i ~ 1 _ tf ~ . j 1 I f ~y ' ^~'i ~• V ~ i , 1 ff: ' ti y' ' ' g ~ y, ~ ~ v I • ~~rv. ~.°. , Q. 4hr wFra: ` , :I. ~ .11 -1 a.. S ...1 I .i ai :•,: :C6;' ~; Gt 1 ~ I I : '.i': ..' ,'~ 9'.a. ~ '~:i L . ~ . 1 I ~" ~~~ ~ y f :i" wp' rtl 'S:>,e y ti, yf'~ r:i'u; ; y i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ~,f f ~ ~i~- r'.t ' ,. `Y ~ A~ e~`! ~ « ~i,'' f ~ ~ ; •- ,Y '~'•r.{ ~ ~ t ^ . ~, ~ .. n ,. • r • ~ ~ . ;. ~ I ~' ~ ~;~,~,;: } ~~'~z Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 '~' `~ Page 30 of 40 1. - `' back property lines joining it and there, really, is not -- I mean my experience from '~~ seeing -- seeing subdivisions over the last ten years, there is not a direct impact. n~' happen to live in an acre lot subdivision that had this size lots and smaller up against it ' y l and the impact was probably just the opposite, as far as what it did to property values i ,F ~ and such. So, I don't feel that any -- I mean and as a staff -- the comment addressed all y:. this. Same thing with the -- in relationship to the Comp Plan and being in compliance. So, I'm in favor of leaving it like it is. And I have never been -- and I guess I could go -' I either way. I have always been completely opposed to a two story restriction. Commissioner Huckabay mentioned that the 25 foot setback -- or someone did. That u''I could possibly be in there, maybe. If it's a two story it would need to be 25. If it's a `` ~ ~'~~ single level, then, it would be normal setbacks, could maybe compromise on that. know it's hard for the city building department to enforce those things and it makes it very difficult. So, that's probably a reason not to -- not to get into that. But the lots are ' large enough that I don't think that's a problems. Most people want to get as large a backyard as they can anyway and it would have to be a pretty large home to encroach on that. I think that's all I have got. ` '~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I guess my final comments on it would be that it -- if, in fact, the applicant is willing to have a 25 foot setback along all of those lots, that would remove any concerns over single or two story homes from the Commission's ~; perspective and possibly a motion to that effect would address that issue. And I believe that the applicant has adequately responded to the drainage and the irrigation issues as ~_ in there is existing ordinance and state law that address those issues. And so I'm sure in the final plat all of those things will be considered -- will be addressed. On the fencing, I think that, again, a motion that would make it a requirement that perimeter fencing of vinyl construction is definitely in order. And that concludes my comments. ~: -~,~ Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if there is no additional public testimony, I'd move to close the '~'`~ Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I may have missed -- missed a comment by Mr. Fluke. You said he did -- he did volunteer to do a 25 foot setback? Rohm: Yes, he did. Borup: Is that what you said? Okay. I had missed that earlier. All right. Am I doing this? `t ~ ` ~ " } { 4. . ,d15 ~~ ` 9;,.-~ ..( ¢. ~ 1,', ; i' '' ear;i 'j .~ i ~ II .~ ~ k : ~. f ~ F ~ ll J i ~'~ • -i ~ : ._ '? '~~ ~ t(:s:l 'i~t> . : ,~. _ ~ i1 yl r ~. ~ . t ...~ I I, t T~ 7 - . ~t..a f s. ...f/~ #", k J~ ~ ~ '~{ ~a " (M I d • . .I # n i .t; i .. ~%; x r '.i' f , . IY . Lk, ' ~ •~'~ . '•,}w.e t >I '.'L t • _ ~~ ~y - , ~•~ i'. I I t . . t. i . I ~' - . I , _ .< ~ c..•. iFt'~ •~ • ' ]] .`~ o-§: s ~ i d ~~ .kn ~ ., I.~. `f 4' I $' ~ gs~~:,~ r ; ! ` '~ eat; le :y,n u ~ " ~ ~ I ' `~ w . • ~ . ,: ~ w i t l L .1 I ~I ~ I" • V I •' 'f -t, tz; f A ' 7 rt 1 , Y ,:1~ f. ~ r ~ Pr" ''t~r"zy+~ ~ ~ ° +~~' ' `"j a .d T S ;?a,,~ - ,!' . }p i ~,k•'ej ~. •) 3 ~C St t [! {. ~I: : , " ~; ~ '~ - , t' • (~t -, %r ~ Y ~ . ? ~ . r ~ . 1{ . . ~ _ K '• :t %/ ~ .: .~,,, •;, i r : ~1 _ M .~::.rn'~~Cr , 7 I ' s; V, , II ~ . } ) I` - :~• t~ '~ I ~ ~ j [ tx • ' ~.~M, ~,y ~}; ,'• '' ~. t ,y. :br Kt! . y I ; .' i I l i raM° , l ~.,4 ' ~' LI. • Y t ~ J ' ' C °I~' ~ ~ S` k ' C~~M s . . ?y e 7`• W,..ieF'... i.A:` ~ . i C k ` I 4s. ~. ~ '.A j 5 1' ~?Fa~~i:: ~.Y Yb' ~ i ~ y v ~ ~ h 1 ; . i! I ~'. i rz i i t { t+ , , . ~;~ z:_ ~x ~ • ' 4 ~ r ~ ^ F '~ } / I " ~ _r.~~~~ ` I t 'i•` rl} 1 H .:i .','71n^`iV . c ~ '. y. '..•~ s 4i~. I II a, 3, ~ u. I ~• i 4` t ~.. ~ ,, ~ • r •=I's ~; I ' •~ :~^ ~ ; ~'~ Id S ' ~ ~` rr ~ :.4s't, ~ • r k ~ } . fi . 1~ ' Ft ( ~~ " ~` I. a. Y. S a ,z,: :~:. ~tl • " u~ ' " n W'~e ; °1 ~ ~' t .. .'', ~ ~ } 5 pV~A ; ~' " ~ ,r. ~ 2 ; . ..ftf ,s r ' }. ;y- ' {, i d.; n~e 'F,m g .p` r. J ~ a"~?F y I.: ,~ y - Y k I ~ e °! e: '~ i G. f ':`~. ~. . F~.,:~y. •t • ~ -. •:-1;~'? y~i w:.^;..r t, ar` ri'.. s,., +T. • , .. - e it t E [ ! ' I t, 1 `. . L~ ~~ S 1 a J . .,'~~ •, ~ } ~• C *d ~~ ~ i :: .1: i r i r ~. .A.us r C t E ( ' : f I - . ~•~} •ti < r h.. .'. ~.. ~ ~ ~ . , , ~~' ~ ~ ~ . . t '?• .:~ it ~' •, ~ :~. i. Y I ' . ' y.~; ~ 5 ' t . I ~ i _ ~ •' .(p# I~ ~ l F~` .~~} .ga:;.ti: 4 5 ' Y d. z,"h ,• "ike a.:. :~n y i t •'~! . :. u . . '• . 5 _ .. ~~ ~ -P' •'Y.'^*~ S 3 I t to . ( , ( ^ ,:4 7 r t ... !'>4r ~ `~. ~ , Pr -~ yy ,Sr`• ~:. •T ~. ' ~i`'i..;i: ^ °.,•'ix..~'a .. . 1 ~ ' , 1 {( • ~{ w '~ .~, ~ 'S !,~ .~•, ' 1 n.~;. j~, )~k a/:'lY`A, y d. Y I 'i ' F t ~ i ~ y I, i I C J .. 1 ;r k ~ ! b t I 4 12 I } F ~.. y 111 ~' ,~r~ .,•fW .5 .x~ r ~ ~r`~•a' •'r ^ ^ P ,'• .y ~ , I~ q I ~ T ,SFr,,. .. ~" ` LL• j: ria •' •~.n,• " ~ 'f~ f~* °~ ~ ^ :~I.', j es: e 7 ~ , }? , .~ ~ I 1. I. ~ • ~ ~• '~.. r5* e :j ~ ; Y.i4 . xq f;t;,' ~. s~ 1 . ~ t ~ ~ I I ' t S '~ 1 ~,~ yg td ;~. ~ . r _F ~ YYYYYY r I r . f T ~ .'# r ~+ ~~: F , ~ t', , ii , a d ~}TT i ~' 'ix'•: Y ' ' ~ L t . ~ y ' p~ ~ ~ } ra~Y L: ?",'" ~.Ct M „C.~ .1 } .`i t ~ ~" 'r L. E> ~'^f'S ~R ~ •~ ~ «~ y f ~ 1y rb .FT , ,.•; tx: t.:: ~ ' ~ } ~E f .x.: e .1~i: ~' } .r , s~ . i Y ~. 4. '~f ..~ i i !' ..~ z N, Y{ _,{ '~ ,~~~ ~.~.; _~ ,,~:, _, ~: ';~`~ n ,:~ ' ': z: ~rx; _~ °I ~; '. V. --•. ;~ ~. ?, k ,. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 31 of 40 Rohm: Absolutely. Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-046 and PP 06- 048, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 18th, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. And, you know, I didn't put where we want to insert these, so I guess we will let staff take care of that. To add vinyl perimeter fencing around the subdivision. That on the far south side of Block 3 -- that is the right block, isn't it? That there be a 25 foot rear setback. Did I get the right block? Block 4. Rohm: I think it's Block 4. Borup: Okay. I'm looking at an older plat that had Block 3. So, change that to Block 4. A 25-foot setback. And that in the -- that the landscape design will try to accommodate the existing trees that are on the east end of Falcon Court cul-de-sac. Those that can be preserved will do so. Anything else? And I think that was understood, that the revised landscaping plan needs to get in before -- ten days before City Council meeting. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: We have four in favor and one against. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from November 16, 2006: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Rohm: Okay. Before we open this last one, does anyone feel the need for a break? Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing from November 16th, 2006, for Item No. CUP 06-032 and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to -- let me jump forward in the slide show here. Okay. To modify the conceptual planned development for the Fairview Lakes -Devon Park Subdivision. The proposed changes to the planned development affect a portion of the .. ~~,!F:~~r ;.~: , ~~ . ~^'Y .,~ ., ~,. ~ ~ .± ' .- ~~ p ~q a ~:: *Hf~s~~1 r, r J ~ a h 41Y ~~~~ ~ 4 ~ t r ~~ "~J ,,~~(({{ .%~k 11 I ~ e~~ a ~ ~, 2 . ~~ :,?k ~; ~~ F. ry _ SK . ~~ ti % 2 d , 'i 1 3 x d , ^G ~ ~ i ~ ~, ~ -- _: i. ' ~1r~h. ~fi~ ~ k ~ W r` ~ ~~ t .. 1~ { ~ Ib~ !,~ ~, ,~. .}l y~ ~ ,M 1.5~., `• i' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 32 of 40 ~_ development located northeast of the North Lakes Place -Fairview Avenue intersection ' ` on Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. And that is right here. The ai - ~~> Fairview Lakes -Devon Park development is generally located north of Fairview Avenue ~_, ; at the half mile between Meridian and Locust Grove Road. To the north Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. To the northeast Settler's resubdivision right here. It's a residential °` subdivision. To the west is Fairview Terrace Estates mobile home park and south some residential and commercial properties within the City of Meridian and Ada County. The ?~ subject application proposes a new development plan for all of Lot 4, Block 3, Devon - :. '{` ~ Park Subdivision No. 1. The applicant has submitted two concept development plans i- for Lot 3, Block 3. The first depicts a 2,200 -- approximately 2,200 square foot structure ~ ; ,. ~~' with adrive-thru window. The second shows a 4,300 square foot structure with no drive-thru. The applicant seeks approval for both plans tonight as a future use of Lot 3, ~° Block 3, is unknown at this time. There are three proposed access points to the `' ' proposed shopping center. The first is a full access driveway from Fairview Avenue ~~ .~.~ located approximately 500 feet east of the North Lakes -Fairview intersection. And that ~`~ is located right -- yeah. Right here. The applicant has also provided two accesses from ~" ' North Lakes Avenue located approximately 200 and 340 feet north of the intersection. ~.- ; ~ And there is the first and there is the second. Staff is supportive of the proposed cross- !' ~'~ access with the property to the east, which is Dirty Harry's Car Wash and that's over ~$ here. The applicant has also provided -- there we go -- detailed elevations of the k, " buildings to be constructed. As per the conditions of approval for the Fairview Lakes planned development, the applicant was required to supply two amenities on site. The _: i first is a ten foot wide pedestrian pathway which runs throughout the entire project and has already been constructed with previous phases of development. The second ' ~ amenity is proposed as public gathering area to be located in front of retail building kj _ ~ three and this is retail building three right here. I guess the issue to mention here is that W:~ the applicant did not provide detail on the proposed plaza area and he should address ~ that tonight during the hearing. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, z; please? Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I ;. `~ reside at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho. And I pretty much concur with staffs findings and conditions of approval. I have got two requests, though. Is on item number 1.5 where she talks about the proposed plaza, one of the biggest fears to retailers is sign blockage and so what we would like to do, instead of a 10 by 17 covered seating area, what we would like to do is -- we will go ahead -- there is a trade off. What we would like to do is create a water amenity. You know, one of the things that we have had in our -- in our overall planned unit development have been waterfalls. We put a small one here in front of Smoky Mountain at their entrance, so instead of having a 10 by 17 covered seating area, we are going to -- we gave it a little detail that ~.: we would have raised seating areas around these trees, but we would also, you know, create some kind of water amenity in the middle of this plaza in exchange fora 10 by 17 • covered area. The other thing is I'd like to have a clarification on the 25-foot wide ~ 7 . , w,rv.. ; , ~ p' 33 Ct ~V• i~ '~J. ~'.. ~ ~1' S ~ ~' ~'~. ..~ A rt;~ ~•,; ~.z'.+ ~k:~ ~ -v r .. £ ~ r..+ ~ a ; ~ > < nom, , ~ is yb„ ~'' s;. ., r r bva ~rr~'• ,k.s a~ i_ -'r •.x;' ~ zn. K :.°'^'v-'tr ~ ~ `~ ,. ~ r ~ ~ ~. • : 4h . •' s ~ :- .. ,~ . ; ' •~ it ,'..~:, .i{, . _ ; i ~,~• ~ i .. ,~~ .. 'i A',!~~.i ~.,. ,.}.)tit t >,. 4 ~ F y , . i 3~~~ 1. y ~ j ~ ~ 1 f'11'Y;~~ _ ~~ S ..i:. ~ ~1~t~ .. (F 1- ~~ ~ d '~1 f ¢ t ~~ S ~ et ~ u~,u ~ i~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~i _4 -} ~ ~ ~ 1 y~ y .. _ _ .-'.tip. ~~ ~ ~.. ~. ~r`~J rt. , _ f _`, "~u4~ .. . 1 1g~ Y 'F by ~ ~' { _ ~d3: `% ' ' !~~:' _ s'n . + 5 ~ ,, , 3 ~ 'F~ ... T ~?'b~i' cct i ~J~i h, ~ $ ~} ~c - ~~r ~ . ._ . ~; '.;;{ ~' ~~:- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 <: Page 33 of 40 landscaping, so that's condition 1.12. What we would like to have approved is we have •_,~ one existing home here and, then, we have one home here and, then, we have got a ~, large park here. We spoke to the neighbors that live in this house and so we agreed • that we would put a heavy pine tree landscape buffer here, but as far as the 25 ~~_`, landscape -- the 25 foot landscape setback, we'd like to have it apply to this area here and along this area here, where ever our commercial development abuts or is contiguous with residential. Because of the design of our project, we would like to be able to maintain a 25 - a 20 foot setback along through this section of it here and, then, as it gets to this comer here, then, we would go to the 25 foot landscape buffer along ~~:~ through here. So, just a clarification on 1.12. I think on our detailed site plans we showed it that way, so -- but other than that I'm just here to answer questions. ~~~ " ~ Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? { Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. ~~ Siddoway: I'm going to direct this to staff, but you stay up, because in addressing that ~# i question of the buffer between land uses, is the requirement by city code along there for ''` 25 or is that considered a street buffer -- street buffer landscaping along Carol Street? *? Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, the area that he is talking about being 25 feet is -- is _ ~ the one we were concerned about and that is along this area along the northeast boundary and along the east boundary. ~' ' ~~` Siddoway: Okay. So, as long as that maintains 25 feet, then, that meets your ~ concerns? ~ ~:~' , Hess: Correct. :.; y ":;;1: Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? ~~ ' ~T -.,,, Tamura: Thank you. '~ • `~ ~~~~,= Rohm: Thank you. I'm pretty sure there is nobody else to testify. h ,= _ .~ ~ Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Second. ;.,y r ~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on continued Public ~~` ` Hearing from November 16th, 2006, for Item No. CUP 06-032. All those in favor say ~, aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. ' ~ " MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. } . ~'' ~~ :1 <<~~, -:,: ~ :ii >~I ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 ~~. -~; ;;~;~ Page 34 of 40 r Rohm: Mr. Siddoway. x ,, ~, Siddoway: Question for staff. Does the condition 1.5 currently require the 10 by 17 ~j covered seating area? y~ Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, yes, condition 1.5 does require that the 10 by -- I think E~ it was 10 by 17 covered seating area and that was explicitly to get a little bit more =`~ f' information from the applicant about what we would like to see and what he was looking ~I at putting in on that site. So, if he had proposed any changes to that, that would be ='~~~' addressed. '~ ~~~! Siddoway: Any direct concerns from staff on the water amenity as a replacement? ~:~ Hess: Staff does have a little bit of concerns about that. A plaza, as stated in the staff } report, is defined as a covered seating area and we would like to see, since -- since the °'`~ ~~ applicant suggested during the planned development phase at the beginning of this ':~ project that he would be providing aplaza, limagine -- not being here at that time, but '' imagine that staff believed it would be a plaza area where there is covered seating, there is benches, not necessarily an open slab of concrete in front of a building. ~~ ;;js Siddoway: Is that definition of plaza that includes the covered seating in the definition ~~ ~ section or where would we find that? ' ~~ Hess: Commissioner Siddoway, plaza is not explicitly defined in the UDC. Staff got '. << N ;~ `. their definition of plaza from the encyclopedia. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you. ' ~ ~~ r Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~' ~'~'_~ Rohm: Commissioner Huckabay. =x `' j ~ ;, Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment on -- on the plaza. The development on -- } ~ the Fred Meyer on Federal Way and all the adjoining developments around that out by s, J' Commissioner Moe's and I's office, does have a plaza like that that's set in front of a ~~', retail area like that and it has -- it does block the view of the businesses that are there, ul to the point where the business signs for the businesses that sit behind the plaza had to have the business signs hung on the plaza roof, so that you can see them and not have ~z ~` them blocked by the plaza roof. Right? Commissioner Moe, I think you probably would . ~~~ ~, concur -- , ^{~ Moe: Correct. r~i 5~1 `~"~'t'~ Newton-Huckabay: -- with that statement and what it ended up doing was taking what was a very nice sun shading idea and making it look very awkward and tacking -- yes. f ~ ~'~~ ~± ., ,.., i t ~ ~ ~ Y 1~krl}`' - 4~,`~~k i a~r~: ~~,. i r 5~ ~ x `_ Iq ~ a f err j ~ ~~ ~~ Y`~ 7'14~* yip::. 4 r ' ~ t~ x f+ T i w - ~ '' p,^`'~" t ~ . ~, ~ ,~~ r ~ ~ r k ~ S ~ ~ ~ r 4 .}.~ . r ~_ ~"4 4 -~~ k^ _. -~F '>~X. i. f { I r ~S r ~ ` y }.., y 1~ ~t - ! ~' k ~ _ f 1Yb~. 1fi h~j y}3 :1 ~ 11 S 4~ . . ~ i y ~o- ': ~ $~ ~.J y_,,. ..yy~{{~~ k , ,~IY ~ i:. ' tit -:7 Y ~ 3 t r 1 a I ~E.H ~ S. hy; 5~~.'~~N! - -- ; _ f y~[ 1 ?A. .e. ~ ~ PGifir ~. y ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 35 of 40 Thank you. So, I -- although I think having a plaza is a good idea, right in front of the , retail businesses I think there maybe could be some compromise, because I would hate to see that in this -- something like that end up being in this development or end up ;a= having possibly some retail spaces that were unappealing to a business, because they couldn't have their sign seen from a fair distance. But Ijust -- every time I look at that I ' ` just have to believe that the developers go, oh, you know, that just didn't work out how we thought it should have. And so I -- that's my comments on that. Possibly someplace else a plaza could be placed maybe. Hess: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, one suggestion would be, if all of you recall, 4 ;: the Centre Pointe development where Jonathan Seal was the presenter on that and there were three plazas that were provided with generous walkways out within the ,~ ; parking lot --out to the parking lot. Excuse me. Out through the parking lot to the plaza area that might be an option to think about for this. Siddoway: Meaning the plaza was centered in the parking lot area? Hess: Correct. ;~ Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: I kind of think that maybe a marriage between a plaza and a water fountain type deal may be in order. Benches around the water fountain, so there is seating area and let them have the water fountain to -- as an attraction, as opposed to a plaza that would compromise their ability to market their retail section and that way we get the seating and the comfort and their retail is not adversely affected. Borup: And I was thinking the same thing. I mean when I think of a plaza, I think of a place for people to gather. That may not be the full -- all the dictionary definitions, but, you know, Center on the Grove, is that called a plaza, where they have all the events? `~ Newton-Huckabay: No. Center on the Grove. Borup: Yeah. But I have heard it referred to as a plaza. Same thing at the movie y theaters in Boise, they have got a plaza, they got a fountain with benches around, and I could see that would be a real amenity with a water feature and, then, as long as there is a place for people to sit around it, that's going to attract people there. It's nice just to sit and listen to water, central meeting place for people to shop in different stores and to me the purpose of that would be a place for people to gather and if it accomplishes that, think they are the same thing. Rohm: I think that that's a healthy compromise. I guess we will have to just ask them to ' come back up and give us his weigh in on that. Siddoway: We closed the Public Hearing. We may have to reopen it if you want that. 5. T ~ r. ~ 4 ~} R`.r Y _ ~ . . ~ .: ~ 2!. ~ ~ ~ i ~ 5 Ce- µ L ~'"'" FS ; ~ ,~ w S _ ~,~ h ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ '. ~ ,< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 7 Lg~, ~ ~ ~~, *`- ~ . ~., : ~-. ~CsS z :~ i~ ~ ,t r . ~., .. .