Loading...
2008 10-02~,=~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING k ~ f ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 2, 2008 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 Tom O'B11en X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _O Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended ~'~~ 3. Consent Agenda: "~~' A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning s ~Y?~ ~'';i Commission Meeting: Approve ~' ; B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a '' 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per `~" requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant.by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: RZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed .Use by Primeland Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West 6y W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. ~~ `cam ~" ~~.~, ~#~ z w~ s "~ ~~ ~~ ~~ rI'. ~ c rw $, - x~ i- i r ~r ~'V k xti ~ "i~'~ i { ~; ~' ~ t. ~E4"~;Jd r~~:. ..r ~ ~i ~ ~'ia joy ''~' ~ ;,-S~~"'j+,f~ ~~s ~ ty} H a~ ~4~~~`3~ ~'~ Y q ~ ~ ~,' ~. ~~ ~ { y.i I fRH }~ l /n mow: ~S~`3~x Zj ~'~l~V~, ~~~~ ~~ ~~ a ± x ~ ~` s r= cyti ~: ~ ~~~~~~ ri ~'-.T~. ~..:'.~i t "' .. 1 ~ ., ,.,a; ;~ , . ;, ~ F ~~; "~. Y L r ~., y. J4 J~}, I^. ~ M1y ~. i t ~ ''t ~~ ~ ~ 3 ) i . °k feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Approve 6. Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC - east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2008 7. Public Hearing: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2008 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Continue Public Hearing to November 20, 2008 9. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Continue Public Hearing to November 20, 2008 10. Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No. 2 - 1900 W. Pine Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to November 20, 2008 ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda = October 2, 2008 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. F ., r .c r v ~ ~r,4 r~> y, i :F ~~' Ja ~~ ~..~ ,fF~ .~^ ~ ~ ~ n ~}~,~ }~ #' 4'~5~~1 I i ,~ ~ ,~+ ~ 5.r... ~..Fr • ~F. ~~ - j' y{.~ s t7. '~ ~ i r$ ~ - ~0. ~~ ~:r ~ ` ~ Ar ~ 3 a ~`? Ec ~ - F s _ '~ ~, cif ~}.d L ~!'. K. ry S Y ; 3 ~ ' ~~ ak - - ~'~ ~ ~ w ~~ ..+ r >~s~' ,~» ~ ~ -. m i x s , .~ r ' . ..q .~ , ~ A ~ ey - 4 ifs. 3 ,rwy. ' t ' i s a ~ ~ ~r?3 ' t ~.t~ , n ~ ~F X~ r • ~, ~~i ~Y~~ -. ,ct cqh- '°" '~~l f`' ti - '1L'1~'ri~+F ~`2~ , f3` ~ t ~ Px G , '? 3s ~~ s ~k 3 ` ~ 3 * - •~i ~, ~. MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers ' 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ~:: z ~!:; _~,-''.~ ~~ Thursday, October 2, 2008 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: ,_;~~_ ;t~~, _X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _O Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended ~: 4=~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~.'~' A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning -~ Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~, 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per ~= requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great ~` ;.j Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: RZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4 ` (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service "` ~ Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C ~~ti ~F; (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use by Primeland ~' ~_; {~ Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. - McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 5. Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit - ~ approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately ~~ ~ 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West by ~~ W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 . ~ ~. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. ti, _a -~ _ 3:': ! ~:;; feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Approve ~..~ 6. Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC - east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2008 7. Public Hearing: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 f and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory ~ Road: Continue Public Hearing to October 16, 2008 D"`'' ` 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada ;;~I County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering 8~ ~" '' Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Continue Public Hearing to =~~=, November 20, 2008 ~.~., ;y•_~- ~`~i~ ~i Y. i . ,~ 9. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: Continue Public Hearing to November 20, 2008 10. Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No. 2 - 1900 W. Pine Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to November 20, 2008 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. :r. a~,, ~ ~~; , • ~ '~ ,~,~ a r '~ ~,` ~ ~~ -.eS' ,^ y< ,.jam: S~ ~ ,,. ,`~~ 4h~~ r ~~~a V ~~ fr ] ~'~j~%ihl':. E i' } l ~?~ '' ;.< t;_ :r ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~. n `~~a' t t' 3 .. ~ t ~ rt W ,S ~ ~ M ~• ~i ~ a~ ~ rl~ LA i~ 7" ~ qq?~? p `. ?L. r~~~ Y~ L' ~~ h';: ~~ {EM ~ ~~ t.',, r ~; i ~iC ~rti C if(~f' r ~. ~fii o ~ t k~s ~r ~3-t T ~,.r ~~ ~~ rs ~ r ,. .~`- r P' AGENDA NAME BACK TABLE FOR P & Z OR C/C DOOR OF CHAMBERS CLERKS STATION CITY COUNCIL SEATS~PZ BSS CLERKS WALL CALENDAR REPOST IN LOBBY REFAX WEBSITE WEBLINK E-MAIL U REV/ SED (YES/NO) REVISED DATE: 4 ~~ ®- Initial: Date: Time: r .x, 4, ?i. rr,t a:•e P4~ ~ ~,- T£K F - y~ J#r53.M F. i.o-~ 'Y ~ he-~} ~4~t ~~n ~ y c r ~{ ., ~ <~' } L N ; '~ >:3~ "~ ,.::. ~ ~' r ~: s '_,: h.9 3 y x~ z', -~_ ,., ~= =: u ~j ~~„'.. ti:y 4'~2 ': ~ t €.' U c'~~ d E IDIAN--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: RZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use by Primeland Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. McMillan Road: ~ REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 2, 2008 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: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 5. Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West by W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. ~~.- a k ,~~, .. ~ too _ 6. Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC - -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: ~~ ;~~. = 7. Public Hearing: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 ~ ~ residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 ~`n~ u Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada , , ' :~~ County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & ' ~~~ Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: 9. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for ;~` Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: r ' ~' 10. Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No. 2 -1900 W. Pine Avenue: ' ,~;; 4Y>' t ..'sr~,' <.~r^~ ~` ~~~ 4a; ~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. ~ ; ~~ '~'> ;`, '~, ;.: ?' ~~ ;', .. TR, Broadcast Report Date/Time 09-29-2008 02:26:35 p.m. Transmit Header Text Ctty of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5"x11 " C~i~E IDIAN MERiOIAN PL~WNINKi AhtD zONtNt3 t a ~ i~ a REGULAR nrtEEnNC, AGENDA City Courtoii Chambers 33 East Idaho Avencte, i<teridian, Idaho Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. °Although die Cfty of Mendfar no longer regtrlras savam testbnony, al! presentabbns before tltg Mayor and Ci[y Cou»oll are expected to be bvlhfu! and honest to best of the ab!!!fy of the presenter. 1. Rolhcall Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-t-iuckabsy Michael Rahm doe MarshaA David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of file Agenda: 3. Conse~rtt Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Punning and Zoning Commissar Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Concluslone of Law iar Approval: GUP 08-022 Reques# fvr Conditional Use Parrott for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant by itfnsan Ghan - 2890 N. Eagle Road: 4. Continued Public hearing from September 18, 2008: 1'dZ 08.004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Lfmfted Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residenttaq to C-G (General Ratak and Service Commercial) (25.10 saes), L-0 {Limited office} (10.70 sores), C-C (Communtty Business) {37'.84 scree} and R-15 (Medium-High Density Resuentutj {20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed .Use by Primelar~ Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. McMillan Road: 8. Public Hearing: CUP OS-023 Rsqu~t for Candittona[ Use P®rmtt approval tts construct two muNi tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.25 acres of land to a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement previsions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview Wiest by W.H. Moore Ctsmpany - nortl~l of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet vuest of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Biotic 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Meridian P~nnkrg and 7~ira~,Cottatbsston MBetlr~ Agenda- October 2, YQOB Page t o!2 A11 matartaffi presarR~ at pubpc meetkrgs shag a property oP the Cfryi of Mertdtmt Anyone des[dq$ accommodation ror di®aWlf@ae stated to dooumen~ andbr healing, Pipe Cor~tlle City Clerk's Qfltee al fl89~-0433 at Esest 4B hours Odor to ~ pubNc . Total Paaes Scanned : 2 Total Panpc Cnnfirmrarl • ati .4~ No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 007 571 3810160 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:02:12 2!2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 571 8989551 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:35 2!2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 571 2088848723 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 571 8886854 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 005 571 2088985501 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:32 2/Z 1 EC HS CP31200 006 571 8467366 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:31 Zt2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 571 8950390 02:01:53 p.m.09-29-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 ~~ ~' ;'r,,r, .:~: ~.;: ~i ~_~ c ~, it ~:~` ,;~s E IDIAN~ ' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING H REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 2, 2008 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: _~ Tom O'Brien ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay -~ Michael Rohm Joe Marshall Davld Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~.~~l,.p~,~ B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road: app rv u° 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: RZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use by Primeland Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. Mc Ilan Road: 5. Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West by W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: ~~~~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. 1z ~ H ~. :~'~:. rn '~" ~~ ` j . D ~ ~4~ R ~ ° Pr ~ ~ ` - %~7 t tel. k W _ ~~~' " ~ `~= z itr ' ' ,< ~, . ~~~ ~ - +~ f '~ " ~ , ~ '` V ~Y~4 ~ C ' t ~ ~N - 1 'te N 'y~ 'i~ ~ ` A)~ I . F Z F~ ~ ~ ~,. F~i{ y. ~ ~ :,~ ~ ~ ~ *~ ~ , a !r~ ~ ~~ 5f= f ;~ Try ,1~.y~ ~ »j r~ ~, f ~.~ W~ s. ~~ ~ ~ _:~~ i~'c. 4.~ ~N ~ is ~. bb a µ,~ t t iti: iR1~ {~.. r `t }~'~ ~ '~~ ~ _ t a. 1 v ~ ' ,~ ~y ~ ~ {~ ;R'~ ~r~N y '1 ` ^7 ~ . Y ~ x ( T ' ~ ~ ,~ t `` S~7~LL,i~ ~~ - , ~ " ~ d ~ ~ f ~ - ~ _: iY~ i ' ~~~ 7 ~' ~~ ti Y~ ~ ;:1 J7 .~~^, 44~,~1 ,,. , 6. Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: ~on-l -,~n~e, ~ bU ~ I-~~.r~ r~~g ~ ~-abe~~ l ~, ~~' 7. Pu lic Hearing: PP 08-010 Request or Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Cep-~r~ ~~~ G ~ear'~ /~~ ~ f~C~'b~ ~~~ ~~ 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: (~' n~k°n u_e. t°r~ bG`c l-~ea,ri Vlg ~ ~®~ o~ID o~dlD ~ 9. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 0>~3-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way:~~~~ PubUC ~~R,o''~ ~~ ~ ~DI/1°,rhld°~` ~ a~~' 10. Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No. 2 -1900 W. Pine Avenue: ~~'ll7l~CR. ~bU`C ~~~ ~9 ~ .~VD1~l'Y1~Y' dr ~ ~~` J ;~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - October 2, 2008 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. n ~~ ~'_5~; ' ;; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 2, 2008 ~~ Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 2, 2008, was >; ;;. called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. i ~*~ ~ Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. f~ Members Absent: Commissioner Michael Rohm. 4 ~; Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott -~.' ~ Steckline, and Dean Willis. ~ ~ ~ Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: =~ Roll-call ~- X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall .:~ X David Moe -Chairman " ~ ~ ~~ Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for October the 2nd. I'd like Y ~ to go ahead and call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll, please. ~^ Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: ;$ Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have a change in the agenda for this evening. Items No. 6 and 7 for ~L ~r~~'~ Cavanaugh Ridge will be continued and those will not be heard this evening. They will be continued to our regularly scheduled meeting of the 16th of October and we will '= '~~ continue those in order as we go through our agenda. So, like I said, Cavanaugh Ridge will not be heard this evening. Having said that, Commissioners, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as noted. O'Brien: So moved. :~ ~ ~~°~° Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. .~~~: MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. '~ Item 3: Consent Agenda: ~ ~~ ~. ;,; ~5 ~ ..._ -_. _ _ ~..a .: ~, ...- , ~ ; ;~. hj, Mt; _ i...9-: ~t _.},; ~~„~~ 1 F ~ .ri< ~; .; ,, ~' '~~,, .~-,r'_ ~. `` •'X. s ~~ ?-~_,~~ ~ ~ • ~:, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 2 of 45 A. Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district, per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant by Kinsan Chan - 2590 N. Eagle Road: Moe: Next item on the agenda is our Consent Agenda. We have got two items on that. Item number one being the approved minutes of the September 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the second item being Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-022 for the Great Wall Restaurant. Any comments, questions from anyone? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. All right. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Next item on our agenda, then, would be our public hearing process and before we open a hearing, if there is some folks out here that have not been here before, we will just give you a -- somewhat of a brief description of what we will do. I will go ahead and open the public hearing and ask the staff to give a brief overview of the project and, basically, reasonings for their -- their conditions that they have put in. After they complete, the applicant will be coming forward and they will have 15 minutes to, basically, explain their reasons why they think the project should be as it is or how they'd rather see it. After their 15 minutes are up and if they have one, five, or ten people that are in that applicant, they get their 15 minutes and, then, after that point, then, there are sign-up sheets in the back, if you signed up to speak, you will have three minutes to ask your questions and make any comments in regards to that hearing. After all the folks that have been signed up on the sheet are complete I will ask one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak to this -- to that hearing. Then we will just take them up one at a time. After that process is done I will ask the applicant to come back up again and, basically, rebut any conversations that were in the public hearing process. After that point, then, we will, then, basically, close the public hearing and the Commission will, then, vote on that hearing. e Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 3 of 45 Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: IZZ 08-004 Request for Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-O (Limited Office) and R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (25.10 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business) (37.84 acres) and R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use by Primeland Development Company, LLP -west of N. Ten Mile Road and north of W. McMillan Road: Moe: So, having said that, then, I would like to go ahead and open the continued public hearing for RZ 08-004 for Volterra Mixed Use and ask staff to give the report, please. ~: < `! Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you recall, back in ~~ :: ~ August -- on August 14th you guys acted on a Comprehensive Plan amendment to -~_~~` _' change this to a mixed use community designation and recommended approval to the City Council. The applicant has come forward now with that rezone application and a DA modification for the site. I have outlined the area that's sub'ect to this. The C-G J '1 zone that you see here, it's not part of the rezone request, but I wanted to kind of show `~~~;~;~ you the context of what this area -- what's impacted out there and per Commissioner :~~: Newton-Huckabay, I have also left in the platted lots, so she could see how this could change with this approval Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much. Parsons: You're welcome. So, you can see here there is a large residential portion. That will be changing on the site. To the north of this site is Bainbridge, approved -- excuse me -- approved Bainbridge, zoned R-8. Verona Subdivision to the east, zoned R-8, L-O, and C-G. To the west is the existing Volterra, zoned R-4, and, then, there is also Volterra South, which is also zoned C-G, L-O, and R-4. Here is the aerial of the site. The area, again, you can see it's -- at this time there is really nothing out