~ 2 t 1' ~ ~ I ~~ ~ i ~ i i ~. i 1r~ -4. ~ `y ~~... ~~ y ' ~?~. ~r .. , r~ fl,~Tr~i V y R a~ , ~, , d i 7~'1 ~'~ tt` ~ ,4, iY: ~ # ~ '~.i `,~ t~4h. S~ ~~~ ~~ - r.. t'` c • ~; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission {' January 18, 2007 ,,~, {3I '~ '" I' Page 36 of 40 ~: Moe: I think that the applicant had already said that that was kind of what he was ~,j proposing to do, so -- Borup: He just didn't expound on seating around it and I think that's something, from my standpoint, I'd like to make sure there is seating around the plaza, whether it's part of the water feature, you know, a wall around it to sit on or some other benches or whatever. I don't -- Rohm: I guess the only other thing that I'd like to say to this is at the time that this application came before us when we were taking a look at the other portion of this development, this plaza was offered up as something that once this phasing came through, the applicant did make that obligation at that time, so I think that we need to make sure that we stay with the intent of that and knowing now what we do about how plazas can adversely affect the retail, I don't see any problem with a compromise here, but we definitely want to maintain the seating and the intent that -- Borup: And I remember when that came up and Ididn't -- in my mind I wasn't picturing a covered area, I was picturing a gathering area. But I don't know if that was discussed at that time. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Borup: If it was I didn't catch it. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Yeah. A question and a comment, then, I think I'm about ready for a motion. But the question I have is to make sure I'm thinking correctly. As a CUP, this is not going on to City Council, so there is not an opportunity to have the applicant show some details at Council, this is where the CUP has its final action; correct? Rohm: That's correct. Siddoway: So, you know, there is -- a water amenity could be many things and without any details I'm a little nervous, but I think we can probably craft something into a motion that allows it to move on. I certainly am amenable to the idea of a water feature. To me the key thing has been reiterated again and again is this -- that it incorporates seating, that it is a gathering place. This isn't just a little token thing that bubbles water, you "" know, that doesn't really add to the space in terms of it being -- functioning as a plaza. An area that comes to mind in the Crossroads shopping center, I believe in front of -- is ~: it Babies R Us, they have got an area that has a wider sidewalk, a couple of trees, but it's not much in terms of a plaza amenity, it's probably similar to what we see on there right now, and I would just say it needs to be more than that. It needs to, in my mind, incorporate this water amenity and some seating in a way that does make it a gathering place. ro7 ~.x • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 37 of 40 Borup: Like Generations Plaza? _,, Siddoway: Generations Plaza is great. Maybe a little bit more than -- .,_,i Rohm: One of the things that maybe would be in order is just the dimensional size of ~-~; the plaza area, that the water fountain and associated seating would be dimensionally the same as what was in the quote, unquote, proposed plaza. . . , k ,, r~ k . Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we can go ahead and put some specifics down, but wonder would it be appropriate, even though the -- to reopen the hearing and let the .. applicant put on record what he would propose and, then, we would have that on record. it • ~ ," Rohm: I think that's a great motion. a ~~ Borup: I move to reopen the hearing. =~ .'~~ Siddoway: Second. `~ ;~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the hearing. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ,• = Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Ithink - I think our -- your thoughts are the same as my thoughts. We e-mailed Amanda kind of a concept of at least the trees. We were thinking that the trees would be a raised planter that had _; bench seats around there, so we were thinking in lieu of the covered -- covered seating area that, you know, the trees would act as a canopy, so we would have built in benches around both trees and I can see that, you know, in between our plaza area -- ' or in between the two tree areas we could put a nice, you know, kind of a -- what we ~~ have been doing is we have got a place that we have been getting rocks out of Marsing, ., _, so we could do a nice, you know, a waterfall, natural -- you know, a little pond and ,: waterfall So, you know, something -- I don't know if you guys have been to Smoky Pizza -- Smoky Mountain Pizza, but we have one at the entrance, but probably something, you know -- you know, twice as big as what we have at Smoky Mountain Pizza that, you know, creates some noise. We'd probably keep the pond relatively shallow, so if a kid got in there to play and stuff it wouldn't create a liability for us, but we are thinking with the -- you know, and we could create some nice seating around those . .h trees, but our concept was a raised planter area around the trees for the benches, with a nice pond in between. '•~ Borup: So, you're saying pretty much what's up there, these trees would have the '~, benches around them? Tamura: Uh-huh. And we would put a pond in between. _. `"F `, F +~ t F, ~. ~• fnH Y y . '~ ~i .y.~ v I' A ~ `, ~ f x,,~.:a~:, "" -.. $~9 F i ~' L, ~ jy . k ~ 1 7 .• r ~~ } t ty 4'. ~ j 7I~ k: : .y , ':~; ; r 3 - ,~tF, ~~ yy ~~~' ~'yx'~' '~~ 9 V4 f ~ Y : J L d ,~ ,. ~ ~ti.. y e~ ~~. f 47k ,. i.' ~~ i Vi . ~~ ' ~~ ~ t ; , v ~r ~ ~ e ~ 4, ' k . rI ,_~ ~ yn:?!< t ~.- ~~ l ~ 4 t ~ `. ~ 1,t '. ~ ~ ~q .~ .: n.,wns a ~ ~f ~ ! x ~ 4 4,yN r k `' ~ ~ ,,.. ~ } .~aa;g v }' _{ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 ~ !1 Page 38 of 40 Borup: In between here? Tamura: Yeah. Borup: With room to walk around it? °~ Tamura: Yeah. Uh-huh. Because it seems like that's always a great place for kids to go out and -- '~ ._ ~I Borup: What is this depicting here, these -- ~~`~ Tamura: We have got two -- we have got handicapped stalls on both sides for the j , I convenience of that plaza. So, those are just -- Borup: Okay. Tamura: -- four designated handicap spaces. .~ ,_ Borup: And what's the distance between planters? ~ ~ Tamura: I believe the sidewalk in front of the larger box stores are -- I think they are ten ;~ feet and we are probably looking at around 25 by 60, so, you know, 12 -- 1,500 square -~ foot of sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to comment. I think that the water features in Fairview Lakes now are very nice and I enjoy, when I drive by there, and the one in Smoky Mountain Pizza I did take notice of it and I thought it was very well done and I think one twice the size of that would be perfect. And I just think it looks very nice in fi '' there. I think it's a very well put together development, so -- Borup: I think that would be a better amenity than a covered area. ;~ Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, maybe as part of your motion when you get to the end of this discussion, you could -- since this is a CUP ~~ `~, and you're the final decision maker, if you would like to have Mr. Tamura and the staff work out this and bring that detail as part of your findings, a rendition of some sort that could be attached to that, if you think something like that would be appropriate, that's certainly something you could include in your motion. `',~ Rohm: Thank you. .. ° Borup: That is a large area. From parking -- from parking to parking is 77 feet. So, that's a good size area between there. -- ~' -~-~--F: •~ 4 ~~ ` Y.t _ ~ j Qr ~ E ~} i i ~ `i ~ ., the $ L S 'VN~ ~ ~~ S ; 4 `~ ~ - ,h ~ ~ ~ ~ r a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 3 ~ ~ ~~~y .. h ~ P r { . r3 a s „- j ~~'~ ' '. -~i i`' k~ ' ~ y <~ ~; v~ , .+ fw ~ i t ~,~ r~ s 'f ~ ~ ;~ ~ rii aN ~ .~ ., i w ~dv: S ~ ~s 2~~ `;gY ~ ~. ~i4 ' S r 5 ' lt... ~ F ^ ~,~ Y~,• hy+'K, u ~~ P;: ~ .Y.ti%~/.: S+~ ~ t - '. ~: ~ , i- k*~ 9 -,. s ~ t'b~r .. _ " V - ~v:ry ~: _ a t~~`~ .. 'n x ~N ~~~5,; ,s .. ;. ', °~~'t~ ~, ~~ {f 9 f f., ~;'.!: :; ; „z#t ~~~:#: k~~ i ~ t1.;Y ~~ ~~: ~,~.,, ~'~?~ ~,r y~.. a~ 'r;~' _- ;. .~:< w. ~F.4w .`'.)~ .....i~vt~i-P. :,r ~;; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 18, 2007 Page 39 of 40 Tamura: Yeah. We wouldn't have a problem of attaching the detail to your final Findings of Fact. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing again. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-032. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, testimony -- I guess that's staff and application testimony, I move to approve file number 06-032 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of November 16th, 2006, with the following modifications: To item 1.5 regarding the plaza, strike the requirement fora 10 by 17 covered seating area. Replace that with a requirement for the applicant to build rock waterfall and pond roughly twice the size of the waterfall near Smoky Mountain Pizza. That the pond area needs to include seating and function as a gathering place for people. Second is just a clarification to item 1.12 of the ten foot landscape buffer. There is a 25 foot landscape buffer required where the development abuts existing residential and I believe that's as staff interpreted, but just to make sure we are clear on the record, that that was the intent of the condition of approval. And that's the end of my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: The Findings? Siddoway: Oh, yes. Thank you. And direct the applicant to bring back a detail of the waterfall feature to be presented to the Commission with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-032, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you, Mr. Tamura. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Can we get one more motion? ,~;; ;, . ,i z ~y ~'~; '~41 ;:~:, .. A-; ~~; `~~ f( •i~~ <`'i:5' :.,a sis . °ncrti a is -''~.Yi `r`~; h,r . ~Tt r~ ~ t . ;,N*, i- ,t`: '_;"„'' ~,? .. r:; ~r3 i~`~ .. ::ti tit i ^J, , ~,~~;t_ ';r~ ~;;~:.~ `~ ., <,, _$ ~; a V ~i'~ ~~ R y- ,.. '~~ ;~ January 16, 2007 CUP 06-039 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Cooper Industries ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru - 2845 E. Overland Road AGENCY 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: COMMENTS See Atfached Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ~p~~e ~~g - t~/w -o Contacted: ~,~"i `~ ~~°'®~ Date: ~- Phone: ~ 3,~ ~~~ Emailed: ~y~; ~ ~ ~; ~~s~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ Staff Initials: ~/~~~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. ~ ~ ~ .., 3r C~ ` i ~ ~ Tr~~.. yy~ x . i 4!I 1 ~~ 7 ,~'~ ~~ F '~ r-~a 1 i~ +, e ~; ~ f '~'Sr/¢ M'f"~* ~~ s %~ ~: I~~t ~`~ 3 '> ; ~ ~~ 4i 3'~ +'- ~N4 a "~~ e',F~~ < < ~~ ' ..wa>~_ v; ~ dcfi;;.r%:; ,~~ 3,.:,~.,~,. ~Ad fy4p.~~', {v ~~~w ! F ~w °~; f-~ f 4 I ~ '% to ' 4 { V ~ ~ 4 ~~T: ~~ ~ .~: ~ 5 ~ wti1.t i1 ~ s ~._. F:~y~,~i z r ; . ~; ~ • _ SAN ~ ~ ~~~7 ~~ City d)f Me~diar~. ' r~~ ~~ ~~' ~',ity Cl~rl_I~. ~f_fi.ce e.~ ~,~ j+;~+7 +~~ ,a ~ ~ ~ bF ~~ ~~~, CITY OF MERIDIAN J~pf~//} /~~1~,/(~ ~~ ~c ~ T~ V 4~P FWV~". FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF g ,~.~,-r~~ ~„ ti ~~ :~ ~,,;~. LAW AND ~~ _ ~,~, DECISION & ORDER ~ ~~~~°~~' "'~~~~''~~~ ''~` - ~~- ~`~ ,~_ }. In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit request for adrive-through establishment within ~.` ~ 300 feet of an ezisting residence for Dickey's BBQ Pit, by Cooper Industries. .;: ~ : ~t _ ~t Case No(s). CUP-06-039 ~~~ . x~~~~ _ For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 4, 2007 (Findings ` ; approved on January 18, 2007) A. Findings of Fact ~ ` ~' t 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) t~K ~f ~~r Xt ~ y +- 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 ~° ~~ incorporated by reference) ;, _~,: 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January ~`: 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) 5:., i ;:~;; 7 ~ ~~ 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the '~' hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use w~ ~ Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). `Yt , :$: 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified ~ Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps ~`~ s;` thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the _r r` ; Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, ' ''t` 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. ~~f ~~ 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § `~~=r 11-SA. ~ "~ ,; ..$. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-039 kM ?v 1 ih ti. ~ __--_. ~~i_-- ,,i.-. r=~`.,..; .. • ,; ~ ~ 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental I~ subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. !:~ 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon ', the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, and the Conditions of Approval, all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the ~ applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. ~~, C. Decision and Order ' Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: '. 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated September 21, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. No modifications to the site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing; and 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. :~ ' '~ D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits ., Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a :; maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the ~; ~ ~ conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or ~, :~ structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year -; ; from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-039 .~ '' k ~.. J ~ l •• k, U t ^~ i ~d '6 ~ •Y}~: ¢a.~i?F ~' `~"~ _~' ''f"~' r~ ~'~. _ "t r ' : ~'~, ., L 4 `?' ~ L i ~ I t ~ ~ 4 3 ' r ~ ~ . &t ~x ~ ~ : ~ • , ~ 1 , 1 ! ~ ~ •., 4, F , - ~ ',; ~ , :~, 5,, _ ~• ,~ 'f C ~.,a ' , ~ [ ?. it r.~ ~Y. ~ :~~ '.'a F+~''^ ~.t ~ t~,..,,~ $. •i~: r e. ~ y~~ .. r, x..~ ,:a:+, <,m9-~ X~', s n. I ' . '.,~ 1. 1'Jy`~ ,.tr;• `:{i,~:• -'`..~n, rq p ~ti-. ; '~ }1 . yjj g5.v::r }tt ~~ ~':Y"v'4 ~~ I r ' . g . s ~ {~{y'*t . ~ . . .. u;. '7 ~' ' f • . A . ' " ' ~;r~ t - ~ ~ , '.x';F ~~ of ( ~ : tr ga ~ ~ ~ ~'.c 1 ~ e V k~! y(~ } ~ ~~ ~., a,d ,~' ~ ,b~, ~, .(. :R, R ~` .~ e. tt .~~ .sip ~~ ~ . { ! 1 tV` :' ~, k t .• ' $y~ ~try ++7+1 ~ .:;',. ~ b't' 'k I { 9. ~ ~.'[ ~ Jl ~ !' ~ p ,~ ~%'.i'. "~.4 iY''. ~. , rt ' . ~ ~ 4f gar i .; .. ~ s. 4,, F I .1• . •.~ ~ „i y : , ~ ", ~I, rt" ' . ~' ,,M~•, l~",~.~~~%i.~ '.'^Ff^ ; ~ ~ F i .F'S,;` ~1 . % a y{, I ~ ! ~ ~ i ~j}~~'q ,~, [f4 S• • 3 ' 'r'•;' ~ r , x ~ ~3. ~'w - r~ M '~La°' - !:r ~ Vi 3 N { e: ;C' ' ~ , .:' :F ~ "~ ` ~:1 . ': ti ` ^ ; t, ~,~ [ [: . , i > "F" ~ l~ ,t.,{ l't ~, r~I 4 i.I j' .1 +i 'r ' - y r ~- ji~S, q' . .. ..:. ~ ~ _~.~5• . « .. ..;r '~ ^ _ .~ J, .~ ~ ~ i4.2:s'r .s K '' '~ , S .4 fl - j ! I I. ~ ~. ,l ~! ~"¢~ .. I ; n' , f i +Y ' ' y ,r ~ : ~ °.:} . .ir ; 'a ` ~' ; ,.;y '~( .- p 1 _ %i ~~.., 'ys~ .. ~s ~ . ), i' -7 : ~ .:'.7F .: `$Gh N - ~:: '. l I' i f . 1 i'~ l i ,.I{ r ~~~,t l ."1 ;~ '1.L,' .~ry,~ it t § .~ _~.,', ile?,r~. yie[!~ . : J-~-tom ro.;,i. S,•,Y:s~3''~'`.i ~' •• . I i .,{. ~ g4. i .::~~~Flk :I'.~ .', •"(.~ ~r'y,~'. .~ ;;!§~~ A..: ~.>Y*'" 3• : t ~ 1 ( `x` ;,c• F4„'-}f ~ 1CK ~ "4E k °y~ k [ ;f,. { }. .. ( , . , : i . . ' ~ ~ • ~3 ' { Jj[t ~ IYCj` ., „ '•e ±, •ro , .:s~ 4 ; 'ckiY' %iRR f':•. ~.'!' , ~ h rN~ ~I'~ Y ~ 4 ,t. ~ ~ :,p ,.;5•. : ; i~ T` f ~ r, ~ :.~ . .. ;~ay .,,.., , V T'• ' , u. • { f ..,. rj i; i - ~ . ,> ; ~~ '. ,^«+N I`~ ~ ;fix . "..tti ~t.~. r ~Y,..; j r•.'1 . ,: ' 'r' aa11. ~ 1 .'!rY~{ ~~I I § ~ '~JY ,; < ,~ '~ Rk ~':~ 1 ~ d ! Ott r ,'~.. ': L . . . lI I I .~ ~-~ ,:P ? { W ~ ,aYI,~.~F t t 3 ~ ~. ~ '.{ 'i ' 'A 5 Y ~Zi 'kr. S S' y 1. ~ ~.' { t ~ ~ 4 1 . ~ i ~ ~ ~.~~"~ ~ I~ ~"~'~ s x . t ; ~ ' `~ w i 4 ~ -:- ~f:~~r .~~ , 4'. ,_ -;£ ~~: y.i5~ ;,,T~~ ~~ ;~.. ,`~, . ~;} r~~~' ;:,^ `:v,.,, ,.:_y; >; ~;; v:~ r~ . r ~.- ': ~~~: .y ~ . ,',~. ~;~ L,`. ~i "' ~ 'k c.;i ;N,~. -~' fxz ;>!'F< ,~" ~:; ;,:c -;., ~: ;rr;: ! i void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-039 ;;~ ~> ~; `~k'" ,y'~ '. z: ~; ~, ~:~:~: °ti, ~~~ ~ ,~~_ 'f~~ti - ~ ~"j:~. ~~, ~ ?rr~ e- !; ?; ~L: . ~-r.t~t x ., 4r.~ x, ~r ,,~: ~~; ~~ ,~ ~?, By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the /~~' day of ~ ~ , 2007. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ~~ (Chair) _ COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED__~~~~~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED_ (7~~~ COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY VOTED CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM \\\`~~~I11111l1////e/ . e ~ ~,,~~,~ Ol^ ~°> Attest: ®~ \ ~ ,p ~ t s ` ~ ` fT °'s ® e ` ~ ~ ~ V Tara Green, Deputy City Viler ~``~'~ `~ Copy served upon Applicant; °~I~l~i~g I~tment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Dated: ~ - ~=' ~ City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-039 rF'~. ~~ s ,;' .,~ _: z:a a} J a i:'•~ '' ,, `~ ;, A, '; ~.£.~ S ~' -•~ ~- ~;_ ~~ '~~ 4 ~4 ,,;; ;, .~,' LJ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 1$, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. .3~A REQUEST Approve Minutes of December 7, 2000 Planning 8~ Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: GITY 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: fNTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at publk meetings shoo become property of the Coy of Meridian. ;, ~~ ~4 x tl a' ~~~ ~ ~ ii ?' , ~~ .r4 {~ ~~~ ~ S 5 M r ~~~ - ~~} S ? ~ \' ~h vx '~ ~ s ~ '~ r ~,} ~~~~ l #~ 7'.:~:Fti C /~ `i~ { t~d'f °~~. ~. - 'd- 6 ~ 3 A'i'd h ~,: ,M; ~ ; ~ ~ r y = ~.d+ 5 ear. ,'I y ~ ~, ~ /,. _ ~, r~ ~ a 4~ a}r ti t ~jjJ ia^• f 4 ` '~~ t 1; 3!'yn.;9~'. ~ { y ,. i t , L.t~'~.u'C.'' i, r'. ~ 1 . ~ d~~Ff~ x I "u ~~~ ' k i ~ ~ ~ ~~ti z~ M ' " F' -. ~ ~ ~~ 4 r ~,i ~I ,.~ :..; ,.; ~: ~'~ ~~ ,?.~~ ~~~. i..z _:1 ,. I • '; OTHER: z :1 ++ Contacted: 1 Emailed: C COMMENTS See Attached Findings of Fact >9r Conclusions of Law Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials present®d at publ(c me®Nngs shall become prop®r1y of the Cffy of Me~idlan. 'J ~k ~' i L , ~f ~ ~3. ~ ~ ~} "' ~ ~ ~ ;fie ~n ~, ~~ 'i~~iu~ E~ ~~,. i ~ ,k ' ~ ~~ z> ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ r r'! '4 ~e ~s 3 , r ~ ~. i~~ J f `t ~ ~ r 4`J~~F i ,? ~ 1 ".f t ~ h ! ~~9 "~+f n rr d I~ _ 3~ Pi+r t s ~ ~ ~ ~ , a ~ ~ fit ~ t': ~~y~y g`~ ..r. ° Mj.~,~ f a ~~ ,~ r ~ ~ ~l '~ t a ~ i January 16, 2007 CUP 06-039 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Cooper Industries ITEM NO. ~-g ~_ REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential use for Dickey's BBQ Drive-Thru - 2845 E. Overland Road AGENCY 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: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 ~~ o, ~~ ' STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 4, 2007 ' '_ ~ ,"~' ^, ~ !~ _ ~r~w~~ ~~xt~ .~ TO: Planning & Zoning Commission -- ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~':,~ FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner ; + .' ~ ira.~~, p', ' I` SUBJECT: Dickey s BBQ Pit Drive-through ~ ~- ~~ >< .; ,g . CUP-06-039 ~~`-`-~ ~rx,:,~ ~, ~s,>,4~x-' , ~,~ ,~_:I Conditional Use Permit for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of an existing residence, by Cooper Industries. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ;: The applicant, Cooper Industries, has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of an existing residence. The subject site is located at 2845 E. Overland ~_ ~ Road, approximately'/a mile west of S. Eagle Road on the southwest comer of E. Overland Road and S. Bonito Way, in the northeast comer of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M. e:; The property is currently zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). The applicant is ~ ' proposing to operate a restaurant with adrive-through in the existing building on this site. The drive- - through is proposed on the northwest portion of the existing building. Restaurants, retail stores, and ;` ' drive-through windows are principally permitted uses within the C-G zone. However, the Unified ;k',~ .. Development Code (UDC) requires all drive-through establishments to obtain Conditional Use Permit ~ , (CUP) approval where adrive-through facility is to be located within three hundred feet of a residence, prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. There is an existing single-family home within 300-feet of the proposed drive-through, across Overland Road. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION ` ~ `' ~ Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends " ;< j approval of CUP-06-039 for Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through as presented in the Staff Report for i, ~, ~ the hearing date of January 4, 2007, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian 4 ' Plannin_ R and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2007. At the public hearinE, they ~- ~ moved to approve CUP-06-039. a. Summary of Commission Public HearinE: ,1 ~ i. In_favor: Eric Anderson. BRS Architects (Applicant's representative) ii. In opposition: None ' ~ iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None }, y, v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters `~ ` ~ ' vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None c. Kev Council Changes to Commission Recommendation: ii. None + , 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS ` ~ Approval . After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- =' `'~ °` 06-039 as presented during the hearing of January 4, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18, 2007. `. '~~ Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 1 d •• !~ g1~ . 9• ~ ~ I I ~, A ...e.i ~' ff " ' J " 4 ~ r ! ~ Y ~ ~~' f i¢'sk.i.+L7 ..Sr , : ..~1 ~1 ~ .• ,. ~ p ° ~ ~ . $ } ~.` ~~~~.' :s~', l,r tom} .'r rig l(4'.4i`,f'. r9,I' V S i~~ ~ 1 ~~~} .. ~;;' .~~,.: ~h~l-F~~ b .S 1~. Ir .y,, r ' +,.; !.yea i '.ai11~ ::Tf ',i, t ' ~ {' i ~~ 4 ' '-. ,x,. .nf~?~<:~,; }R~',y%.. a -`'., i n ';l d ~. x "s ;1 . ~ w' s, ,r , ;.~: ':-u~l:r• . ' s Y Fl ` ~ Y"~ } y:. I ~ ~ ~v . 1. N i I I ~.S' .F r R ., t~~9. a Y i 1 li(~ ~ #, f~#~f J IAj~ k ~ ~ r • w ' } ' ; F .. l 7T}. '.~I,F. :r~ S`l?` ~:,- ,.yx : , . ! : . ~ .l. i- i 1. P R~~ t ~ • , 1'3 .I.x .'~ ~ lti'~ ~.; . `,Z' ,;.~ -, i'N'f„~ _ ' 1. 4 ~Y4 3~ •• , F ~ ~ r ~ r . ~~ ~ , ~ + ' } r , ~ r # ~ F ik~f ~+i' 'k': r~g ~. ~ y,i. a-'l- Y'f v'•v ` i , ''S `' 4~ "E 1 ~ ! ~'} ~ 7H `I"~' ' ~x~ ;h k'tit, .F. } .~ f Yf :;~ >•>. ~'" ~~` q +.~. • .~~, '. .i.j' ':~: j •'S.'i~~~ x(31 ~ ~. .. ~ { ~ "A`iia ~' ~{ ~- j l -d5fi.. a ~ . E , ~ ~ - F !Fx K ~ r.~uFi wE ~} ~T 1 1 ' ; ! µ 1 ri I~ ~ ^ , ~~ }. It i ~ 7i + M 1. b + '., ~ s ~ + ~ i .• V - r ; ' . .. a ' r.. r : 4~ ~ ~ ~ r 1 >r r { 1~ ~ ,r f ~~~ s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 ti - Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06- ~'; ~ 039 as presented during the hearing of January 4, 2007, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit and what the applicant may do to gain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on January 18, 2007. Continuance . -~ After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 06-039 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): .~ (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) ~:'~ 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address /Location: '' ' 2845 E. Overland Road (Lot 4, Block 3, Bonito Subdivision) Section 20, T.3N., R.IE. Parcel No.: 81022760210 ;_ : b. Owner: : .:~ r ,~ ,~,~ Kimball Properties .:.}, `" P.O. Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707 ' c. Applicant Lonnie Harrison, Cooper Industries 1225 E. Crosby, Ste. A-1 ~ ~ Carrollton, TX 75006 ~:; a ~ d. Representative: Eric Anderson, BRS Architects ~. ~~ e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) f. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Regional '' _~~ g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-through window in the existing 4,600 square foot building for Dickey's `' ~" BBQ Pit within 300 feet of an existing residence. The drive-through will be located at the ,'_.-~~ northwest portion of the existing building as shown on the site plan. ~`' ~ ~` 1. Date of Site Plan (See Exhibit A): September 21, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): August 12, 2005 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use per City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. ,: ~ b. Newspaper notifications published on: December 4`~, 2006; December 18~`, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 22°a, 2006 e d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 19~', 2006 Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 2 t ~ ~~ ~ ~a~ r a 5 ~ ~ ~ :: ~ ~ y } yi.t jf _ N. :1 ig~f t r ~ ai ~, Y: k ~' y`* f' i ~ `''1' rn ~ E ~ ~(r K ~~}y~' ki ~~ t ~` { $ . ^A . ).. 1, y sx;c ,~~ ~'`r ;~^ ~ ~ ~S ` J. ~~ F S . CT + ~ , ~. 3 , r i ~ r ~ 7 , cya ~ `f.. C Y ~ ~ ~+'~ ~'~ $ I „1 f y!r d x4 ~ ~~ , 1 S HC }. ~ 4 '!y f ' ~ k { ~' ~i "1r } 4 .M I Y ~ .. t.~ ~i~ r~~ -, `r r~_^'s ~~~;, ~~:.~ H Cf l -W, c':z; ,;' 1, ,:.; -'•~ ~,h ~N ~,a F~' (~ .,.~, _; ~< -~. f =„~¢~ ~, ~= >,~ J 45 ~5~~'~ t~ .~ .!i;:-: fi ~~'"? i irk CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEG DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Commercial b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is a rapidly developing commercial area with existing restaurant, office, retail, hotel, gym, and service oriented uses. The site is surrounded by commercially zoned property on the west, south, and east, and existing residential homes to the north, in Ada County. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Residential (Overland Way Subdivision), zoned Rl (Ada County) 2. West: Vacant, future commercial property, zoned C-G 3. South: Commercial property (Bonito Subdivision), zoned C-G 4. East: Commercial property (Bonito Subdivision), zoned C-G d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was annexed (AZ-O1-018) and platted (PP- 01-020, FP-03-010) in 2002-2003 as part of Bonito Subdivision (flca El Dorado Subdivision). A Planned Development was also approved at that time for a Mixed Use development (CUP- 01-037). A Development Agreement (DA) was entered into with the City as part of the annexation and recorded as Instrument No. 103020830. An addendum to the DA (MI-04-006) was recorded in 2004 as Instrument No. 104107403. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance was issued for the existing multi-tenant building (shell and core) on the site in 2005 (CZC-OS-113). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer already stubbed to this lot. Location of water: Water already stubbed to this lot. Issues or concerns: Routing of sewer and water mains 2. Vegetation: Existing 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: All ditches were tiled with the subdivision improvements. 5. Hazards: NA 6. Size of Property: 2.5 acres (entire lot) 7. Description of Use: Proposed drive-through in existing 4,600 square foot building f. Summary of Proposed Streets and / or Access: The applicant is not proposing any new access points to the site at this time and none are approved. Access is provided to the site from S. Bonito Way, an existing roadway within Bonito Subdivision. Direct lot access to E. Overland Road is prohibited. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS On December 1, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 1~ 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOAL5 ' This property is designated "Mixed Use -Regional" (MU-R) on the Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU-R has no upper limit on the square footage ofnon-residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) `.~ When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the ;- ~ subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: + - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's _ expense. - - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire ' Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire u `~ Department. :~ - The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the { Ada County Highway District (ACIID) and ITD. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service }; will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. ~ Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building .. Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the ~ Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility - Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. = ~ • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal ,.~~ III, Objective D, Action 5) ~~ The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping on the site in accordance with y '" `'" UDC 11-3B. A landscape plan was previously approved by the Planning Department with the ' ' ~' ~`' Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-OS-113) issued for this site that complied with the r` applicable UDC standards for landscaping. Additional landscaping installed on the site shall comply with the approved landscape plan and shall be maintained. `; ; .~ ?~T, • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, ~` vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.):' (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) . ;.: ~`i ~ A 35 foot wide landscape buffer has been installed adjacent to E. Overland Road, an ~ `~ -~_, entryway corridor into the City. - • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) •~ii ~ ; r ~ } '"~ Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 4 "~: f ~;~, ~ ,~~ ~u;r f s ~; ~ ~~ `tea ~I ~, ~? ., -~ % ' a y ~~ t~ i f. ° ~ ~ ~~ ;. 1 ?~ ) I ~ 44 fbsi, f E r L. r ~,~ g ~ 4 A~ ~ ~ rL zl<, r~ F i w~ ~~~ ~ ~'K~ uf~t ~ g r .y. +}' r a ,r ~ ~. i~ r' ; ' i t' a~j r (y. A Y. {~ # 1 j'~ ~tW .~rY,~ ~~ _ ~I Ifll ~I .i n ; f~~ , i ~+~ _ ~ L1- i_;:a ~- s~ ~ ~„ r ~~,~ j a,~ y ~- ~ , : 4,.w ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` .. ~' ~( + '.. ~ r ~,v7: .~ , ~ ~ .5 ~ ++~ , r ; '- Y ~ :~ ... T._~ .1 ~1 '~ . ~i ;`~'~~ ~i~°. '''4' ~ }~ ` a?~~ r~'' ,.~; :, '~ '-;~ ~, `,~. ;- ;; , .. F. iC', ,F.; "'1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 Staff believes that the proposed restaurant use with adrive-through window on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimise access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ...arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) Please see section 6.f. above for details on access provided to this site. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists adrive-through facility as an Accessory/Conditional use in the C-G zone, with Specific Use Standards for Drive-through Establishments. The Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.11 for Drive-through Establishments require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for drive-through facilities that are within 300 feet of another drive-through facility or a residential district or an existing residence (see Section 10 below for additional specific use standards related to drive-through establishments). The subject property is within 300 feet of an existing residence and residential district. a b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the new of travel-related services, as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. 10. ANALYSIS ',~ a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented on the CUP site plan labeled as Sheet CUI.I, dated September 21, 2006, and the landscaping proposed on the landscape plan labeled Sheet L1.0, dated August 12, 2005, with the following comments: Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by Sterling Landscape Company, dated August 12, 2005, was reviewed and approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued for this site. No changes have been made to the landscape plan submitted with this } application. Parldng: Parking was reviewed and approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance ~~ (CZC) issued for this site. No changes have been made to the site plan submitted with this y application. Access: Access to the site is provided from S. Bonito Way, a commercial roadway within Bonito Subdivision. Direct lot access to E. Overland Road is prohibited. Specific Use Standards for Drive-through's: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-through design, and fords that it meets the requirements set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11, which states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page S ~ ~ - h ~ ~ ~° ;~ ' r~~ i ' ~', ~ ~ ';ir . ~ ~~ ; j ~ ~Y r ~ ~ e: ; ~ aT ~ ila r;a = ~ i G ~ . VT' ~ ' r 4 ,` ~~~1j', P '~ « n ~ 1 ~ Y4~i"1E.: ~~ 1 ^' f s~ ~ .= u:; ~~,r *bF h ; ~ ti~..~~ :.. ~y I'_ i j r. .. ~'NY' .~'~ ~f N1!. ' ~ r h ` ff , ~~ ~CfF~ h •`~'rd M f' 1 4 k l 7~ ~~ i ~~ rt ' 1 Vµ ~ ~~ 4 1 L Tsr-^ ~; _.;i - . ~ ~, ~,~ ~.`'f i ~ Yx • 4``~ . ~ 1 '~ i .y:. x ~~}~', ~ ~ ~ { ~~ ~, ~.< #~5~ k ~._ ~ti ' r ~~ u ~t ~ 5 4 / L~ 1 .. ~.y . I i~'y'o~'~-. _~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 1 vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. UDC 11-4- 3.11 goes on to state: At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of--way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an ~'' escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance `'`~ with the authority's standards and policies shall be required. Staff finds that the site plan submitted with this application complies with the specific use standards fora drive-through establishment, as set forth in UDC 11-4- , „ 3.11C. ;, Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the ~~ establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (LJDC 11-SB-1 A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC from the Planning Department prior to receiving occupancy. With the CZC application, please include the following additional information on the site plan and/or landscape plan submitted with the new CZC for this site: ', ,1 #~, ~; °~''~ t ~ ; ~.: ~~ ,~: ,; ` ,~a Y.i '.. . 9 .. 1 i r~, `~ • A "Do Not Enter" sign should be constructed in the south end of the planter island on the west side of the drive-through lane where traffic exits. This provision should help to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong direction; please include signage on plan. • A pedestrian walkway meeting the design review standards listed below. Design Review: Because this site is located on an Entryway Corridor, Design Review would typically be required per UDC 11-3A-19B5. However, the CZC approved for this site was issued prior to adoption of the Unified Development Code, which requires structures located on property adjacent to an Entryway Corridor to comply with Design Review standards as stated in UDC 11-3A-19C. Because the building has already been built, Staff is not requesting any changes to the building facade or parking areas. However, Staff is requiring the applicant to construct a pedestrian walkway to/from the sidewalk on Overland Road that complies with provisions listed in UDC 11-3A-19C4 below. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 6 ~ -- - ~ ak`~ ~. ~ ~ t~ a~' ~ ~ y ~ r " a ~ ` - ~ ~ ~i ~~` ~ ~~ { `'Y ~~e x~~i ~ (IQ~~1 ~r~~ 4 ~~I .~c ~ i ' pr) ~~ .ti ~r ~ v~ T -~ ~ i. ~ i ~~ u : 4 ~.. i F ~ L ~i } ~I ~~ ra.;f ' i ~ ., s t ~ d ;. . M ~~ 4 .~ _ ` `` F K r, ~ ~ ~: `sue . n Y f ~ , ~ ~ r~. { ~~ ` + 'S'. ~ ; JR: ~ _.K ie~a r <. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ~ DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one-hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. Note: The site plan and landscape plan were reviewed and approved with the CZC issued for this site. No other changes have been made to the previously approved plans submitted with this application. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-039 for Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4.2007. At the public hearing. they moved to annrove CUP-06-039. 11. E~~ITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan, prepared by BRS Architects, labeled Sheet CUl .1, dated 9/21/06 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Sterling Landscape Company, labeled Sheet L1.0, dated 8/12/05 4. Elevations, prepared by BRS Architects, labeled Sheet CU1.2, dated 9/21/06. B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department I~ 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department I C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Dickey's BBQ Pit Drive-through (CUP-06-039) -Page 7 i ~~ :~'~ _~~: . f , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map ' . 4 ~ ~ ti :~ s ~; S ~~ i ~~ J JJ i I~, .. 1 J ~ __._ y ~II _ ~ I I ~1 I ' _. _n _ _- ~~ ~_ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ _r ~~ _ __r___.~r;. t ~?r rEP ` 1 1 ~ _ _ p'~ ~I ~~ rd ~I~~ r. b i ~~L _ _ ~~ ~. 9i1~ R9'St9NE ~ L~ 'Zk:_°~.~s~~ r~~.: ~, ~1~~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ," ~_}+~ _ ~ ~ ~ry x "' _.. - 1~ ~~ '' i ~,.~" 'fi '' ~ ~"~~I ~ ~ ~c11.'I Y' ' - - ~~. ~,fl~ r ~~ ~ ~ r j - . .~ ---- r: ~ ' ~ e E r~ ~~ t'~~~ ~f_~,~~' P ( 'iT' '~ --- - -,,= - ~' ~ J 4 - --~, - ' _ ~ ~ II-~'~ t-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ U~y' ~~ ~~. _ _ ~ - -- ~_~ ~~~CuIL ~ I~ .mss i.-___ _ ~ - 'tl i - _ I (i i7~~- ~ - i J/ ~~ ~ 1 C ~1'i ~ I, ~ r. ~ -~ I l r ~.4~4~5 ~ ~ ~I ' ~ ,. F , ~~~~ y h?..qe `~ ~~~ i I -. - . ~'-~- ~ ' y~~ 1T ~I, ' ~~ I ~ ' 1 j}~'' {~T 1 ~ _J _ ..