there, it's undeveloped agricultural land. Here is the site plan, similar to what you saw back on the 14th. Again, the only difference is that particular concept plan left out that large box and some of those pad sites in that comer, in the -- excuse me -- the southeast comer of the development. Again, this portion here in between these three roadways here will be zoned R-15 to try to promote either some assisted living or some kind of skilled nursing facility there. The large multi box here, this will be zoned C-C in this area and that's more of your employee -- large employer-employment type uses and, then, the C- Gwill transition along North Ten Mile as well and, then, the offices transition along the northern boundary here to buffer against the residential along the north with Bainbridge -- the Bainbridge Subdivision. This site is envisioned to have approximately 1.4 million square feet of retail employment center, residential uses, so it's a fairly large project. If you look at where the applicant's proposing to align connections with the original subdivision, Volterra Subdivision, you can see this is pretty consistent to what was approved with that project in '05 and, again, these stub streets do match up with what Bainbridge has proposed with that subdivision. Access points, again, are -- there are three proposed along North Ten Mile, one along the north boundary that aligns with an ~C_y__ f _j.u ~~~i ~I' } (.y S; Tom, .r e f 5 u 0 r ,~. _} ,,_, . ,~. f _ _ _ 3F' iT F s t{ ' ~': Y ^i Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 ~x Page 4 of 45 _r existing driveway from Verona Subdivision. This is a full access here and I believe this `:~' driveway along here will be a right-in, right-out and the Meridian Police Department also '~~`' has requested that this remain aright-in, right-out as well. And, then, three access '`~ points along North McMillan, which staff has analyzed this and is okay and approves of .,~' what they are proposing to do out there. The applicant -- at the last hearing you did not -- you weren't able to see elevations for the site. Well, with the DA modification the `'~' applicant has provided some of the elevations that are proposed for the uses on the '~~ site. I have highlighted these for you. Again, this is what some of the potential assisted living facility could look like on the site. I have highlighted the big box that's located in -C ' ' a;, the southeast comer of the project. You can see the modulation there, the mix of materials with stone accents, stucco, some cornices, raised parapets heights. This ~ building in the lower -- in this corner here is part of their general business scheme as -~ well and some of those are located here. Some offices here. You can see they - modulate -- again, a mix of materials with some stone, some brick accents, substantial ~'y~`'~ -~a;.R, glazing. They are possibly marketing this for a hotel site out there as well, so they have added two renderings of potential hotels that could be located in the area. And, then, again, here is some of their -- they have identified the health club and skilled nursing. ~r ~ . This would be more of th -- at in that C-C zone with the mixed em ployment type center { ~ and that's similar to what's in EI Dorado right now with that private hospital up there. ~ Here is health care facilities and, apologize, there was so many photos, I tried to ~' ' condense them, but, again, similar building materials. All of these -- these -- at least w~ these design features are a part of the DA modification going forward to City Council to , 7~ be heard on November 5th or sometime in that time frame. Sometime in November y`. anyways. And, then, again, here is some representation of their senior living proposed ,- for that R-15 zoned area. Excuse me. So, going back to this, I'll try to go back to that `~ ~ aerial here and that way you can kind of see how -- let you kind of stew on that. Again, staff is recommending approval of the rezone and that way I will leave it on this map ;;~ here in case any of you have questions of staff. r~`a_ Moe: Okay. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to s~ come forward, please. ~' Larsen: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, I'm here this evening representing the applicant. My address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. We have reviewed the staff '~ ~ report and are happy with it. We have a couple of clarifications we might like to ask of the Commission and staff -- we have a couple of clarifications that we might like to ask ~,:'n of Commission and staff on page 11 and see if we might come up with some wording ~`~ that would work for those and they are on the -- applicant shall construct five central plaza areas and we are okay with the five central plaza areas. We'd like to have a little _~ flexibility in where they go, because, as you know, on commercial projects they tend to move around a little bit as we do the platting of the project. So, we'd like to just have - the flexibility that those could -- those locations could vary as we do each final plat or Y:~`` each phase of the platting. And, then, the same thing would hold true on the actual - design of the pathways, which is the last item on page number 11. We'd like to, again, have a little flexibility on that location of how we interconnect the pathways through the :P: 'i~Y r~' e i d' ~ _ %~ s ~ u y~:,~( sx ~1 A 9 77i':~ . t ~L Y~ i i `` Jb L 1 .. ~.. ~'{'1 ~° i sa~' ~ F i. -~~'y ~}t~ ' Yj ~~~r y ~1 .. J CZ iT SI m ~~ F r ~ y ~ ~~, if tj l~y% ate:. ~ i .~fl r -t .:: +,G~ `vi ~ i a ~ r rt ~:.~ ~ ~, iep~ - r . : T a ~L,` F x w~K 1 Y.{W ' 1~ f ~ ~~," ~ Jff' S-'a ~,x ~ ~` x .'x ~ r-~ ~ fik ~- ' ~ ``yy r ~ V t 91 Z ~ *S ••. l~if 'C. ti ' ' ~ ~~' 3 ji4 2 . S - ~ ~ k+ ` t ~ x ~~t~ 1'7"^~'t ~ f v 4 c E t 1 ~ t y 15 S ;, l t ,r' ~ ~~, 4}~ ~ Tf~,~ ~ r F'~ '~~~n~ ~'t w ~ ,,,,Y ~ S'3f~x. ~ ~-:- ]t1'~ eY4 _ y ' ~~'', ,. ~~. N S y'.. ~ { ~ t ~_- ` ~ ~7SL! F, ^/l~ ~ . y ~ ~~ ~~ ~ vhf~ . ~~ ~ a w ;:,,~. .~- ~_~i} ~. ~~ . ~~~n <_ ~,,, ~,,;; ~~ k; °~~: ~ ~,. Y _,r .,,.. ~, ~. "` ''~ t '. 'r' f.r ,,~~,: sy Y}j 3 ~; ;; .,k. ~" Meridian Planning 8 Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 5 of 45 final platting process. Other than that, we don't have any comments. Be happy to answer any questions you have. O'Brien: I have a question. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, tell me how they might change. Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, usually what happens to us in a commercial project is we don't always know the size of our lots for our final building size. As different users come along they have different requirements and, hence, we end up moving the lot lines and sometimes we end up moving the plazas or the amenities around as we do that. We have done the same thing in EI Dorado. We have moved the pathway around and the plazas around as we have gone through the platting, but they are always connected and they are always continuous, we don't leave them fragmented by any means. O'Brien: So, you're saying that the concept remains the same, it's just that you move them like -- Larsen: Yeah. Just moves. We don't delete them or change them; we just sometimes have to shift them in order to get a user to fit on a site. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Noting the second item at the bottom of the page, reading through it's pretty much noting where they want them, so -- Larsen: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we had shown those on our -- some of our Comprehensive Plan amendments for locations and we'd just like to stay in those general locations as the road modifies, but we may have to shift them again. So, if we have flexibility that's fine and if staffs okay with that, we are fine, too. Moe: Well, I guess, then, that that would be my next question of staff. Does staff have a problem with that? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, let me try to elaborate on that for you a little bit more. When they came into the -- with their CPA they showed a pathway coming up through this portion of the residential zoned property that they were proposing anyways and, then, coming over and connecting into the park. And they also had a pathway shown along this area here. The Meridian Pathway Plan shows that the expansion of that pathway plan -- or at least this pathway should come through here and that's the only one that's designated for this site. So, what they are proposing here is a bonus as far as the city is concerned, because that's an above -- a requirement above and beyond what our pathway plan required. So, we are okay with them shifting ms;~ ~~a ,~ ,;,~, L` Meridian Planning & Zoning "' ~ "",'~~ October 2, 2008 Page 6 of 45 `;~_ that. It's just this -- our condition was really in place to make sure that they at least ` ~ ;' coordinate with the parks department to make sure that that connection from Verona Subdivision comes through somewhere in this subdivision and connects via this park or ~:~° this residential in the future. .x: _~t, ~' Moe: And, then, the five plazas are within that, as far as where they are located within ~~~' that pathway? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, we didn't specifically say ,; place them in the location, we just said provide five of them. So, there is flexibility there. +; fY. ' ~ w i ~~ Moe: That makes sense. Okay. ~~ y` 3m ~ ~ et' Parsons: Thank you. y Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Larsen: Thank you. ,, 'f ~' k Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? :~ "°~ Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to verify that the Comp Plan designations that were -- actually, that have passed and those are the new Comp Plan designations. Moe: Those have not passed. Those are into City Council for approval. Regardless '~ however we act tonight, City Council still needs to act on that and I believe they are `~' acting on that, as well as -- ~~ ~ Y~ ., , Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that Comp Plan amendment has been continued to the November 15th hearing. So, anticipation to try to get this caught up with that same application, so Council could hear them all at one time. ~~}~{ Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Okay. ~" ~kl ~ Moe: I was notified that the City Council doesn't have the same problem we have in regards to approving the Comp Plan amendments. They can do them one at a time and kind of whenever they want to. It's not all at one time. They have latitude, we don't. ~ Newton-Huckabay: Latitude. Okay. :: ,;q,, Moe: Any other questions? ~_ ~ '.'4' Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you. #.. s~ _;.4~ _.. f:~ ~. c a" } rr' "~~.. .. / ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 ' ~~-• Page 7 of 45 1 ~ -, Moe: There was no one signed up, so if there is anyone that would like to speak on 1 this, you're more than welcome to. Don't rush all at once. Okay. Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, any comments, questions at all. I think we have -- you know, going through the CPA process and dealing with this, we all knew this was coming and pretty much the applicant has no problems with any of the conditions and the items that '' were spoken tonight, that's not a problem there as well, so -- Marshall: I think the applicant has worked well with the city in trying to do the path plans ~.~?;Y~ and has gone, obviously, beyond what we have asked for. I also appreciate the fact with the buffering, I think that's something that's vitally important is the buffering in between the commercial and the residential. O'Brien: I don't have anything to add. Moe: Okay. Well, then, there is only a couple other things to be done, then, and one of you three have to do it. ~~ . ~fs- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony -- O'Brien: Close the hearing. ~;'~: `~ Newton-Huckabay: -- I move that we close the public hearing. f~ "' ~'~' Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on -- 7_ - , Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. t~ - v-A Moe: See how fast she picked up on that one -- on RZ 08-004. All those in favor say ~ ,~ ~ aye. Opposed? That motion carries. The public hearing has been -- Newton-Huckabay: Am I blushing? - Moe: You're doing fine. `~ '~~ .,: MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,; ~_~-'~~ Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 08-004 and MDA 08-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 2nd, 2008, with no modifications. ~~ ~ O'Brien: Second. ., ~,.,~ ~~~ ._ ~~ ,. _ ~~ ~ ~ r., :.