~ f _. ' I . ' ~ ~~~ ~ 1 1~ . ~ ( J' ~ ~p 1 ~ ~~,1 ~x ~~~~ ~_ _ ~ n 1 j ~;t I ~~,s~a; e fi~ ~ ~ . +o, ~ s ,~{ 'I ~ ' I ~ _ j - d- '-{ ~J'.~ _(.2 - I ,mow r*~" a I ~ ~~ '~ } , L ~11. - ~ . ~ ~'?S ~--.- ~- -. Exhibit A ~~- W OOM a '~,..~ Vii; ~ . ~~ ~'~ k- ~~ ~. ~P ~~ <i €F'.'.. ' f ,11 ~: ~: '~ r ~,, §~~` r, ~ ~ s ~'r. ~. k~+-, S° ~~ { iL ~'iil ~~ '~'~~ ~ 4 `~'~ i ~, 3 f~i 3 '; ~ r. N, k 7.~ ~~ ~,°~,~ ~" ~' VT i~ ., ~' > _.~ ~ ~ Yrl ~~ ;~=,~ 'I '~- /k }.. . tel~. r~S{ ~ ~~ ~~. i ~ ! ", fS ~;. J f is-, ~~: ,'; ~. ~: ~' %; ~ ii CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 2. Site Plan asa say, '1 w*~ ~~' e-1 - ~p~ i~f!' lId X98 SJI~IJIa ~ ~~ ~~ ~ _,__~ _ ~- i v' $~ 'r~ ~' ' . ~ ~ ~ I ; ~ - ~~' .~; 9 _ c~ ~ k ~ -"~ I a~ 1~ I I k I~ ~ ~ ' ~~ __ .e i ",~ - Pb ~.- 6~ ~ 1 ~ J1 ~ ~6 a*.~.~,- ~ ~ Pay i ~ jl 4 e = 1 rll - ~ ' _ , I t '- ---- ----- "- -0 _ ~ ~ r ~ ' r "~ ~ i ~~i _ ; ~L ~! ~ ~~ C~ `_~ 4 ~i ~ ~ ;~i - ~ +6 _ ~ r. ~i - - ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ _ i i ~',. i®9 P~RsI!Vw i Exhibit A r ~ , bti~ . +~c; , F , ~ b 'tk, + 't ~Y ~ ~ ..n.. 'H~ , ~ S ~~ ~ ~• L ~ ? 7 ' ~ ~ '.t ~" ~~ ~~ ~n~. .nd.1(f ~ k :t ~ ~ YY~ ~ + y y ~. ~ ~4 ~ ~ h 5 Y },i pp r.t V4~S ~# ~ ~{ ; j $rr a * 7 J ~ ~ n.y ~.G ~ a p i~~ 1 - '*''~ '~ = :~? ~ ~ ~ ~*•': r .. - y ~Qu '. ,, _ r„~ ryy.~ fi i ~~t ` ki~~ ai ~ r 9 { i 'I+ ~I } ' f/l ~ f :vim N14 ~ . h# 1 ~ ]F. L } ~ n Cf+~ ~} ~ •~ if l ~~ .:~~ ~~M t•_ 4 yet l " ~~ ~ vim'. r ~ r y;.~ q ~ Q sG'~i 1~7~ h j +5 y. 1 ~ Fkp ,r "'i d11f q ~ f ~MrC ' ~ . :. ' 1 1 . ~J ~F ~ 't,_ +-~- r; ~ ~~ ? -Y?~ a,: - ~.ii ~... "%~~ ~ a. y ~;~ ~i:ai ;~. ~.5 r.., ~+,r i ~ d, ''`,` 1 .' .k~ ~, P _ ~-2 #~:~ -~ ,; i~n CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 3. Landscape Plan w V' ~ i 1 ' P y! !i„i I I~I ~ ~: I ;~ 4 µµ ~ 4u ~K.e ~ v`" 1 rr` 3 1~< ~_. _i a ,~ a ? 'i e as 2 ~ ~a J & z ~ _ ___- i ~ b F } ~y ~ ~€~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ®~~ ~ ~ ~ a ti~ ~ ~ ~` pp ~ ~~. pp I ~~~~~~ '.~ 1°~ ~ ~ ° __ ~ pia ~ • a' ~~~ .~~ ,~ w w dot - ~ ~ -- _ . _ ~~' ~ ~ / pp~~ el. Ei~2~f ~ ~~ I9a i N ~$~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~a ~ > mss= ~ ~n .~,-. ~, ~ ~»---n----~ ~~. ~- j ,; i ~~e 3a ~r4~ P e qee s - ~ - eu ~T e• ~_ e Bi ~~ .. ~v ~ e. r ~3 `I 1 I'~~ y'i !+'~f ~~ i~'~ i ,y i' ~ h~~'~ ~S ~~ Exhibit A ,~, .. ~- ,., r:/~ . '~ f A ;Y r r < ~S1 ~.1 ~4 y ri ~ ' ~~" l ~1 CV .F` ~. ] . , - ~ 1 . / ~ n qy h H _ 7 { '{ ~ ~CES`a ~f~F` r:': ~ s~ ~, n ~~ ~ ~~, N > ~ n '' d~ _ .. ~G r . y ~' . n- F ~ ~ j t+b ) X q Y, .1. ~ ..-.~.: .~~, .?,.x - ,~~~.. .. _ n :- ,(' tyc k3 .~I . _ ..:~ v. ;a i~'~.~^ ~~ ~ f ' ~ } ~ i _ 3, ' ~y. ~F ~ 3~•1 ~ }i ~ w, f4 Y' k ~ ~ t ~I'~r.~~-~'''F ~~~` ~f ~ ~~ -? t } !~+. ±Y 3 - '`~t~;j t.r ,'; s, r ,~ ',: ~ 2 ,; a`. '`{. m ti "~~. ~~~' ~ , r, 1::: :s r~'~. ~~~. vM~ ~ ,.,.-yk „`__~ ~,. r,`t ;Xs .,~= ,~`'i ,...,pit".I'... ~_ r, >..,~. r:: ,fir ~;~ , .i3-~• ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,';~' ~~, '; 3' ' ~` Y~; '° . „~ F! ~+ ~.'} 'Li s:fe _/a~,; r ~ ~~~ 1'~ _i. { ~:`9i ~Ni ~~ :xj i,...,:. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE • DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 4. Elevations 51?311H~ _' I " " ~,. , ~ i~`~: ~ I 1Id b99 S~A3~1JIa I ~ ~ ~ ,~i ~~ =: i~. ~y ~~ i~ Z Q W 2 O ~' .gib ~~ 1 wR z c. Z ~I W' Ji Wj ~-' ~!?` r~ r ~~ W,I V..' j ~i ~,~ 7 ~~!.~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 ;~~ a, I ;. 1~ ri :,, ~.~1 ~:~' >z ~$~ _..~ ~_~1 ~~ ; s'~~ ~~s~ ~. #, .I I', `;-}; _~~~~ i ,+ ~: ~~ ,~..~' L :' "~ }:' i. ~.fi :_ ,; ~~~ ~-; ~~ _ I ,.~ ~, _{~ ~ ,. r '~ '~:~~.:~ 3. ,; a B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan, labeled Sheet CUI.l, prepared by BRS Architects, dated 9/21/06, is approved subject to the conditions listed herein. To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP-06-039 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning Department prior to commencement of the drive-through use. 1.2 A revised site plan shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the subject drive-through use. 1.3 Install asouth-facing "Do Not Enter" sign in the south end of the planter island on the west side of the drive-through lane. 1.4 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L1.0, prepared by Sterling Landscape Company, dated 8/12/05, is approved with the following condition: a. Revise the landscape plan according to the Police Department's comments below in Section 4.1. Submit 3 copies of the revised site plan with the CZC application. 1.5 A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. 1.6 An 8-foot wide pedestrian walkway shall be installed from E. Overland Road to the site that complies with the Design Review standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C4 (see section 10 of this report for more detail). 1.7 The subject drive-through design is approved as proposed, as it complies with the standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11. Submit a letter from the Transportation Authority (ACPID) indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies. 1.8 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.9 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.10 Except for the "Do Not Enter" sign mentioned in Condition 1.3 above, no signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (iIDC 11-3D). 1.11 Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of approval for Bonito Subdivision does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. The applicant shall comply with all prior conditions of approval for this site. 1.12 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the proposed use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Civil plans for this building have already been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. As such Public Works as no comments on this application. Exhibit B ~* ~_ ,. ~r ~F ~~ ~~ {{ r~ f r - ,~ y{1 F;fYf ' ~~ 4 ~ ~~ , o J w,F r~ x'~ ~1K 1• 1N, y E S /z „~ ~ 45 ,2 ~€ i x i'- _ - ~ ~ y - r ~ f'CS k ~ ~ ~~,~y ~ + Y -~.it: ~~ Fy 1 J,. ~_ y 4 ~ ~ r 1-~ - - y h4:, , ~w , , ~' ~' tl ~ t ~a, rc ~ i V w "~~ ~ ~~ .. ,;~ ; ~ ry ,~_ y3y~~~ ~ i~ ~~ TP ~ '!rte' . ~ i •'r3`g' " W + <. r... 1 ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ~ G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 '~ s 3. FHtE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Provide signage for the business within the landscape buffer adjacent to S. Bonito Way. 3.2 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an s - imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.3 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.4 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). ~' '~ ~. 3.5 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall ~.. be required to comply with the International Fire Code. ry 3.6 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. -~ 2 3.7 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the ~ . jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants >. ~ a'= and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section ~; ' 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). , ,. , _ '~ 'S ' a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 ;f s~~ m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 - feet (183 m). . , ~y `~ 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT ~ 4.1 The proposed one-way drive-through along the north side of the building shall limit landscaping ;; shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. ~' ~~ 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. ' , " 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application. ~ 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT • ` 7.1.1 No Review. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 Plans must be submitted for a plan review for any food and beverage establishment. 8.2 No objection to the drive-through. Exhibit B ;; b. p _, ,~ r ~1k L ~~ r s:i N a' r Y ~~ ~I } w~,' ~ y , `.E. .~ x r ? ~ 114 1~~*ii..~ N 1 tRw+` ~',~ ~„ IY.. i+ ~:~ i F ,; F,I~ S. x~, 1 l+ ~ h. f .r .. .fi { ilb~, ~H ' ~` Wy a ~~h 1 ~ ^,~ F ~ i t'at~ +, aM .~ ~ i.9~ ~ ~i ~ 1 Y f .':t n yiV c `P \l ~: ri.+(<'~ T ~ ? Ldt'~}4'r 4~~`Y ~~i .y, ".r ~~''. •~n ~~ ~ f ~~• yam'. S p'', 5° j y . V T sir if ~r:.~ x~o-,_ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ~ G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 -~ C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: € ~ ~ ,> ;.- a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. ~' ->-4 The existing building and proposed drive-through facilities on this site can accommodate and meet ~? all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission fmds that the subject ' property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscapin and g ~~~ - ~ >z other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staff s analysis, and any ' oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to E ~ ~ I accommodate the proposed use. .~; ~:~ b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in ~; accord with the requirements of this Title. { ~;_ - The Commission finds that the Com rehensive Plan desi p perry ' p gnation for this ro is "Mixed Use ` ~ :,~ ~.~~ Regional." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the Comprehensive -~ :,.~ Plan and UDC (see Section 8 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) x,~ '" ° c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses ~ in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the general r!' . vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. `' ' The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the t: ~ general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a restaurant with adrive-through ~' ~ should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and ~- :; intended character of the area. The Commission should rely on Staffls analysis, and any oral or F_ ;~~ written public testimony provided when determining if this site will be compatible with other uses " y°°'~' in the general vicinity. F"~ d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely a upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other ;~ property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such j as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse y disposal, water, and sewer. ' ~ The Commission fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian . ~ Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, and ACRD. ~~ A Exhibit C ~~~ ~ ~-:",. ' try' ~'~ . ~~n~ ~ ~i~ ~4~ n ~ ~ ,~ t, s- ~Y +INL-0 ~ ~ f~ k 4' r j ,:r A ~ ~j'h ~ ka ~ ~f ~ ~ i fl ) ~ ~ /a r~t!114~ N !! 15, h'S 1 F~ ~~~ ~~ n+~ ~" ~ 4~' + i~ ~# r d~yyt ~ t w ','~r~i' "-'~. ~,F~K lr, ~ ~ s. ~ ~i ~~ 4..; ~ eii> ~~ ~ ~i~{ n- f, u.rt; 1 "~ J 7 ~~~ ^z`r t r C ~ s,.~.'iyf. n., ~ ~ ~~ fi~ i~ ~fK , ~~ r 'Ir. t yti q y.'.`' Y e ~ ~ G 7l ti ~Si; ly * , ~, x ,,a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ,~ 3 ~ ~ 1 T ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,r. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 '' . ~ t ~ ~-~ Based on comments from other agencies and departments, Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. ((~~''.. }~~ ~. 1~' f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and '~:; ~* services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. _~ If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The r° Commission fords there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the 2~, ~ ' proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. y ~ .~ _ g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. ~• The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a restaurant " ~ with adrive-through use in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the ~k °' amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does "~~ not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The ~ ~~~ Commission finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general j welfare of the area. `~ ~ ~ h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or ~~~ { historic feature considered to be of major importance. ~a~4 The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems .; ~ associated with this use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. t~~ ,~ , I~ :' ~^F +~~ .?- Y:f e •;: w+'~. ~~}~, 'X~ 4 Y.[~_~ ~'{ ? ^C 5~ i i >.l ~f F `~',y; ' r- fY~ 4" J`~ ~ _~~ -~ ~ /~ L~ ~~~i !-~ } { ~~ i ~'~ `:zy: Exhibit C ~~~ ~~: -.. ~ I ,,~ r~" ~ ; f~r~. : - ~~ ~ .. ~ -, ~,~ T • ,~ January 16, 2007 CUP 06-035 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 ,. _ APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. 3-C k REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building A - 1760 S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS :' ~~ CITY CLERK: ~~r ~';~ CITY ENGINEER: _' <;, ,. , "~ ,CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AtFached Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ~~ ti ~ ~,~ CITY ATTORNEY '''.~;:I CITY POLICE DEPT: ~' `` CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ L/~ ~~~ ~ ~/ "' ~`~ ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: :, CITY WATER DEPT: ,~~~ CITY SEWER DEPT: '~;; < CITY PARKS DEPT: 9 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ;.; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ` INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~''`'j OTHER: .r ,~ Contacted: Date: ~l~ Phone: ~ ~,~ -~~ ° 6~ ~ ~~~.~5~ ~ Emailed: ~ ~~~- c ~f^ ~ ~ , ~~ Staff Initials: i'Y}'~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become prope-ty of the Clty of Meridian. ~Ly ~. F ~ sp~k~(., ~, f 7~.~, L ~'~ r f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ; - ~ cur . ~~ ~ r ~, ~~ ` ' ~ : ; E ~ ,~a~ ; " ~ ~ , ~` ~ .~.~> 2 ~ '~ n ', ~~ ~ ~< `' ~ ~~. ,~ r ~ ~~' 4SLii-~ T ~ ~ ~I - .. w^F M~4r t ~.. ,. ?~;, ~ ,,a .. t4 ~` ; i~ ' ~Y '~ ~} yi~ ~ F f ~ l ~~~~ S ~ . ~.) f ~ 31 y + 0 I ~ -, ~ .r~ ~' ,f„ x~. 7 ~ ~yykf C.. ~. ~ ~~x ~ ~ ~ r~ k~ r ~ $ ~ y ~ ; s~ - ~ .: ~F ;~y ~~ JAN ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ _ ~lil~y ~~ ~OY1fl1~.Ii " C~~ Clork l7ffice M ~ '4 " ' ~~_ e~c-r~^ ~r~ ~~~ ~ _ ~~ _ ~- CITY OF MERIDIAN ,~~~ ~` ~k~ ~ ~~` ~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~~ ~,~,~~ ~ LAW AND _ RS ~ ~~.~~ ~-~~ ,.~~~,~P.~~,~~ ; tN~ DECISION & ORDER tN ': In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit request for afor adrive-through establishment "~: ~ within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, I ' ~ `~ for Southern Springs Building A, by BIZS Architects. ,,~ ~' , Case No(s). CUP-06-035 r. , ,~ ~=~ J ~~ I For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 4, 2007 (Findings '' ~$ ~~ approved on January 18, 2007) ~~ t <. A. Findings of Fact 4 , ,~ ~ ~I'~ ~.. r'i ;' 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 '' ~ incorporated by reference) ` ~ '=~ ~ 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 s incorporated by reference) ~'' ~. 3. A lication and Pro ert Facts see attached Staff R ort for the hearin date of Jan ` ` pp P Y ( eP g ~' ~~.: , ; 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) ~,' ~' ~ ;' :, ;. 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the ~; ' r'F ~ hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law ~ ~~ ,~ ~, ,' 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use ~~- Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). ~~~ , ~ ;~ 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified '~ "' Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the '' '~~ Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, ` 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. ~~ ~ 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § ~~ 11-SA. i~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-035 ~` ~yl~ ~r~ ,. ~ , ~-~?~; ',~. 4 T a k ~ 'i~~ ~ N yak. a '1X4+ ~~~ !i ~t .~~: y.r ~ ~~ ,}' ~? t ~~ ~~ V - ~ 4 '~'J yl'~a a c~Mei~fSY{. . ,.',` ¢~~~ ` , ~ i 7t S f '~A ht ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 2 t 1 :~~ ~ kl.~;{. ~~ ~ ~I ~ ' ~ ~ Y 6~` t i ~ „ ~4 ~' F ~1k`#~ L .. Ufa`.. ' A J r X~ ee~.. [T i T ~ ati b . { ~ e pkc > ~ K L y '~~~- , j„ F ~ '~ i W h i i . ~~ .. F~ r ~~ ti t.~;'. y 4f ' 4 ~' ., ~,/ "~ f> 1 ~~ t , _ ~ rs _ ~I ~ `' di.•« L - ~ r ,iqi . E Y ~ * , w ~« I ky ~ U ~v e~ib tv~ ~~ r ~ ~ _ i • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected 1 ~;~ party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, and the Conditions of Approval, all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. ,~ C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: F ~'" 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated September, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. No modifications to the site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing; and ~. ~,~~ 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. ~~ D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or .-~ structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the :, final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year , from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the ~ ' one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and `. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ,,~ CASE NO(S). CUP-06-035 ..{ ~: {{ i+F ~' ~ ~"a~ ... ~ .. ~ •K x L " "' L 4 "k fi~ 'j FS ~ . 1~~ ? 1 i c ~ Y~ ~~'.S7 f~'T qq 1 S } ~ ~ 1 ~ He 4 ~ ~ ~T kk~ t~ ~ ~ gq rti 7 ' t ~ 4 "' .' ~~Y~^4 1) I :~ j ~i y~ .y' .. ayp~. _).' 5 ~. 'k ~ ''Y T~ q nY~ F #;~ ~* ~~k~ ~ ~~ ~ 7 , T'. 1' ~~~y .. i ~^ c , ~ W ._. yi L ~. a b- i j~ H% '~!: r . 5 ~ ,.+~ P ~ ` ~ t ~ JJ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ T` } yr ~ !'~~r. Y p , ~ ' ~ y f_ f 3 ~' t~' ~ ~ F~. ~ 1 j ~i tiz *~ ' c, a ..S ~ ~ , . iE;~r-: 'r.1,~ r i 'r ~. .;--`~nq; ~, 4'4:.t r ~`_ ;r1~ .~. S. ,gip a ~~ ~' :~ _~_ ~! ~: _=r ~~ ,T .< ' 4`'f~ r; ~^^ ~` ~; `,4+ w ~Y ~.,. °~: rr ~~ ~~ x. ': 'yt 5 ~ Fr ~~: rrS N '~" '' ~: `t '~~~ 3 '-t; '' CJ void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-$003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-035 ,~r ",~~ >4, ~:~~.~:~ i1~,~hjfi ,~; ~,_ -- , `~ :..., '~.~: -~r'y~, .; IFS; `:;S'ti ¢a~_ ~~ ~ -- ;r ~.. ~1 ~..F ~ x i' ~; .?, ~,, ~,. ~~ By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the (~ day of ~ ~' ~ , 2007. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (Chair) I COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED a COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED_~~~ COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY VOTED CHAIRMAN MICHAEL ROHM ~, O~ ~ %~ .~ `~°~ ~~ Attest: ,~ \ ~' _rp~®~ ~~' /~'= ~" A~~ _. ~~~~ Tara Green, Deputy City:Cl ~~,~r 4s~ , ~~`~ ~ ,~ ~~°~° Copy served upon Applicant, Th'~'Planinmm~g'~epartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. e~ City Clerk Dated: ~~- - Z~1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-035 ;~: ~r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 s ~~ ~ ~ ti STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 4, 2007 ~.~ s,~ ~'~~~~~ "_k '}~ -_., ` ,~ ~ TO: Planning & Zonin Commission ~ ~~ ~~~~ g ~i 6~l ~~ ,~ °' i FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner 6,~~, ~•~~ 'i ~ ''r~. ~ ~:sti~ - -~ ~~ SUBJECT: Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) "`'"-~~~A,.~.~~_~~'=`--~~ j ~" ~ ~ ~ Conditional Use Permit for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of a '- t ~` residential district and within 300 feet of another drive-through facility, by BRS a., ~ Architects. ~, , 1. SUNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ~~ -' The applicant, BRS Architects, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for two drive- , ':'~ through establishments within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of each other as well as '. `.~ { another concurrently proposed drive-through facility south of the site. The subject property is currently =' zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). Per UDC 11-4-3.11, drive-through establishments that are proposed within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of another >: 'a drive-through facility are required to obtain conditional use pernut approval. The subject site is located ~~ off the southeast comer of Meridian Road and Overland Road. The site consists of two lots (Lots 7 & 8) within Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. The subject lots are in common ownership. On July 25, 2006, the Planning Department approved a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-06-092), which approved ;~~ the construction of the subject building shell. Except for the drive-through windows, which are proposed on the north and south sides of the building, the building shown on the site plan has already been ~ ; ;;~ constructed on the site but has not yet received occupancy. Because this property is located on an , entryway corridor, design review approval was required and approved concurrently with the Certificate a ; ~ of Zoning Compliance issued for this site. - 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION a , ~ Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff' recommends , .~ approval of CUP-06-035 for Southern Springs Building A as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planninc and ~;;~ Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4 2007 At the uublic hearinc they moved to y`. approve CUP-06-035. ',., a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: ~ i. In favor: Joe Thompson BRS Architects (Applicant's Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commentin :None iv. Written testimony ;' ` v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters .°~ vi. Other staff comment' g on application: None ~_ b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: ~~ i. None =a { "~ c. Kev Council Chances to Commission Recommendation: ` i. None 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS P _,~ Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- 06-035 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, with the ~ following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 1 . ~ ~ ~ "'• e ~ I "~ a. ~~ ; ~ ~' ~ ~{ ~'~ ! t ~ ry , R - , ~ ~ ~ y , ~' a 1; ~ .:~ , h 5 Y h~„f, ~ !k _" 7"f ~ 14 ~~ ~ ~ " 3 ~~'L ~ ~ R5R i -s{a~~S ~ ~ i Y rC s i~,~ l ' . ; iit ~ _ +, ~' ~ I ~ r '+. , t I ~< r . ~ ? ~" a ~ `Ji ~ f ~ '.' 'y= ~ ~; ~ ' ~ ~ i S ~ ~ ~~~ )( 1 y ~ :: L I ra »L~,K- ~ ,~ ~ ty, fit ' ' t ',a . '4 r ' ~~~ j t ~ I l ~4k - p~y['~'~ SkY ~'~2~~ ]-~' 4M~ F ~r~ ~~ ~ -' -; '- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 A ~ f,~; ~,: ~~ ja5 " ~' Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 1 S, 2007. ~ ~ ':;5 ,_< Denial •'.~,,~ After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06- - 035 as presented during the hearing of January 4, 2007, for the following reasons: (You must '_' < state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit and what the applicant could r ~. do to obtain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to n prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission ,,; °~ hearing on January 18, 2007. ~: ~ :r .~' Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-06-035 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) .~ ~s 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS '~ ~ fig`,-; a. Site Address/Location: 1720 & 1760 S. Meridian Road (Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2); east side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 250 feet south of Overland Road; Section 19, T.3N., R.IE. '~ ~ b. Owners: ,~ ~._ Michener Investments, LLP ~' ~ 1412 W. Idaho, Ste. 110 r ` ~~ , Boise, ID 83702 ,.~. c. Applicant: BRS Architects ~` E ~ 1010 S. Allante Place, Ste. 100 ,,~y {~~` Boise, ID 83709 ~ r ~ d. Representative: Joe Thompson, BRS Architects ! x e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) •-' ~ f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for two drive-through's within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of "~"f < : each other, as well as another concurrently proposed drive-through facility south of the site. , ~; ~: ~ 1. Date of CUP Site Plan (attached in Exhibit A): July 10, 2006 ` ~ `°k"~ ~ 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): September 11, 2006 ~: 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by the City ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before ~? the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. ~~~ ~~'~' b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 30~' and November 13`", 2006 ;: .~ :~r Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 2 _.~~ iii t '. ~. '\Lr ..: ~. .. r . ~ Y, i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4.2007 c r c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 20~`, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 19`", 2006 ~ ~ 6. LAND USE I~ ' ~ a' a. Existing Land Use(s): Newly constructed multi-tenant commercial building b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single-family residential, commercial, ,- r ~ highway-oriented services, rapidly urbanizing c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: "~' ' I 1. North: Vacant commercial property in Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2, zoned C-G ,E~' ~-i ;, ;-~ 2. West: Developing commercial property, zoned C-G 3. South: Vacant and developing commercial property in Southern Springs Sub. 2, `' ~ zoned C-G 4. East: Vacant & developing commercial property in Southern Springs Sub. 1, ~~ zoned L-O; southeast: Running Brook Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 ~,~ ' ' d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was annexed and zoned to the C-G zoning district prior to preliminary plat approval in 2003. The final plat (FP-04-082) for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 was approved in 2005. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC- ~ ~ 06-092) was approved in July, 2006 for a retail shell building on this site; Design Review for a ` the building and site was required and approved at the time of CZC review and approval. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: ,. Location of sewer: Sewer already stubbed to this lot during the construction of _: ~ Southern Springs Location of water: Water already stubbed to this lot during the construction of Southern Springs s Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A ' ~~ 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A ~~ ~''' S. Hazards: None known a, ' 6. Size of Property: 1.46 acres {{ l 7. Description of Use: Multi-tenant building with drive-through windows proposed on the north and south sides of the building '` + f. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The applicant is not proposing any new access points to Meridian Road/SH69 at this time and none are approved. The subject property is accessed from a private access easement on the east side of the property that extends south to E. Calderwood Drive, west to S. Meridian Road, and ~ east across the Ten Mile Drain to Overland Road, as shown on the recorded plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. Across-access agreement exists between all lots in the subdivision as set forth in the CC&R's for Southern Springs Subdivision, and as noted on the plat for Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 3 ~ ~ ~~ } ,,, , i.' d z, , ,y . >., " i d `, ~.; ~ max! * ~ y ~~ ~ t 1~ Y~ri Y Y ~ ICI ~i1 I 1 ' i~u ¢ ~ 5, w; . 3 3 ; ~ L h~ ~, ~~. ~- _ t~', ~ t ~ ~~ r ! -, y4 K ~ ~;u~ 1 t ~~ 7 ~ x ~, ~i;~ 4 : ~. R~ ~~`r 3.: r . t ~~~~~ „i i ~~~:. ~N ' ~._ ti~ ,~ ~; r f ~ : r ~~ % r~ '~~ Ih? ~ ~ ? .~18,y~, ~ ~ ~' ;,~.=x.: ~ j~~ $~ ~~ G-µ ~ tl r~ ~ k.. ~_ ~,,, ~ 7+ ~ '~? 9 ~ ~x ~Ct' ~ " ' .. ~ ! ~4 t 4'` ySQ y'f ~ Y ' +~R~ 4 ,~;:. ~ 5~ ~ 4 A,~ t ar '- r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNII~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF A J NUARY 4, 2007 C... Southern Springs Subdivision No.2. ~< "'`' 7. AGENCY COMMENTS ~ ` ~~ On October 27 2006, a oint a enc and d artments meetin was held with service roviders in this j g Y eP g P ` ~' s -:1 area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks t`' "' Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services ~ ~ , Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. ~, :~ :~ i 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS `~ ~~ ~~ This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter >,..,~~ ` '' . °'' ~ VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial ~ ' and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Staff fmds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be ~~ ~~ applicable to this property and a 1 to the ro osed develo went staff anal sis in italics v; ~ PPY p P P ( Y ) s ~ • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. ;I (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the <~ ~ following manner: s, t~ - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's . ~ expense. - . ~ The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire ~'" Department. ~' `' - The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). s . ~ - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the ~' Ada County Highway District (ACFID) and ITD. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. -' - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service ~~ will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. 5.' ~ Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building ~° ~'~ Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the `:.~ Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility ~::> , ':~' { Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. ~; ~ • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal :> , III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping on the site in accordance with UDC 11-3B. A landscape plan was previously approved by the Planning Department with the !a Certificate of Zoning Compliance issued for this site that complied with the applicable UDC standards for landscaping. Landscaping installed on the site shall comply with the approved ~~ landscape plan and shall be maintained. ~~ :'~ l ~! • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, ;~ ' `. vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal 1V, Objective D, Action 4) is ., A 35 foot wide landscape buffer has been installed adjacent to S. Meridian Road, an s' :jl entryway conzdor into the City. Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 4 ~j , , 5 ` : m i `' h`v~~ ± k s R,~ t' s .. s .* ,. f k ,i " ~ Y F f~ f ~ , S `li' kwj n~SY<. F F jF 4 i 1 ~r+~ ',L i ~,. ~,. ~ f ' ,; ;4--' Z '~_ ,' N{' .; t d ,~*.~< , 4 d m ! '"~. +h ,~ x ' ~I~'v~C 1 - Y ~'... ~ t } #~ , . Y F • ~ ..~ F ~ !S t~T.r A4~ A ~{ ~` ~ ~a { ~*~,'~ -2- ~' ^ c ~.(~ k~r ~ ~ g,t. r~ 1 ;L t,J ?~ ~t'. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter ~~ VII, Goal 1, Objective B) ~ Staff believes that the proposed commercial and retail uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff also fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: .~ • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway °: connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACHD to minimise access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). ;~ • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ...arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, ;~ #5, page 107) ~~ Please see section 6.f. above for details on access provided to this site. '~~ 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists adrive-through facility as an ,'}~ Accessory/Conditional use in the C-G zone, with Specific Use Standards for Drive-through Establishments. The Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.11 for Drive-through Establishments require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for drive-through facilities that are within 300 feet of a residential district or another drive-through facility. The subject r, ..~ property is within 300 feet of a residential district. There is not currently another drive- . through facility within 300 feet of the proposed drive-through; however, the concurrent CUP application for Southern Springs Building B includes a request for adrive-through window adjacent to the subject lotto the south within 300 feet of the subject property. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. `~ Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures ' accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location _ of the district in proximity to streets and highways. C-G General Retail And Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located =- ~~ in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. ~ 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented on the CUP site plan labeled as Sheet CU-1, dated September, 2006, and the landscaping proposed on the landscape plan labeled Sheet Ll-O & Ll-1, dated, September 11, 2006, with the following comments: Development along Federal and State Highways: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11- 3H-1, Purpose. One of the three purpose statements is to "limit access points to state highways in order to maintain traffic flow and provide better circulation and safety within the -~ Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 5 ';~- ~. ~~~~ ~ _ ~, t 5 nt ~.~! ~ i ~~ ~. Q ~~ ~"~ ~ :~ , ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ L~ 1 ¢ i t ~- !' `.~ i t x si ~ ,° ~"~ $'F ~ ~ ~ ~~"" ~ ;. d ~ ~,y a .~ ~+ ~ ' i f ~~ ~ ~~sY 9~ ~s tltl k~ s ~~ ~ i 4~~ f;: 'u 8' S ~ 4443 e.~ ~? ~S Mr' ~{~4~, +~ . ~ ~ gym, ~ ~~a a ~ "3~';. R'~.-. :~ ~ '~ ~': t ' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 community and for the traveling public." An internal private access road within the Southern r '' Springs development that provides cross-access to all lots was approved with the plat for Southern Springs Subdivision. UDC 11-3H-4B3 states: "The applicant shall construct a street, generally paralleling the state highway, be designed to accommodate future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road." The subject property is accessed from a private access easement that runs parallel to SH69 on the east side of the property that extends northeast through Southern Springs Subdivision No. 1 to Overland Road, south to E. Calderwood Drive and west, approximately 180 feet south of the subject lot, to S. Meridian Road, as shown on the recorded platfor Southern Springs Subdivision No. 's 1, 2, & 3. A cross-access agreement exists between all lots in the Southern Springs development as set ;,,~ forth in the CC&R's and noted on the plat. Landscaping: The landscape plan prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated September 11, 2006, labeled Sheet Ll-0 and L1-1 is approved as submitted. ' ~ Parlring: Parking was reviewed and approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued for this site. • One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G and shall meet the requirements for bicycle parking facilities as stated in UDC 11-3C-SC. Drive-through Design: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-through configuration, and fmds that it meets the requirements set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11, which i'` states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehiculaz access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. However, Staff is concerned that the northerly drive-through may not provide sufficient stacking capacity. The site plan indicates there is room for four cars; additional cazs would be hanging out or waiting in the roadway potentially creating a traffic hazazd. Staff would like to see the window shifted to the west end of the building as faz as possible to allow more stacking capacity. ' At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standazds: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public E ~ right-of--way by patrons; _ • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies shall be required. Staff fmds that the site plan submitted with this application complies with the drive- through standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11 C. '' ' ` Please include the following additional information on the site plan submitted with the new Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site: Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 6 ~~~ _ ~ ki ~ ~ ~% ~ j ~ ~ ' ~ S ~ 3tg -; r~ M';t ~ ~~~. ~•. ~~ _ ~ y ~.. ~ 7 Y~ yrytY ~ { J~ .~a Y , is ~ t J5 ~ :] ~:.a1p,~ ~ ~ A~ `~~ t t 1'id}l~!' 1 t ' ~~} ~! k : 1 I ~ ~ ~ ; 7"~ f~ -r ~ K ,{Y~!% o ,~~ ~ K'I 3 J ~.H sr ~~ ~, 'k_ K ' ~~ ~ ~~~~ f ~ .~:a: s (.~ : l~ J ' ~ ~i~ 14t ~[ *~ r} /_ i t`Yi ~y~ II ~ M,.J e E ,~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 • If a speaker is proposed at the drive-through order sign(s), please indicate on plan. ;. • If adrive-through order sign/menu is proposed for the northern drive-through, please {{ indicate on plan. `' `1 • A "Do Not Enter" sign is required on the west end of the planter island on the north side of the northerly drive-through lane where traffic exits and on the east end of the planter island on the south side of the southerly drive-through lane where traffic exits to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong direction; please ,,~ include on plan. ': `~~ • Remove the parking stall closest to the drive-through order sign located at the south- ,, west comer of the building and extend the raised concrete surface over this area to ~~ prevent a possible blockage of the parking stall from cars in the stacking lane for the drive-through. y ~I ~~ • Shift the northerly drive-through window to the west end of the building as far as - possible to allow more stacking capacity. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the drive-through shall be restricted to the :''~" hours between 6 am and 10 pm to help alleviate the effects of noise, traffic, odors, glare, or other nuisances created by the business to the adjacent residential properties. NOTE: The site plan, landscape plan, & elevations were reviewed for compliance ~:j with UDC standards, including design review standards, with approval of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site (CZC-06-092). ~ : ~ b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-035 for Southern Springs ~, , ~ Building A, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, ` based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard ? this item on January 4 2007. At the uublic hearing thev moved to anArove CUP-06-035 11. E~1~ITS A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (Sheet CU-1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September, 2006,) %'~~, 2. CUP Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0 & L1.1, prepared by The Land Group, dated J September 11, 2006) ,~ 3. Building Elevations (Sheet CU-2a, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September, ~ ~ 2006) ~ '~ B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department ,a ~ . 2. Public Works Department ! ~, 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company `~ ::I 7. Idaho Transportation Department r ~11 l Southern Springs Building A (CUP-06-035) -Page 7 ~ ~„~: 1 ~~; ` ~"~. ~. ~~* ~ ~ ~ i ~~ 1 ~ a t ~I :t~ ~ 1:'..5 : M ~ I l: s~~t ~ 1 H ' s Y '~J ~ '~ : . ~ ~ 7 ~ iyM , , ~ St i r y ~' , ~ d s _ ~~ ~ a, „ i .A.;~; ~, ? hi _ T~{'1)E.'3. i ~t f ia./~L ~~ ~~ Y. (~[' i h 5 t"° .~ of :~ S a ~}, L ~ I ~.x ~ } d , 1~ t ~c ~' ~ '~' 5 ~ ~j+`'¢i' ~' ~ ~k r „ 4 ,_ , ~`~ °, ;:', of-0~r_ ~,y ':~: .., ,., ~ ~L _,..:,. ~._(4 y~ ~.7 ,._3 _yY .:., ,;K k:_ .'_ ~} b r': a P+~ r~'.i s~-~ _'~i Fi ~~. '~~1 ~;'; [[py~ il}~~{~~ f"~ ~~~ ~`' ~..T1 ~wFS t '~~`I~ `~~ ~h .r 'y }~ y ^: &~ f"~r t.." '~i ,.±~5 ~,;'. ;~; [~,: tip;. 7~4?c ~~ ~:. „~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA1'EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE •G DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan n'^8d1N~~V C6bGIBMr:a Ix'Je 'n~b'z w~ 4 ® ~, ° ~~~aa *~ .eat. Ql!3 p: G6 ~ ~ ~~r ~ ~ ~ ~' III ~~ a ~~~~~~ I `~ A ~ ~ ~, ,:~~` Y h ~1 ~a_ ! I ~ ~ 1 ~C s ~~'; ~ I i I I~ ~ -' ~ t ~ _ tt .~ 1~~ ~ i 1, E - ~ tt .ti ~ -_ ~ A~, $ ~ y t ~ o i 4' ~ 5 ~ ~ I` ~ ~~ ~ y p~a~ ~ a ~` ~ I G ~ i ` ' ~ y ~ ~ G' ~ - f ~p:: Ii' ~ ~ ~~ 1 f < -- <~ ti ~5 ~ I I 1 ~.' I _ _ ¢~ ~ -.__- _ _ 1 ~~l ~ r ~ ~ ~ I I ' IJ ~. { ~ 1 ~ ~• '~ '` t ` R -~ , l F -T- 1 ' ~ l f , t ~. ~ 4" _ I ~ Mee ~.. I - ~~; r ~~ 'tit ~y ~4+`"~ E2U. ~i ~! „ ~3t ~ ~ ~ r , ` t, "~ ~~ '~~ ~ 1 ' ~°' h ° ' ~gs_~ _ ~ gp S ~~ _ ~ Ce t e S 1 ~ y ~ _ c ~ ltd ~~ w ~ ' ,` ~ '1 rw,~ ~ ~ ' ~$ ~~~ -0 ~I ~i~~ ~8 ~ T ~ ~~ a .i • ` :~ 1 t e ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ 1~,~ .. "'s" ~u ~. C~ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ , _ - t ~r"~_°°~ - - s plc ~a+- ~ t Ai r 4 ~ ~ tM , ! F ~~~ ' a 5 l a ._ ~ ~ ._ ~ t } ~jV ~ ~t 1~ 4 ~ I ~ I ~ ( b' ' e r ~~ ~i , t, .~ ~j~~ t 6 Exhibit A ~_if- x _ - ~~ tf +' ~?t~~ 4 ..F K ~. s~,~ ~~ y ~ m lu ~ t ~F ;i f ~x r~ 1 { ~ ~ a! ~~ i ~;CF.. f l: 1FS f~ ~jy ~. # ~ - ~ i ~~~ y I" r iM ly ~t ~ ? T h+ ~ S ~ ~9 ~. F _ .. - ~ ~~#',. _ ~"'+:9". ~ ;i x ~ .. ~ i - . ti 5 4 , . ~~ .ty~ F. aiz~ ._ f ~C '~ y'~ ~, __ _ ~7K - -.>o- a ,, e '~ ~, ~ ~ 1 Y-~1~',~~. ~~.~ ~e ~S z n ~~ ` F C ~~.. a . ~' r LJ ,. x~ ~~ _ ~,e~'i~'.:~ ;i r~ 2l _~~ ~' ;,; ,:` ;; ;tl ~i ~, i 1 t, ~' t' ,. ,; 'll kMMM'~ `~ rl E } :~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA• DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 2. Landscape Plan ea=ts -an~,asrr~ ~. - ~~ '~ 'tom r~~d~a -a-s r o e ~ a 6uspa~~+8 a~~a 1 ~ f~t~ I ~. ~f~ ~,,, a;g a J ~~ ~ ~t8 '6 °9 +L ~®1 s~u~dg weylnog ~~~~ ~a ~ ;~~j9 !` ~~ , ~, 3 ~ s ~~~~ ~~ 4 ~-~3~~ ' I ~ ~IE C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ t ..~~ ~ ~ y ~ °~ ~ F: ~- ~ e X } .N. ~ 7~ ~ U~ ~ y 1 ll~at ±sal ~{~1 ~if~ ~~+ ~ [ ~. F UE. n~~PnF~~~. .~ •~ tG ~i ~F ~~} ~ ~. FJ -_.~.~w,~z .,+~, ,r~+ . Q .~.~_ __~l__ ^ ' 1 ~ I LR6 C . p ~ EEE 1'', } ~ p `T ~ ! d ~. 1~ ~ -A ~ -~ _ ~ _ s~se ~ i- gg99 1 Y . 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ • ~~~.. ~Y~~1 ~ II _ 5 _ ~ 'I ~ ~ + L3 r ;i ~ ~ ~ ti s _ __ ~a _ i -, ` ~ Iii Y 1• ~~ ._ ~~'''~''a` ,~ ,. ~ ~, tI~ ~ ~ ~ '_ = .. ~ ` ~ ~ ~411~ I- i _ 1 a ~ _ ~ ~, ~~j i 1 q ~ ~, (~ ~' ~`.-fit-, ~ ~ ~ _ `~ ~ ~, ~ - ,,P j4 , 9 ' 7,i It ~~~`_9 ~~' ~~ ~ .1 ~ _ _ " ~ ~~ ~~#~ i~~-~~ '%~yb ~1 t~ ¢~ ~ r ~ - ~ 1 .~~ . ,_ - ~ ~r ~. ~~'~~ ~ ~, ~'~ =gyp ~_ ,~---~, ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~-'i I (~ ~ k ~a Exhibit A I1 4 Y ~ "~ ` T a,7?„"~ ~. ~` ±~. ~ ~ zc~ y ~,.r ~ a~ F ..k Y}~~ ~ ~ ~ +-. r ,. ~ ~ C. (,~ r1' x° r1' "p~¢ .r f~ t iSr 1 ~ ~`~' qq i~ P' . t F° S1.f' ~ ~{ r u'A" - ~ ~b .. ~. 'IJI t '~ ~ { rf~, ~~}~;5 _ t '.tl, S , ~~ 1 t 1 # :}yam -.. 1 ~ { ~ .ra tu ~ }, m {~ T~T ~ 3 X ~:.'. a ra. 4.... -I .c r' 3~~I ~G n~ ~.~~~ ~ p+tGLL +0 S 1 ~" i~~ ~~ ~~~ ~' - ash ~ ~!5~~ TMttillllSSis' I _ ~ J. - ~ ~ ~~' x ~EEEEEEr}~~ r~ma~t+r~rt ;' }1 ~,~ ,_ Y ~_ -~ 4.~i r;,: I ~,=kl ., 3 "• ~j i _~ Y .'~ ~ M ~I ~~' :~ ~' ^~ ~" ~ ~., ~a~ ,, ~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 3. Building Elevations ~ 6.69311HP~tl ca:n nvha~l .;:~~u o m ~. +.i~~~ ~ ~ f? ~,,r,~~ ~~,~ t r S9NI21d5 N213H.1.f10S ~ pp~ ~~ ~ 1 ~`~ t' P "a 4° ~,, ~pp ~ -~ j J~~14~y~Sti~ ~~~~~ 1,{y^~~ !Y 1 ~}~~ 1~1~ 1 ~~ ~ 1` ~ ' 'l a '~~ 11~~ ,~ ~ ~.f~, ~ h qL[ l.9. ~I~. ~' !3I _ i ~ ___ yy e I' 1 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,_ ~ - , ?6 n's .~~ i F~ $ ~~ I C~ ~ ; ~ ~~ ~ ! I ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ z! ~. ~I~ ~. i ~ d-- r ~k ~f ~ a ~ z ,,'rrr, r~~~~k 1 ' ~ ~` ~~ ~ h~,4r~3;fi~ ~~ ~- 1 ,` ;. j Vii, ~_ ~ ~ , -j~ e i_ ( I ~ yyW 9I ~ ~: ! r, i r ~ u i pp i '7 r ~ I ~ I ~~- `1n f+ ,'j t 1 i ;} .,~~ ~ ~ g .~, ~ ~Q~ a ~'~ l ~ ~~ v'a : s~ ~~ 1'ti~ ~,~~~~ ~~ ~ ,,: Exhibit A ~' }~~ # k,, ~ _. , ' ~ti ~'' ~ }~ > f > ~~~ F T 7~~ ~~ ~a4 ] f ~; '. k ~ W ~ a; ~ ' :a.,. a n , y ;.~~r~,~: i > ~ ~~r"a",; r ~!< k'~~ c-" x ~ ~ ' ~ ~!' ~-. ~~ iS a '- ~ + d' ~J r 1 n'v' i ~ ! ~ y. '~~ ~ Mai fi~~ .. 3 ? 3 '4 -~_ {~ ~ , k, i ~` ` i~_/biz ~ i tiY ~~ i x ~ ~_~,: ~~ ~_ .. ~. ° '3 Jx. ^Aa? ;l j ~€~~ ~ ~: f.. ~N ~, `K4 .y I ~. `+C ~4'.~ 4~ ~ ~ '. ~~ 1 ~,~ r, r a a' '~ ~; i~ ~ ~ ~x i rJ. '~g!~ ~. ~ tl ~~ ;. itf'` ;i',' i ,f~?' S f. 3 'X z ~~ ;~~ ,:. ,~ ~~~ ~: ~' fS ;_ ;~; ty '_. ,T- ,.~ ` E ~ ._ „;:3 ~: ~. „; ~~ ~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA • DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 B. Conditions of Approval ~~~ 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan labeled as Sheet CU-1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September, 2006, is not approved. A revised Site Plan, depicting the conditions listed herein, shall be submitted prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the site. Comply with all previous requirements of this site, including PP-03-016, FP-04-082, and CZC-06-092. 1.2 If a speaker is proposed at the drive-through order sign(s), indicate on the site plan. 1.3 A "Do Not Enter" sign is required on the east end of the planter island on the south side of the southern drive-through lane where traffic exits. 1.4 A "Do Not Enter" sign is required on the west end of the planter island on the north side of the northerly drive-through lane where traffic exits 1.5 If adrive-through order sign/menu is proposed on the northern drive-through, indicate on the site plan. 1.6 Shift the northerly drive-through window to the west end of the building as far as possible to allow more stacking capacity. 1.7 Revise the site and landscape plan to reflect the Police Department's conditions shown below in section 4. 1.8 Remove the parking stall closest to the drive-through order sign located at the southwest corner of the building and extend the raised concrete surface over this area to prevent a possible blockage of the parking stall from cars in the stacking lane for the drive-through. 1.9 One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C- 6G and shall meet the requirements for bicycle parking facilities as stated in UDC 11-3C-SC; include a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space on the plan. 1.10 The Landscape Plan labeled L1.0 and Ll.l, prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated September 11, 2006 is approved as submitted. 1.11 The hours of operation for the drive-through shall be restricted to the hours between 6 am and 10 pm. 1.12 The subject drive-through design is approved as proposed, as it complies with the standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11. Submit a letter from the Transportation Authority (ACRD) indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies. 1.13 Outdoor lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.14 The building elevations prepared by BRS Architects (Sheet CU-2a) are approved as submitted. 1.15 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.16 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.17 Submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application with the above-noted revisions to the site plan for approval prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. Exhibit B ~r f ~ ~ ~{ ,~ ` '` f' i `~~ f ~ ~,. 3 V ~` ~ ~ ~~~' ~~ w j ;j ~~ ~^e b r y. ~ ~ 4 ~, ~~. ~ ~ ~ k, s 4'. "~` ~ ~ ~ ',~ ~! ~ ~ 4 ~5 `': ~ ,h.'i ;e M 4 .~ ~s ~ ~~'., ~~ %''~a ~- ?y 2 rv;;°~ _3 ~ M >:~ 4. a :. rr kr ~. a kY k+i ~~ ' y '~ S i~?S7' ~ < c'h: gk;r ~~` „{ aq~ ~G ~ ,~? I~'~. ~,12 ~'~ ~'«. y ~? ~ '~a. • ' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4 2007 .d S.'~~ ~~ 1.18 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord ,r ' with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT < :,f v~ 2.1 Civil plans for this building have already been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. As such Public Works as no comments on this application. , ~,'~ f:~ 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT :,~ , 3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns related to the application. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department is concerned about the two drive-through's being located too close to each other. Both of the drive-through's have the potential to create congestion and driving against ' ~ = traffic. The applicant should provide aone-way drive aisle and eliminate one of the drive- Y - through's; preferably the one on the north side of the building. a To alleviate the concerns of the Police Department noted above, the applicant has proposed the following alternative to eliminating one of the drive-through's: F `~ a. Reduce the northern most curb cut and drive aisle from two-way to one-way traffic, ~ preferably entering at the curb cut and flowing east to west. b. At the planter separating the north drive-through aisle from the north parking area, keep +)~ the low lying landscaping trimmed to be no higher than 2-3 feet above grade. c. At the planter separating the north drive-through aisle from the north parking area, plant ':,~ ` trees that at 50% of mature growth, have the canopy /branches be no less than 6 feet above the grade. d. Reduce the length of the planter separating the north drive-through aisle from the north parking area by 5 feet. That 5 feet to be removed from the west end of the planter. The Police D artment is in a Bement with the above-noted desi ep gr gn alternatives to keep both of the drive-through's in place. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns related to the application. ` j~ 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 1, 6.1 Enclosure Numbers and or Capacity: There is a concern that you have not provided enough `~ enclosures to meet waste generation points and volumes that may be generated by the proposed development. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to issuance of the Certificate of Toning Compliance. • ;,~ 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. j 7. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD) . .~ 7.1 No comments were received from ITD relating to this application. { 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) 8.1 Central District Health Department has no objections to this proposal. s~ 9. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACRD) 9.1 The conditions and requirements of MPP-03-016 for Southern Springs Subdivision also apply to ~ MCUP-06-036. i 1 Exhibit B a'~ ,~.; n ~ ;,¢` ~;~ ~:n _ ~ ,, ~~ ` • f ~ `+~~ w t' ~ ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~, %~ ~~~' a "ti ~ '~ ~~' ~t>: ',`b. (^~ x y., w;y~~~ 6 .. ~~ ~ i->r F c.r, ~! ~~ ~~• Y°F 7 {r sue? ~ ~ Y~ ~r i~,,~ f `' e ~ ilSR j~_ A ~4 ~ h` ~,, - ;w 3 # _ ~ S ~~ - ~ X f t y~ f ~ r ~ ;sr m •, ~' ~. ~ { ',R ~v.r,. _. - ?~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE • DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 "~ C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code :,':. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon ~~, the following: 1. That. the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The existing building and proposed drive-through facilities on this site can accommodate and `~ ,' meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission finds that E';; ~ the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, ': landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on r '• =~ ~ Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 1 _;. ~ 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and ' _ "' ~I in accord with the requirements of this Title. ~ fi ~ The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is ~ t:{ ' "Commercial." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC ` ' (see Sections 8 & 9 of the Staff Report for more information regarding the requirements for ~' j ,~I this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other ` ~j uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of ~~ `~ the same area. °°p,``' The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this .~ report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of two drive-through ~, ;.~ facilities on this site should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and _~ with the existing and intended character of the area. :, ~ 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. ' S. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are ~~~ currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, ITD and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission fmds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public ~ facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C 'i `s; '_~' ,, :~ ,~a ~+`;: r*~, ;r7f t. 4.. ~~ ' • ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 4, 2007 ,,~; 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and :, services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. °~~' If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The ~!` Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that r" the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. "`' ~ The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of two '~rt°` ~~ drive-through facilities in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the '` amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission ~ ;.,~ ~ does not anticipate the proposed drive-through facilities will create excessive noise smoke 4 fumes, glare, or odors. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed drive-through facilities will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. '' ~=~ 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a ~~ - natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. ~'S xF ~- ~~ The Commission fmds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems -~ ~ associated with this use. The Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the ~ "~~~~ destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. `` r "ci- T4' ~L {{+ ,F~: 33 '.S""~! a J:~ Y~5 M ~1 _, , _ '; ~'~ t 4 f.~ .ri ~, t ~'~* 'i ';:'~ Exhibit C _. ~`~ w`~~ ~+ ,. x:~ ,.~• ~; ; -. ,, _:; s;,, ',, a. ;`~ , `, ,.~ :f. jy ,, -, ,' R: . ~~' f ~e ;;. ~~1 k.'a 1 ,~ ,. ~. ,.~ ,, ~~. ;:~ ;. ~J January 16, 2007 CJ CUP 06-036 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT BRS Architects ITEM NO. 3~D REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval- Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru establishment within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility and a residential district for Southern Springs Building B - 1800 S. Meridian Road AGENCY 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: COMMENTS See Attached Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law /~yo pv~v~e K ~ - ~M 5-v :~ ,, , ~~' ~, Contacted: ~~jf ~ ~,~~~i°t Date: ~-'C Phone: ~, j ~, -.,~~~f'~ --~ Emailed: a`~ ~ p~~'~,~j~-,~ ~~,'~~-~ ~, ~~~ Staff Initials: ~' ~/ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. ~ ~ =<< ~~ F ~ 4 `~ i ~ ~1 '`~ ~;. f ~ ~~~ i ~ > z ~ ~ ,r .~ ~«fl(,~i ~, f ~ ~ ~,~ .; / ry: ,'F _ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o s ' r , +F&.`~j`~ ~ ~ ~/- y ~~~ ~ S~He~~,. qq 5yW, k 1~ i .5A ~ i ~j k r'S. ~ ~+ .er ~ "~ , ~~ .t . ~- K z~': ..~~ : 11 3j. _ ~ ~' y~ .. ~ T Z~;~~~ ~ P j V~ ~P'S -. ~'$. 3 1 ~i;.~ ¢.~ x,+, ~ a . ;, `~,` ~~ :' ~'~ i u=T N ~ 37 }'~ h ti 3 t ~f,r ~rT~} - r N~~,-. _. ".~'. ~~~PrA !r J:s~~ ~~N ~ ~ 2a07 -` ``; a ,~:~ ~;~ .`~+ ~~ a _'~ F {,' ~~I,I ,:; . z ':a 7,~ +f ~ i i =i ~~ '" ;: ~, ~~ ,'~` ~~; ;: ` .'` .. ,, ~, a ~:~ ,1,~; w ~' , .; -a `F -~ :. ~! ;'~,:j' r .' ;~ <: ~' '=~ i City Of Me~idia~i City Clerk Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER >~ ~ u ~ 4 e"f'w'1P ~~ ~~ Y ~! , i /,~'~ `t. .~,;,, ,~.~ , ~ ~,~ f.~~rdr'Y' ~dYF'At-1'M1; ~4~tY.a-!-~-' ~__ ,~~a In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit request for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of another drive-through establishment, for Southern Springs Building B, by BRS Architects. Case No(s). CUP-06-036 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 4, 2007 (Findings approved on January 18, 2007) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-036 ~u .~ ,. ~, i,~ ,. Y,: ~ ~~; { 5 ~ FU A ~~ , . ~yn ,.. '~„ 1+ + a. j ,.r ~ , , ~ ,~: ~°' ~'° ~~ f u 3 . ~ ~ ~K ti i' Syr 1 ~ r~ ~ k S ~ ~!Y t ~.. { ~s ! r r ' > f,:~,y;. ~!i i r"3 -i f ~~i~;. s 5 1 ~~''~ ~~ ;.~ ,. c. ,. .4 ~I ~Ck ~ ~ ~ ~rI S ~ ~, :, ,,, ~-n ~ r a~~ k ~~ __ ` ^.E' ~ " . ~`, ~~ zt a tv~ i; n l a r y y ' i 4~ ~. ~ oa4 ~i 'a ~~, ~,: .~~. ' h `s .• I 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental "' ' "~ subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. ``` =~ 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. :~ 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, and the Conditions of Approval, all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein ;~ adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated September, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. No modifications to the site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing; and 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, incorporated by reference. `'~~ D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or ~, structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year '~ `>` from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-036 1 ~: ;: --;.. , , ~- ,',: r ,,,, . '~ ~,4 +.ua `~'' pPF. sk },2' E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y /r L F W y ~+ i~ ... ¢r'a ~i~ bt} t j )' A {,~ F x YYY~~~ ,,, ! _~ i I r,~ . Y s v ~ ~ ~' ~ ...: x ~ ~ 1 t 1 `~~;~ ~~ 4 • ~ ~`~ , ' a ~' ~ , ~ : S. ~ e~" < ~' , '~ ~ "f r ~! ~~ Y .~1, ~.,::MN :. ~ J ~ ~C C _ / .~r P 1 ~ }w .~ ~,^., -~ r,~t ,~:~ ~~~ :;:5 r, «:; :r;> ,~~:: _~~. ,, .`~ s' ~~, . ,,`: -y ~: f> ,~; =:. t ~~, ,, ;.. .~ ~t`r~: --:,4--~ -~.( .y l.1 .{~y~ 1 .. '..C ".,:. s void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-036 ,, , :. M'tM~ ,. ~: f:: S ,~~ ry .:.:H! ,~' *: a >>: ;: .~ '~: }~:? ~. b_:~:~~ ,7 ~:= Fri ~~.~~ y. ,J ~:j ~~~j °r_x By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of `~~, 2007. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED_~~~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED_~~ COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY VOTED ~~~-~~ CHA N MICHAEL ROHM \`\\\\\~~~~i a iii~~i~~eiii Attest: ; ~~~\~`~~ 0,'4°x'°°°, ~"' °~ -" ara Green, Deputy City Clerlc ~~ ~o~' Copy served upon Applicant, The ~'l~i~T~epafhnent, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: !J ~ I ~~~~ i l~ ~~l ~ i~ti L ~`~ ~ ~ City Clerk Dated: ~~~ - Z Z-~ 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-036 'r4 ~:, STAFF REPORT s '~~- ,~~ Hearing Date: January 4, 2007 ~~ ~~~ ~'~~~ ~ "_~ _'~ " Planning & Zoning Commission i'~~' k`fi '~~ Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner ~'"~;~ ~~~~~ ~~' ~~~. Southern Springs Building B (CUP-06-036) ~~~`~''-0~{-ia,-..~«~ ~"""~°``'+ ~,~ Conditional Use Permit for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of another drive-through establishment, by BRS Architects. TO: FROM: ^ SUBJECT: ~: a.~ ~I ~~ >~ } ,y,. }I ,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, BRS Architects, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for adrive- through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of two other concurrently proposed drive-through facilities north of the site. The subject property is currently zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). Per UDC 11-4-3.11, drive-through establishments that aze proposed within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of another drive-through facility aze required to obtain conditional use permit approval. The subject site is located off the south-east corner of Meridian Road and Overland Road within Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. Except for the drive-through window, which is proposed on the south side of the building, the building shown on the site plan has already been constructed on the site but has not yet received occupancy. Because this property is located on an entryway corridor, design review approval was required and approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance issued for this site. 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-O~r036 for Southern Springs Building B as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 4 2007 At the public hearing, they moved to aAprove CUP-06-038. ";~ a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Joe Thompson BRS Architects (Applicant's Representative ;9 ii. In opposition: None '~~ iii. Commentin :None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters `: ,~ vi. Other staff commenting on application: None .,~ b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: > :~ i. None c. Kev Council Changes to Commission Recommendation: ii. None ~ 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval ~ After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- 06-036 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, with the -.~ following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 1 S, 2007. Denial ~~I Exhibit A i a:,s:,.~ ~ . , q:. .~ { r ~ ~ - a .. f ~ w . d ' t ~I ~-, x_ ~ L~ , ,~ 1 Y hCY~i'~~ ~~ .. '~ya~~ 1. tom' ` % ~ T` f+ ~ . 7 t 't ~ ~~ ~ ~ i -' " ~ ~ _ ~w . Si r ''}'~ - ~ ~~ ; . k ~~ ~~ '.~ ~H; r" G b ~~ K+}~ _ ~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ,~ ~~~ ~ " ~ ~ i. .k.. " ' ~ i .. rµ '~; 'r.~.`;a ~.i{~b' ~ .; '3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~` ~ ~ 1 'a fi r.l. *'~k ~ - ~Jf }• '.) ~ ! l I }~-y ` ~ ,]] jiW C M~~S ~' ~ ' 4 ~ yyyy~ ^ ~ - FM'{ ,~ '~ a'~:~ e ,:r .: ,, ~:~.!. . ;, ~~E .~'.". t. ~'~ ,' ~~ ;;.y • M After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06- 036 as presented during the hearing of January 4, 2007, for the following reasons: (You must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on January 18, 2007. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-06-036 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1800 S. Meridian Road (Lot 9, Block 1, Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2); east side of S. Meridian Road, approximately 500 feet south of Overland Road; Section 19, T.3N., R.1 E. b. Owners: Michener Investments, LLP 1412 W. Idaho, Ste. 110 Boise, ID 83702 c. Applicant: BRS Architects 1010 S. Allante Place, Ste. 100 Boise, ID 83709 d. Representative: Joe Thompson, BRS Architects e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for adrive-through within 300 feet of a residential district and within 300 feet of two other concurrently proposed drive-through facilities north of the site. 1. Date of CUP Site Plan (attached in Exhibit A): July 10, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): September 11, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 30~` and November 13s', 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 20`", 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 19~', 2006 "i 6. LAND USE Exhibit A ' -: .aS':~y'ijk% ,? r~;+, R ;. r., ~ ~ F ~ ~ - e ~ ~,' ,;~,:Y J ~. r ~l t ~ ~` P iL ~~' 4~~~~ i { + 1 .Yr. ~~~,~: ~" ~ + r , t,4g y y~%~` ~ t ~~ ~ _ ,1. ~ ~, ~ nM1~ .. t1t~ ~ . i 1 ~^y ~ . 1 c I _.r' } ~ ~~ S ~ I {' F ri, ~} C~~~. YR, ~ ~,~$r.' y ~~~ ~ • a. Existing Land Use(s): Newly constructed multi-tenant commercial building ~ b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single-family residential, commercial, '~'~~ highway-oriented services, rapidly urbanizing c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: "'t ~ 1. North: Developing commercial properties in Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2, '~ zoned C-G ~' ~ ~ ~~ ,, 2. West: Developing commercial property, zoned C-G; southwest: Elk Run ,~ ~ I Subdivision, zoned R-8; `~ ~ ;'`~ 3. South: Developing commercial properties in Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2, zoned C-G 4. East: Vacant commercial property, zoned C-G; further east, Running Brook _ Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4 ,' ' ' '~ I' d. History of Previous Actions: The subject ro ert was annexed and zoned to the C- J P P Y G zoning di i str ct prior to preliminary plat approval in 2003. The final plat (FP-04-082) for Southern _. Springs Subdivision No. 2 was approved in 2005. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC- { ~~~ 06-093) was approved in July, 2006 for a retail shell building on this site; Design Review for ~~ `~ the building and site was required and approved at the time of CZC review and approval. ~~ _~ e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: Sewer already stubbed to this lot during the construction of Southern Springs Location of water: Water already stubbed to this lot during the construction of Southern Springs Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A "~ 5. Hazards: None known ~;~ 6. Size of Property: 1.10 acres :' 7. Description of Use: Drive-through facility f. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The applicant is not proposing any new access points to Meridian Road/SH69 at this time and none are approved. The subject property is accessed from a private access easement on the east side of the property that extends south to E. Calderwood Drive, east across the Ten Mile Drain ' ` to Overland Road, and west, along the southern property boundary to S. Meridian Road, as =; ~ shown on the recorded plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2. Across-access agreement exists between all lots in the subdivision as set forth in the CC&R's for Southern Springs Subdivision, as noted on the plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No.2. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS ' On October 27, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this "~ Exhibit A ~'~t I li .~ ,. ~ ~~ f o r ,~ r n ~ t I 1 ~ 1 ' I -~ 4n3" ~~ ,~, u€~. Sr S: •. u.6S !#.j I S ~5 3 l" I ~ ~~~ , 7: ~ II - }~ ` a~ ~ . rF i ~1 ) j" ~~ Q" ~ ~ ~° " ' ~ ^T I yr ' ~ ~ 44 5 y~ i i".1 A I i .~ t 1.. ~ T. .r . i M t y I f' t4 ~; i i- ~ E I `". :. S( •'` ` r .. ' L : F , ~. ~y. k~ ~,: `t tt " k k' .. 1 .. ,. g } y ' c. f~~1 , `: n . ^ ~ ;, .. ~; c ~ 4(~ "~wF ~ . . , 4;: ¢; j I 1' ,` va ~S `I 'Y,4,r .'4`•~~ ^y;.r :~+~c~l.. ~•~ , r ,V . , ~ 7 ..y .'t'i ~.. ~ ~ Y `+ `.I • J r"~. 1 1 ' F~ : isu^IM$• " "'e ~`' ~ ~' :. S~ ' ~} li ^. /~ a^w'.~' ~~' i' .I•. _ ~ 11~ 'S' `• ~c ; ~'~ ~. ,iv z.. ff •~ i • ,~ ^ : :;t. ~. h .~ e~ ;.r. lni:,y i ~ ~.. r h . ':9:1 Ir } ' ° ~ i tt n i }x : s c: ~~: i~ ;+ ' i Fo- ~' ~, ~ :"~ b t ,~v,.a .. ~ 1 (~ x ` rI '., Ck ~.• <I d t ~' .. ~ ~' ~ ~ ,A ~ i f ~'> i,~ ~. I ~ F v : `~ ~l~ ~liy'K~.. ' j ~ F 1 l ;^~'Y ~' ,~ ~' L~ ~ n t ~ ' ~ ~ r ' ., d ' ~ Ir } ^ u~ ' .' ~ ' ' ia s.: ~. . t ~ ~ {{ I ' ~ ~ ~ i { ' e '~~: f. !I' .~:,1~ ii :fit. I ` y`: l l ~ j I . " Y f f~X,3 li .. '' ~S I a .~i, 1 v :~ . ki {' ^ . J r : I p •'; u: 3i=`~~~• Vii,` '`'.~'; _ t '' ~~~ ~ F k ~ I : ^ ~ ~ ~~ 1. ,. t I t ~I; % C . _ . I I ~ ~~ i { ~ S 1 , k.,4 ;Y . •1'i: . ^ t ~a:fe~ ~? f t I • ': t ~Y• F ~ . , , •.. .ty :l ht. . ' r `~ , F` SLt J .. X I i If ~ ~: Y. 4 ~ p AU;+ d ~ r ~ ~ ~I~ ~Y: ~ lt~. l i' ~~ ,~ ~ i~,.r ^.{, ~1 ii : ry .` ± ff22 A4 f. ~'. ~ F .~ i ; ]%• ~~~11 ~ ~ ' ; ,: ~. ~ '1>'.~ :'~=!i •t~C'~^ ~ I , ;. • ~. ~ '~. ;` ~.~ 1~'r~i'"'"'e~•i r.'.f . ~ ` Pw S3 n 1 I ' 1 ~ of ~i_ . F .. 'Y~:, ~ ~ii K:'tY~,,: yMy,`? i - 1 x I 1 t .1 I t '. i; g.;: ~ ~ : I , '1 . •~ , . a. ,. t t ~ • _ I F ~, .i I ~ • ' . '.F' ~^ ,{ ;•ti {Si : , ' '/ i . 1 • .S. .r. ,. ... t iw { : F~ -' ~~r~ .. .di~ ~'. .~} . 1. .. .v ? ' ~ .I ~ kr~'s;`r ~y ~'" ~ ~ ~ t #. ~ , ~ : ` t. ._ , , ,~ '~' I r r': ~ } ~ ~ / y 4 ' ' 3 .sue ' I } , ~; j I ' r x e ~ . ... , • ~ I. _. , ..! ~. ' .,.. ..,.. ,. ,Y is ~ e • area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter '~'• VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial {: ~ " and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Staff fords the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be . " ,1 s applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): 4~' ' • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. ~j (Chapter VII, Goal III Objective A Action 1) ~' '~` ~; , , When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the ~~ r:! subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the ''~ ' ~~ following manner: ?_ ~~ - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. ~ - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire y Department. - The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the ':.~ Ada County Highway District (ACfID) and ITD. This service will not change. ~ - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service '' ' J will not change. I - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility ' ~ Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. ~~ ~ • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping on the site in accordance with UDC 11-3B. A landscape plan was previously approved by the Planning Department with the ;; ~~ Certificate of Zoning Compliance issued for this site that complied with the applicable UDC _~ standards for landscaping. Landscaping installed on the site shall comply with the approved landscape plan and shall be maintained. a "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, '{ vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) A 3S foot wide landscape buffer has been installed adjacent to S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor into the City. ;s • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed commercial and retail uses on this site will provide a variety '~ of uses in this area. Exhibit A '? 4'i ~, C~'. ~I ~k ) .a.u C ~4 F ~ .. S a ~ '}'z 1. n'~'1. K , ~ rt .; k - ~, ~ a . ~ ,~~ 1~~ i ~~1 x ~ t Y ~~ r~a:r - r ? fi~ ~ ~ _ ~.~~ r tT't" . i ~ t* ~~ } M L 4~• 1 ~ ~~` ~~ r ~> r t~~ph ~f i .~ r,., s r.. -; 7- ;_ ~~, -~ , . _ _ ~ ~4a~ t.-f~ ~ t' a 4' ' ~G ~ ~ ~_ e ,'rd ~ ~ y"r X~ i. 4 • c ~~ ~~~ ., ' ' ~f• S' ~ -. ~P f'~k ,i~r' .' { Tt~• ~ r ~~y 4~ V~Mr. * ` ~ ~ I ~} ;~~ , ~ r ' ~° ~. : ~ . r ~ ~r~Lg i ~~~^ ~t ~.~ ~. ,: ~~ F .. Staff also fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minim;~e access points on arterial...roadways as development applications aze reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ...arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) Please see section 6.f. above for details on access provided to this site. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists a drive-through as an Accessory/Conditional use in the C-G zone with Specific Use Standazds for Drive-through Establishments. The Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.11 for Drive-through Establishments require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for drive-through facilities that aze within 300 feet of a residential district or another drive-through facility. The subject property is within 300 feet of a residential district. There is not currently another drive- through facility within 300 feet of the proposed drive-through; however, the concurrent CUP application for Southern Springs Building A includes a request for 2drive-through windows on each end of the building adjacent to the subject lot to the north within 300 feet of the subject property. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. C-G General Retail And Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which aze customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which aze auto and service oriented and aze located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial development. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design as presented on the CUP site plan labeled as Sheet CU-1, dated September, 2006, and the landscaping proposed on the landscape plan labeled Sheet L1-O & Ll-1, dated, ~~ September 11, 2006, with the following comments (in italics): ?I~ . ;~ Development along Federal and State Highways: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11- 3H-1, Purpose. One of the three purpose statements is to "limit access points to state highways in order to maintain traffic flow and provide better circulation and safety within the community and for the traveling public." An internal private access road within the Southern Springs development that provides cross-access to all lots was approved with the plat for Exhibit A N' ~ b' ' 'N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~. .. ~ leK... ,~ ' v. ~ .: ~., '~ i 1 - . , f ~~, ~~~ ~ ~ n,ry ~r~~ ~ ~: ~=~'; ~ ~Y~)t `t r~~~h _ ~, *2~ t u ~ ~ S ~ w F H6. t ~ 1 _ y.~~ ' 1 ~. y { Yl~h ~. , ~~ ,,~h~ ? ~ _ ~" i ,~3~ ' !~4 ,, < ?1 v ~ ~~ , ~~ ~ ~ µ li ~~ .~'~. ~ ~~ `:/ C ~~ ' ;7 r ~` ' ~ ~" '' a l ai ~ i _ ;~- 3 . s,; w • 7 ~ , ~..9 3 .'d , j" C .,s I $, "! ~! %r ~:~ ;~ Y ~° ~; ', :~'; u - 4 ~, r: L.3 A~. ~r ~, ~: ~~ ;~~ ,, k~i :*, ,~, s~ ~.; '. ,j (R~ ~. `~I ~~~, zi `x :~ ~ `; :.~ Exhibit A Southern Springs Subdivision. UDC 11-3H-4B3 states: "The applicant shall construct a street, generally pazalleling the state highway, be designed to accommodate future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road." The subject property is accessed from a private access easement that runs parallel to SH69 on the east side of the property that extends north-east through Southern Springs Sub. 1 to Overland Road, south to E. Calderwood Drive and west, along the southern property boundary of the subject lot to S. Meridian Road, as shown on the recorded plat for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 's 1, 2, & 3. Across-access agreement exists between all lots in the Southern Springs development as set forth in the CC&R's and noted on the plat. Landscaping: The landscape plan prepazed by The Land Group, Inc., dated September 11, 2006, labeled Sheet Ll-0 and L1-1 is approved as submitted. Parldng: Pazking was reviewed and approved with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) issued for this site. Note: The drive aisle adjacent to parking on the north side of the building is only 20 feet wide; UDC I1-3C-S requires a 25 foot wide drive aisle adjacent to 90 °parking for one-way drive aisles. • One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle pazking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G and shall meet the requirements for bicycle parking facilities as stated in UDC 11-3C-SC. Drive-through Design: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-through configuration, and finds that it meets the requirements set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11, which states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehiculaz access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of--way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and pazking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standazds and policies shall be required. Staff fords that the site plan submitted with this application complies with the drive- through standazds set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11 C. Please include the following additional information, as well as the other changes mentioned herein, on the site plan submitted with the new Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site: • If a speaker is proposed at the drive-through order sign, please indicate on plan. • A "Do Not Enter" sign is required on the east end of the planter island on the south side of the drive-through lane where traffic exits and at the north end of the planter island adjacent to the pazking area on the east side of the building to prevent cazs from entering from the wrong direction; please include on plan. $; ~ ~~ ,~ ~±.~ ~rx ,',~, {~ ~~ x . ~z ' ,, ~~` ?~ ~~ r ~ ~., ~ _ I F ~~2.~, ~ N ~ ~, '~ J~ <~ a `i`?e'~x , cS~' r S 9 Y..t r.. ~ S h 3 t h 1. y S Y arm ¢. ~r~ Z-f. ~1~~~'qtj ~7 "K~)~ t ~ ^;(~; ~~. ~ ~i~ c1'~ ,~ }{: .. ~' t Is _; ~ m V "~~ ~ ~T r ;~~ ' -~i !~+w '~~ r;~y~ ~ . i ~ ' ~ 4 L~ ~ l r y - f ~ r~.rt~ ~,v `.~ - j 'y 3'~5 ~ f WY } j, J. ` 1'Y 1 'S~+i - f. ~ ~ ~~ h^ f`,~ :?' + ~ 5 N ~~ V~ }!~ ~ 4. E` +~ . Fri ~ T ~,, t ^ h: _ °J ~ Y x.tA `'~y Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the drive-through shall be restricted to the ' ` hours between 6 am and 10 pm to help alleviate the effects of noise, traffic, odors, glare, or 'r~~' other nuisances created by the business to the adjacent residential properties. `~~ NOTE: The site plan, landscape plan, & elevations were reviewed for compliance with UDC ~,~ -Y-~ standards, including design review standards, with approval of the Certificate of Zoning ~ 7 '~ ' ~ Compliance for this site (CZC-06-093). '? r, b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-036 for Southern Springs ~~"- Building B, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 4, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions of "~F~` approval as listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard x this item on January 4. 2007. At the public hearing thev moved to approve CUP-06- ~' 038. ; 11. EDITS a A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (Sheet CU-1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September, 2006) '~~~$' 2. CUP Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0 & L1.1, prepared by The Land Group, dated ''` September 11, 2006) ~' ~ ~' ~ 3. Building Elevations (Sheet CU-2b, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September _ , 2006) '~ :. ~ B. Conditions of Approval ~~' ~:" 1. Planning Department ~~' 2. Public Works Department ''`' °~ 3. Fire Department ~~' _ . ~~ 4. Police D artment 5. Parks Department t 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Idaho Transportation Department "~~ 8. Central District Health ~- 9. Ada County Highway District ~ ~ ~ L.~~, C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code '~;, 5 ., J.~ _ V• ~?, ~~ , tdF' s ' ~' :gz, ;, Exhibit A I -' ~~ ~~ '.- . .~: ,. _ .,, i'~, y ,~. y ! `' ~ ~ I~ ~,;~i - ii n. A ~, E, 5 •' ~ ~~ t A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan Exhibit A ,, ~~1 ri it t ~`~ - ~~ ~,~i i_ -.oi,r~.~~1 ~_ , 8 tl R _ ~~ a~ ~~ ~I ~ ~' ~I ~ m ~ 1 R ~~ r ~ - I pG - arr~, I '-~ Y ~..~ -- ~ ~" ~ I i ~ ' I ~ I WI ~~ v ~ -;,~l~r,, i 4 c ~~ ~ ~. ~ y L~.~~i~' 4L~ ~\ aa'~~ YI ^'t• ~f ~ ~ ?,r f ~ t , ' NN1.•3 a+ 4 .+~> f a ~,. ] IN gg~~ 1;?1 f '. SAT t ~ ~-1 +a 1, ~~~T? .. ~t !S~ ~ y x 4 ~~ q t '~ y f ~ ~ ~' ~ X ~.'-4 ~. F ~ ,y~f i t~~ k Itk ~ S ~ T 1 ~~ 5 i M1 ~f ~. Y~ 1t tt~. YY.- ~ w~l ~~-i ~. i + 4 ~I .. '; - 4 `" tl4~~~ ~ : '`_ i k~ t-ti"~ :. tl', ~ - . *~ ~ , r y ~, x { e !. ~ ' . t r r~., b ~~n ~i .. ~ } „?tl ~ a, ~. ~ .. , ~q ' yam; _ asaalw~w a+m ~nwv~m ~ xar+ M < n ~z ne _ ~ ~ 6 a 1 ,.,..~,«,~ '~ -i1~~ i SJfVI21d$ N2131-I.LfI®S ` ~ ~ a>n ~ v ~ ~ .n A.c avPre -~ye xav ~ ~ ~ d BU ~ , ~ ~~ ~'tl ~ ~ n ~ ~ _ ~ I y ~ !~ an .aa ~~i rY ~qe. ~~3 C8 6g ~ ~ ~_& ~a ~ ~A~° ~ ~~~ ~~1 ail ~ ~p4 ~€~~ - ~ ~~~~1 ~a~ ~ t ~tl ~ g~ L ~ +~ ~ - - - fl_ ~ , i °rC ~ ~ ~(ll ~ ~ ~ Vim'[' ~~ -r i ~di ~ ~ .p '~i~ ~ i~~ ~, ~ - ~ - -, "~ ,, ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' .A~ a- ~''~ ~ ''~1 r - ,~ - - • 2. Landscape Plan • so G ~ - uu~ued~ esn ~u~~au~,~ ~~ '"~ a ! ~4~ '~aue~ ° twes+~,+c1~9 -M-s - g i ~ `~~~- ~ E ~QlB'6'8'L~o'1 s6ta~dg u~ay~nog ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~! ~ ! ! ~I ~, ~~,, f~ I'' ? ~e "~ 1 ~~ ;~ ~ ! ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ 4~~~~ ~ E ~ v ~~s . .e - - :~~~~ ~ -, - ~~~~ . ~ ~ I x- - •,~ ~ + I - _ ~' i + -~+ ( I ~~ ~-~~.$~ - ~ ~,'~,,~'~ I i ~ 111 ~5 4• I t \ lli ti, '~' ~' I .er.-- ' ... , i l I ~'~~~4 ~4- _~ ~ ~~+, ~ ~~ + ~ m m - ~ ~ _ ~ • ~ r ~ ~.. _ , r. i I I i+• - I - ' O =; o •~ l•14 J ~~ ~ ~y~ '~, • ~ vY I I ~ iyi~ ~ 84 • ~ ~ N• I _ h1 _i. T I + _ ~ ~~` _ ~ ~ ~ ~l I _ ~ r i r,: D a Exhibit A ~,° ~~ v ~u Y: j w a 'i I ;I F ~ ~ ' 3. Building Elevations mob ~ ~, ~ „ ~;~, 1 .~, ~ .~ ~ ~~~~ SJNI21dS N213H1n05 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~.,~r ~~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ °~~~,~~~~ ~ 4~, u p , 55 C r ~ BB ~~ I~pr ~,r,,~ 4' A ~" rtil~y}~ ~~ ~t - -- ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ '4 ~ ~ i i '; $1 ~ , ry ~" ~~ T~- V ~~ 1 ~I ~ ^ ~ T ~ 15 Ir' 3 ~ . ~ ~ ~ i ~. y ~i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ -" ~ f ~ fr c G am ~ ~ I T~! Qi~ I 1 1 I ~t ~ ~ 6 1 _ ',~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 5 ~ F I ~ h~ 1 ~~p@ ' '-'~~~` 1 j, 1.. . F ° !~ 1 ~ ~+a" ~~ ~~~ 1 - ~ ~ i• i i ~__ ~ t' ~ j4. 1 ! ~ ' y tiA j~~ 1 1 ~ " ~ ~ t. ~ i v L I ~~ ~'1 y ~~I ~' a ;~~ p ~ ~ i ~ ~j 1~ ~1 I G ~ ~ ` q M p f ~1.!~4 }~fi! ~1 ~, - 1 O Ll '} ~_. L {F ~ iV R~ Exhibit A ~'~ * f ~ .. ~£ u 7J"C~ ~ a t 1. ~~~ ~' ~ ~ ' ,~5~ s 4 4 ; : 4, ~~ ; 1., S `~~ yy':~~~~~. .~ 1 tom: y ~ i. .. 1 ~~~ c ~ arts S .' ° ~~ ~. ni ,; _ ;~ I~~i ~. ,.~ ~,~ -;k . ~ 2. ~'~ ~ - .'?S.~f jj :i~. S~ _~~ _ 3 1 ~G °L., ~ 1 ~ ri~„K~ 1 r ~ ~VA~ ,. ~ ..;.rat:. ~~~ '~w ~ XIf~ - z ~ 3'.. ~~ }'AA' ~ C~t ~ ~ ~ M ,,T 4 ~ 7 'I 1 ~~ t { ~f ai - .k~~ 'N G ~ ~ i , ~ ~~ ~+ ~"~. ~~' ~ ~~~ T. ,. .i'A 1 ''. B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS "~ 1.1 The Site Plan labeled as Sheet CU-1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated September, 2006, is not approved. A revised Site Plan, depicting the conditions listed herein, shall be submitted prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the site. Comply with all previous requirements of this site, including PP-03-016, FP-04-082, and CZC-06-093. ''`± 1.2 ;,~ If a speaker is proposed at the drive-through order sign, indicate on the site plan. R "' `N 1.3 A "Do Not Enter" sign is required on the east end of the planter island on the south side of the drive-through lane where traffic exits; include this information on the site plan. s =. %I 1.4 A "Do Not Enter" sign is required at the north end of the planter island adjacent to the parking ' ~ ~ area on the east side of the building to prevent cars from entering from the wrong direction; '~ ~~ ~ . include this information on the site plan. ~ ~~ ~' 1.5 ~, One bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C- 6G and shall meet the requirements for bicycle parking facilities as stated in UDC 11-3C-SC; ;~ ;' I include a minimum of 1 bicycle parking space on the plan. '' ~ 1.6 The Landscape Plan labeled L1.0 and L1.1, prepared by The Land Group, Inc., dated September '~ 11, 2006 is approved as submitted. 1.7 The subject drive-through design is approved as proposed, as it complies with the standards set ;y forth in UDC 11-4-3.11. Submit a letter from the Transportation Authority (AChID) indicating r the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies. 1.8 ' The hours of operation for the drive-through shall be restricted to the hours between 6 am and 10 ,~ pm. 1.9 The drive aisle on the east side of Building B is only 20-feet wide; UDC Table 11-3C-1 requires all drive aisles adjacent to 90 degree angle parking to be a minimum of 25-feet wide. Because the '~ ~~ CZC for the existing building was approved with a 20-feet wide drive aisle in error, the applicant is not required to comply with the above-stated ordinance. =~ 1.10 ~ The building elevations prepared by BRS Architects (Sheet CU-2b) shall be revised to include the ~ correct label for the north elevation; there are currently two south elevations shown on the plan. a 1.11 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.12 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign -~ ,~ permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.13 Submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application with the above-noted revisions to the site plan for approval prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. 1.14 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Civil plans for this building have already been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. As such Public Works as no comments on this application. Exhibit B ^ M1 ~ ~JY~ ~ ': I N t~Y ar Z 11 i ~ ~~ e @ . r. ~~ _ r ~ ,s G ~ ~iKx ~~r ~ ~,';~fYf„ U 4„~ ~ ... r r ~~.' ,'. 4~`^'` ~~ 9a ~{ i .~~_ ~ ~ S ~ v .:~[ ~q~ Yl~~ i13~ i ~ i,~ ~ '~{. 'qP y ,. Y~ ~~ ~ ~ fi ~.~~ c" ,. a 'µ~ ~ r r, ~ 'G TF. ~' ~ i t..~r ;, ~ S , ~ _'~~ ; ~ ~ I~ :.;, ` , .~ ~y~,7 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ,.;~.~_ 3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns related to the application. '~ +: ~;; 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. ~~~ "? }, ~, 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT ''~ 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns related to the application. k •:~' 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY (SSC) 6.1 Enclosure Numbers and or Capacity: There is a concern that you have not provided enough '° ~' enclosures to meet waste generation points and volumes that may be generated by the proposed development. Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. ~. ~y -: " 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit ~ stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. ~ ~ ~ ~` 7. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (TTD) y 7.1 No comments were received from ITD relating to this application. _ j 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CDHD) ;~ 8.1 Central District Health Department has no objections to this proposal. ~. 9. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACRD) k ~ ~" ~ = , ~ 9.1 The conditions and requirements of MPP-03-016 for Southern Springs Subdivision also apply to M ~_ :;;; CUP-06-036. ~. ':~- 4 i~.~ S'~`~ :.~'-. ~~ 1,*:t r. ~- ~. r~~. ~,~ , ~~. Exhibit B 1 ;, C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The existing building and proposed drive-through facility on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on ~ y: Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. ±` ~ ~t ~~~ -~ 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. ~:, The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is -:~" "Commercial." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC ~' ' 1 (see Sections 8 & 9 for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) x'"I ~ Y i. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other I uses in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the ' t'` ' general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. ~ I The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this - ~t r ort the eneral desi cons c i n - ep g gn, tru t o ,operation, and mamtenance of a dnve through I facility should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the F j , existing and intended character of the area. ~:~'-. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will ~~ not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this ~i report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission ~~ ~ should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will ,; adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. ' ` ' ~ - 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are ;- currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services j Corporation, ITD and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission fmds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C ~;;~ n€ p... y~ -. ~v, _ d 1 y. . ,x . . i ,~waN;!. ~ - '~,~ z ~. .p y, ;rs~ w t ~r>- ~ ~ d~ ~ ~~ - - 3,~ ~i ~ n::~ ~~ ~ - c ~ in. .: r ;~j ~v~' ' i ~ v ~-' ~, a 7 ~ ';ft'. ` ^.J i, . ,~ 4 BLS'{ y~5 ¢ ! +~ ~ r i' ~,s ~'+~ a '~ ~ y T ~ . ~ ~i:{:~i ~ ~ t5.t. ~ ' ~ 3,=~- "~" ~rs ~ ~ ~ J v I'~Lt' i ' '~ ~h } '~ '`T si ! ~ p - a 3 2 ~ ~ ~ ,~tr y. i~ ~:: _ tcC lO .. . ~ ~iLIP M .~ f ~t ~F~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ Y~~ 4 Y~ ~~ a t ~~ r ~, .4 `s ~ ~ ~; ~, "K~" 1 ~, .. ~ ~; `;~, ~,'' ~± ~+x ~ ;' r?. ~~~- :~`, ty`-`„~~:ij _~,~ } ~~ -: ~'~ "~ .~~ :J`.. r• ,'; ~ ,~ }, _,;~~ ~. Exhibit C 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfaze. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a drive- through facility in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfaze of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed drive-through facility will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Further, the Commission finds that the proposed drive-through facility will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. :~ ~i '~y'. i ,~I January 16, 2007 AZ 06-051 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Ron Bath of Salmon Point Devefopmen# ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1 i /1 b/tJb -Annexation t~ Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision -835 8~ 655 W. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO PQWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Request for IARthdrawal of Appttcatton OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of fhe Ctiy of Meddtan. ,_ ~ ~~, F ,~~. a., ~'i ~ }F ^ ~. 3 vcxl ~~:I ~, t, ~~- e. ~ i'"F iti .~ t ~Pq ik? '~~ 1 S Y _ j i n H"{ HI K 1 d c~ r.;. ~.~ ~,n ~ " -~ ~ ~~: ~ ~ ~~~ ; ~ ~ ~?-..w~ryy y4~h ~~'~KR;` Y~ } y.w '1 JI 1 IFS s ',. ~" ~ ,4, ,: i 5 ~k~~°r rk ~ ,.... ~ w~gis" ~~ '.~ ~~k ^5 ~~ f ~ +~.. s: ~~ o _•~ ~' . 3. ~ A,~: January 16, 2007 PP 06-052 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development ITEM NO. Jr REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /16/06- Preliminary Plat approval of 5~ residential lots 8~ 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision - 835 and 655 W. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: S@@ AZ CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented of pubflc meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. TM '~ r h- f ~h~ 1 t ~~-i..1 + ~Y IJ j .,.a } ~ ~ 5 ~^`iJ ~~ .~. ~I ~ ~ rkr; ,f y~.`~ ~ 5 Li a Y s :~ ° ~~{ ~ u .1 ~ i ~; Gt" '- -:; ~ ~ o- ~`C K ~ ~ - ~: ~ 1' ~~ ~ ~ ~~:tia yy {{ a ' ~ 4 FT^^.~ ~ . . ~ Y ~ i rf(. "f : ,;f> °~~ ~~ ~•'~ ~ Fu's: ~ ~~7 7 ! ~.'~i ~} k / ~ _ 4~+.. 1 F ~ ~~ L 4 ' ' y.~ y 71 'S~ ~~u y.~ ~ ` f~ y k x ~+? {. ' • • :~:{, 3- - F '~ January 16, 2007 AZ 06-063 _;? MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 ,1. ~:: APPLICANT Waltman, LLC ITEM NO. 6 ~~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 38.b8 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zone for Waltman Property -505, 521, 615 8~ 675 Waltman Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ' CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo for Continuance CITY ATTORNEY r~ ~' ~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: `' ~' I CITY BUILDING DEPT: 'R ~I CITY WATER DEPT: - ~ CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment 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: i ~, OTHER: See Attached Letters from Concerned Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at public m~etings shall become prop®riy of the City of Meridian. `. ~ ~ 1 ~y1~4. ' C+ 'da1,Y. tee' F'' !.. i . - ,~ Y ''i y r ,, ~F , ~;~: s ~ ~;R ~' a :~,. ; ~T ~I ~` ~._, v` i 4~Fi ~ + , "''~'~ - r ~ '3~" ,.~: `tL 'd = ~~ ~ ,~wp ~~ r . ~ ,7: ~ ~' ~ 1 _ - ~r1s 1 ~-~ " ~I ~ n ~, i~.,,;,. jI~' ~ s..5,k ~ ~~ r - f ~~ ~~ ~~ a ~~ w:, ~ ~r 4 i ~~ ~. r~N.r ~ fl?~" L ''L q,,,~...~at C- ~ ~a i ~N ~~' z , ~~kt ~'~~ <~ ~ ; ~~ ~£' f 6 i ~' ch .., ~'. ~ } ', ~ ~ ~ ~,- ~~ a ..~ • ,5 z ' January 16, 2007 RZ 06-013 ,.~~~. ~. MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 '~~ APPLICANT Paradi m Real Estate Holdin ITEM NO. 7 +`~ ; 9 9 °4 " REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of .43 acres from an R-8 to an O-T zone for Valley ~' ~~' Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Property - 39 W. Pine Avenue ~- AGENCY COMMENTS ~'~ CITY CLERK: ~ CITY ENGINEER: _ ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report `,°~ CITY ATTORNEY ;~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: s CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~~; ' ` ~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT; ~a _~ / ;~ js CITY SEWER DEPT: '~~ f CITY PARKS DEPT: 1 ~ ~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: `~~ SANITARY SERVICES: ~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment z ~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~~ ~ IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sig n Posting _~ Contacted: Date: Phone: ~ Emailed: Staff Initials: ' ~ -~ Matedt~ls presented at pubUc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;~ *. ~. ~ -.r: ~ ~~Y.. ~ F I ~,_;4_'. ~,, .. : I~~YKypy... ? _ I ~ , t _ ~ ~ ~~ 1 a1~ ' ~ ,y~ _ )'.: r ~ ~ . t ~,. «:~ z - ~~.xt ~ ti ~ ~ ~`~ ~r ~ ~„h, ~~ a , ~ ~~ 5i ' F ~ ~J A ~ 4 ~. 4 lxs ~ i - ~ dl ~. x q - ~~, I i 4 `7 ~'`~~ , ~~ ~i[- ~h~ ~ k y^~ Y. ~~ ~ I ~L -. h ~ tt/ ~ ~ ~ ~ F 4~ ~ '1 Yl ~~ p ~ F~L ~r ~~~. ~~ C'F i:j~",. i. ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ( }' ~ ` j ~ ~ ~ rM 3i 1`, ;:~ .;~ +'3 ~' 4 hl: ;,,~; w ,,~ a 1~ -,.~, ~, January 16, 2007 RZ 06-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Joint School District No. 2 ITEM NO. $ REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 15.58 acres from an R-4 zone to an O-T zone for Joint School District No. 2 - 911 N. Meridian 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: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN 1RRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment No Comment INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sian Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meetings shcll become properly of the Clfy of Merldlan. ~~ ~~ ~! i Y .. ~~ ~r. =~ i- rf~: ~ ~ 4 u r t, ~~. R js . . ~~Y '~~^ ~~ ~ { +~., ,~ , a~~' ,!. a ~`~ a ~' ~' ,. ~ ` ~ , , ,y ;bS ~~ ~" ri:~ . , ~+ art ~ i'Fd '~`~ a~ ` ''~ a~,~; F y ~ i . ' = .a«.; ~ ~ ~ ~~,. ~~F "~%' ~ j - yet ~,K , ~ ~ ~s +~Fjt d n. 3 ,; t x ,~ , ~. 7,y ~ }' r : - - ~_ ~ _ ~ ~. s • ~. ,,~ ~, ;,~ '~::, FI n{ a .. j~ • ,~ January 16, 2007 CUP 06-040 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Ada County Development Services ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS - 963 E. Pine Street 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: See Attached Staff Report IVo Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sian Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emdiled: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. ~+< r^ ~ ~ ~,f e ~ ~ .r ~ ' ic•. ~~ }.. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ tF 7Fy= L ~ ~ ~ '`a} ~~ ~ r : i 1 a~:_ ~ r ~ '~ R ~I ~~. T iF s i ,;r ~^m" tim. ~ ;' ~ ~'~! 3~ y ~ j ~ 4 ~ ~ .s N ~~ ~ ~ ` i _ ~ i M~ ~ ~~ ~~ , - ~~„! ~' a f ~~ r ~' ~' .Y 't +I j r, 3 ~ t { Y a `},'. ~'~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ 1 ~ d ~ ~ ~- a ~ • f~ ;,~, k ". ~ i y"at ~~} January 1 b, 2007 AZ 06-046 °~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 zi; :'11 ~; APPLICANT Greclt $ky, 111C. ITEM NO. ~ Q ''~ REQUEST Con#inued Public Hearing from 12/21 /06 -Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 ~i~. zone for Harcourt Subdivision - 34b5 8~ 3595 E. Victory Rd and 3432 8~ 34b7 E. Falcon : ,~, ~~ Drive s~ ~' ~ AGENCY COMMENTS ,~. ~t `' ~ CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes t F ,~ "~ CITY ENGINEER: F .: ~' ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Aftgched Staff Report ~: CITY ATTORNEY `' ~~-~ CITY POLICE DEPT: m ~` €' :> CITY FIRE DEPT: R ~: CITY BUILDING DEPT: `' `' '' ~ CITY WATER DEPT: R CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ~- " ~= ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ` ~ ~ MERIDIAN SCH L ,,, .; ~ 00 DISTRICT: ~ SANITARY SERVICES: s _-~ ADA COUNTY HIGWWAY DISTRICT: ~~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~ ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ,,, " ~_~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: s F , ; IDAHO POWER: .~ ~ ,,~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ' ~ ~ OTHER: t~ , ''~ ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: F _. r; ~ ~ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at publk meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. a. y ~i ~. }y} ~~lx ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1, ~~ • . 'r' + i~s ~~ ~~ ~ " R ~~~ ' - ` ~ ± r 4b ' ~,f ~ Y. i_F ~ ~ ~~} _I~.~: - i.,7 ~ ~ N ,'Sfa.'r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -. ?~ : ~Y t .. i, ~~ fj~' ~ .. f~ i^ 1'.. S~~ ~ 'k q ~ ~ .: 1 g1 4 .rn{: s~s - ,n ~ fid`,~ - ,~~~ - ~ - t f ~ ~~ ~,t L ~ t. yt 4 ~' yyuu, i + , ~ ~r f : '~~~^.. . ~i~ ~~t ~ a L ~~- sir ' ~w~tt~ - ~ ~fh~` ~ ~'-iJ .. y ~~i 3y ~~ ;,~*" L ~~~ January 16, 2007 PP 06-048 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 APPLICANT Great Sky, Inc. ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/21 /06- Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential_ lots 8~ 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision - .3465 8~ 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 &3467 E. Falcon Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubdc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. See AZ Packet .~, di S' ~ • ~'~ January 16, 2007 CUP 06-032 ~* MERIDIAN PLANNING tiK ZONING MEETING January 18, 2007 "-''~ APPLICANT Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. 1,Z r ~,~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 11 /16/06- Conditional Use Permi# for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes f Lots 3 & 4, Block 3) -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue 'a ~~ ~ AGENCY COMMENTS '`~ `' CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes 9 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~` CITY ATTORNEY w, ~'I CITY POLICE DEPT: ;,x CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ' ~ CiTY SEWER DEPT: ,.` CITY PARKS DEPT: t .~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: "'n ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: •`~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments `''~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ` ~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~~ OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting ,; Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 'f- y ~ 7 2t $` ~'~ d ~1 h .. y. f Y.~', t ' ~ ~4•, F Sv 1~. ;. rN f to _. . r ~~~ ~ ~ Y~' n~I ~ _ 1 i ~~ 7 r' d C t ~~ R ~ ,~~~ l ~~ , f ' ~ r. ~ 1, ~~ ~. ~' {, C4 K. ' '} Y4 . C ~ ~ -L' ikr+' • ~~ 4 ~ ~~~- 7^ h -~ ~ . Y1~ j~, z _ j.' r ~ vy r~ ~ ,,,~~,~ ~, L~ F ~' f"T _ )'Y j~ 1 ~ 1 t 'f_9ir