~t, ,, ~,, . , . Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 8 of 45 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve RZ 08-004 onto City Council for approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We have done this before. Newton-Huckabay: You wonder. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the Development Agreement provisions of the Dorado Subdivision for Grandview West by W.H. Moore Company -north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 08-023 for Grandview West and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Grandview West project. Again, this is a Conditional Use Permit request. Basically, these two lots here -- part of the DA for the Dorado Subdivision requires that when these two lots or any other lots within this Dorado Subdivision are adjacent to this residential subdivision, they were required to get a procurement of a CUP and so that's why the applicant is before you tonight. Again, this project is -- north of this is pretty much interstate -- or is residential in Ada County, zoned R-1. To the west of it is the same residential -- single family residential, zoned R-1. To the south is EI Dorado, zoned C-C. And, then, some -- to the east of this is amulti-tenant building, zoned C-G, as part of the Dorado Subdivision as well. Here is the aerial of the site. It's a little bit more built out than what it currently shows here. Again, it is two lots. Again, you can see those Ada County residential homes there abutting the site. One thing I would point out is that this is -- right now on the Comprehensive Plan this is shown to be commercial, so some day in the future this is expected to go to some kind of non- residential use. Here is the site plan for the project. The applicant is proposing 54 parking stalls with the amount of square footage that they are proposing on the site they are only required to have 22 stalls. So, they exceed the minimum requirement. Again, they are asking for approval for two buildings tonight. The first multi-tenant building is roughly 7,351 square feet. They are showing a potential for five tenants and the third -- the second building is 3,291 square feet and that's proposed to have three multi-tenants -- excuse me -- three tenants. All the landscaping -- I'll move to the landscaping. Staff has evaluated the site plan as far as the parking and dimensional standards. The applicant complies with the UDC. Here is the landscaping plan that the applicant is proposing with the site. You can kind of see where this area is hatched out here. This was the 35 foot landscape buffer that was part of the subdivision when it came through, the EI Dorado -- or, excuse me, the Dorado Subdivision. That is not expected to a~: t~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning - October 2, 2008 Page 9 of 45 '` change and it should remain protected as part of this prior as construction continues on v~ the site or occurs on the site. The one thing I do want to point out is this -- these two :> lots are on an entryway corridor and based on the UDC they are required to go through design review and in this particular application the applicant has not submitted for -;~ design review. So, they are asking that they do -- they can do that at CZC and I have tried to do that in my staff report, provide some analysis to let you know that I have checked for compliance with design review and everything appears to be pretty good >~ , except with exception to the building elevations. One other clarification for you is this Loader Street here, currently there was -- when they came through with their final platting of their subdivision at that time, their DA required -- I think in the staff report I had mentioned that they were going to have a 25 foot landscape buffer here. Actually, ~'~'; ` 1 what was a requirement was this was already in place; they were to add an additional five feet with their DA requirements. So, I wanted to clear that -- at least clear that up ;;I for the Commission and the applicant, because he had -- the applicant had contacted me and wanted to make sure that I let you know that they were only required to do an -~{ additional five foot along the western boundary there. And they have done that. Also ~~~=~ what their DA provision -- along the northern boundary they were allowed to have a five foot landscape buffer with the erection of a six foot vinyl fence. The applicant on this ~~ site plan is providing a ten foot landscape buffer and the applicant -- also with the six, ' I foot vinyl fence and the applicant also communicated to me that they were willing to ti ~ install that fencing prior to any construction on the site. That way to insure those i h 2 u ne g borhoods to the north that, hey, we are going to make it safe for you while we are ' ' ~ :~~ doing construction, so debris and everything won't go onto your property. So, those are _ some of the other things I wanted to bring up for you. Here are the buildin elevations. "'~" Again, in the upper comer here is the proposed large multi-tenant building and this is the smaller three tenant burldrngs that they are proposing. Building materials appear to h` ~~, be high quality materials. They comply with the design standards as far as building materials and modulation and glazing. If I can go back to the site plan here, this tells the story the best. One of the things that staff had found looking at the site plan is if you can look here, some arcades, they are proposing five multi-tenant buildings on the site and part of the design standards calls out that they need to have weather protection for main entrances into the building. Well, if you look at this -- the footprint of the building, you can see they have some dashed lines for two of the entryways, so you know that has some arcades, so it's going to provide some protection, but these three, the north, the central, and the south portion don't appear to have any weather protection. So, staff t;F has conditioned the applicant to revise the east facade of the building and comply with that requirement. Staff is recommending approval of this CUP and with that I will be happy to answer an y questions Commission may have. ,~~, Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian, Idaho. I think as the -- as staff has said, we have gone through the staff report and we don't have any objections to it. There was an issue of the overhang, which we have said we are agreeable to. We will put that on. And as one thing I also wanted to t: Sy ~ , ~. ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~, ~~ x ~': sr w~ ~~ ~, ~~ i. L ~ ~~ '1 ~ Vy SJ ~y t~ t ~..1 ~~~ f' i7~ ri ~ a~~%-4~ E t vr' ~. ~r r a ~ ~,, .:.,~ " tk ~+ hn.' 4` 1.031 { _._] •1 y "~1 e~~. ~tGr i} ~:;Ktca u `,l fi~ S' f ~}} ',~ ~~4~ 2- l t'~ ~~ ~~ f C ~ > ~~t ~.t +v ~! ?~ F ~ ~~ .p ` ~:? ~ P t]i 1 C SI/'~ c+ei ~. `~~ ~ C 4axi3'~ ~lrj a< ~, o- 1s 'a; ~` -s r `, y,;'e +K } ~ yt C n ;; £ ~` '1, ~ '~ ~{, -. ., ~-}wW_. :'~~~ .«r ~,.~: .:..- ~~- ,~,'} .-., x _. ,.. ::~-='s :~.` ~4 e ~; ,;, ~:~ F;,,'. ~,, ~;.u SAY .'~_+~l .~ =; -~;, '< ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 10 of 45 mention, just so I can also put it on the record, as he mentioned, there is a residence back here, it's Gale Sasser's home. When we had the neighborhood meeting their primary concem was with this fence and that even though they are no longer living in this home, their son is and their grandson. They were, obviously, concerned about the safety of the son. I called Mrs. Sasser again today and Isaid -- actually, I specifically asked that it be put as a condition in the conditions of approval, which I understand it can't be, but I'd at least like to go on the record that we will put the fence up before we do start construction and that seems to be their main concem. And everybody knows Winston Moore, what he says he does. So, we will certainly do that first. That seemed to be their only concem. Otherwise, they were satisfied. There is a rendering -- and I'm sorry that I don't have something else. We just got that complete, so that's as good as I can do. But, again, I think it goes back to the quality that Winston does, such as EI Dorado Business, Hampton, and Grandview Station. And so I think, again, it's going to be of that type of quality. So, I think, again, it will be something that will be an asset to the community. So, unless there is any particular questions, I won't take your time. We ask that you simply approve it and adopt it as it is. Moe: Well, I think what I'd like you to do if you could, just -- could you give us -- go ahead and give us some -- just on the record some of the materials that are going to be involved in your exterior. Seal: Sure. Well, what we are going to do is we are going to have either concrete tilt up or steel structure. As I mentioned in there, which is hard to see in this one, if you put the elevations up -- and Cornell is here, so if I misstate, he can certainly -- this is going to be a stone type material. This is the larger building right here with stone, with stucco, and you have the -- I'll call it kind of the architectural relief. I'm not up on all those terms. On the smaller building we are going to have the canopies, along with the brick structure and, again, the stucco material up here, along with the glass entrances on both the fronts, as well as the sides facing Overland. So, it does give some relief, it's not simply a wall type of thing. So, hopefully, with my architectural limitations will -- that addressed it. Moe: I understood that entirely. Seal: Thank you very much. Moe: Hopefully, the other Commissioners up here did as well. Any other questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have none. I -- do we have people signed up on this one? Moe: No. But we should let them go first. ~; y.:\ ~.~~. :• 'y ~~.: ~s .'u ;~,: ::,. ~~~_. ~~;< Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 11 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Well, no, I was -- I just -- when we originally had this before us and put this condition on here it was more to give the residences around there an opportunity to have their voice heard, so I -- Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners -- Newton-Huckabay: Do you have those specific uses on these? Seal: No, we don't at this time. It's amulti-tenant building. Typically we build it spec. I guess it goes back to the old saying, you know, build it and they will come, generally. So, we oftentimes find that retail tenants don't want to step up until they can see something happening. So, in this case -- and, yes, we have gone through a couple different versions on this to I think also satisfy the surrounding neighborhood, even though it is in transition, but also make something that's viable for us. And as I say, the main concern was the Sassers, which live directly to the north, and they were very happy with it. I met with them personally and have talked to them on numerous occasions. So, I think we have addressed the intent of the development agreement, which it addresses this. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Moe: Thank you very much. Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Moe: Again, there was no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to speak to this hearing, you're more than welcome. Okay. This has been a good evening so far. Any comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing. O'Brien: I think it's good use of that particular property there, especially since there is going to be transition for the homes behind that. I always wondered why they put those homes there right next to the freeway. But, yeah, I think it's a good use. Good project. Moe: My whole intent to basically ask Mr. Seal to give us an indication of the exterior elevation material is simply because I didn't have to hold this thing up waiting on something to see for design review. I'm very happy with his explanation and which is going to -- it will fit right in with everything else that they have done out there and it's going to be a nice project. So, having said that, any other comments? If not -- O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. ,~~ , ~ 5 -'-; r% Meridian Planning 8 Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 12 of 45 ~' O'Brien: If there is no further adieu from Commissioners, I move to close the ,public {ry, ~ hearing on CUP 08-023. . t ~~ t ,'` - Newton-Huckabay: Second. ; Marshall: Second. r Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-023. All ' ~' those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. ~ < <- ,; MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. r.~ Moe: You're only halfway there. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number CUP 08-023, as presented during the hearing date of '`_ ~' October 2nd, 2008, with no modifications. ~; Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-023 for Grandview West. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~_ ,, Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an ~ ~P~ . R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 ~_:!: residential building lots and 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 ~ and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera ~ ' Development, LLC -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory ,~: ~;x. Road: ~ ~:'~ Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge for the sole purpose of continuing both hearings to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of October the 16th, 2008. Could I get a motion? Y~T~~F ~:~~ Newton-Huckabay: So moved. °'~~' Marshall: Second. L ;: ,. .; _ Y :~ ~;~` r:~:. r. ~ FY: Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning -"`~ ~' October 2, 2008 ~~:~z, :~ ~ Page 13 of 45 '~ f Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for ~ :.- Cavanaugh Ridge to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. ;.. "' ` ~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ':~~:" ~~~:;:~ Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: AZ 08-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada ~~ _ `' County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & h~`;: Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa Way: ~•_', Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: PP 08-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building .~-`_~ lots and 3 common lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for ~i~~~ Shays Cove by Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. - 3155 S. Mesa , 4 Way: . F:.. Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ 08-012 and PP 08- ~.;,`; I ~ 1 009 for Shays Cove and start with the staff report, please. ` ~ I Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The applications J°~-y~ before you are an annexation and zoning request for 5.03 acres of land from the RUT "~'"`' zoning district in Ada County, to the R-4 district and preliminary plat for eight single family residential building lots and three common lots on 4.45 acres of land. The ~`'~;- property is located at 3155 South Mesa Way, approximately a third of a mile west of Locust Grove Road on the north side of Victory, as you can see here on the overhead. Surrounding uses. To the north are single family residential lots in Kachina Estates Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada Coun To the south is Victo Road and future sin le tY -Y 9 "~ - family residences in Cavanaugh Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family ~,~; F.: residences in Cabella Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are single family ~~ residences in Glacier Springs Subdivision, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the ,t,.N , property. There is an existing home right here and a couple large shop buildings. tro History on the site. The subject property was previously platted as Lot 1, Block 2, of Kachina Estates Subdivision in Ada County. This is the proposed preliminary plat. As I stated earlier, it consists of eight building lots and three common lots. Lots 3 and 4 here will take access from Mesa Way. The rest of the lots will take access from South Coy Place via -- or, excuse me Victory Road. All of the structures that are existing on the ~sr'~ site are proposed to remain, except for one small structure here on this property line, ;. ,, which will be removed. Staff is recommending as a development agreement provision '' that South Coy Place be extended as a stub street to the north property boundary for : "~ future extension. The fire department requests that a temporary turnaround be provided ~'~ , until such time as South Coy Place is extended. This is the proposed landscape plan. "~ A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Victory Road. No street buffer is required along Mesa. There are many existing trees on this site, a few of which will be removed ~~ with development. Most of them will be retained on the site. Mitigation is required in ~~ accordance with UDC standards for existing healthy trees, four inch caliper and larger, ;a ., ,~ i '~ i r vs :;yy ~ y,', t .''~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ > P •'i ~ f ~-~1 ~y 4-~~'. ~y { j; 1 ~..-,~'sl <~ !1 vy Tyy ~i 1i.`~ {(~ {'~ ~ > r Fw' ~~ '' ~ ~~i ` t 4. y~ j~", ~~ J~T~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,_ .~ °,~; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 14 of 45 "~ that are removed from the site. Six foot tall vinyl fencing exists along the west property boundary here adjacent to Glacier Springs Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to construct fencing to match along the north boundary here. This is a colored version of the landscape plan. It shows all the existing trees on the site. Existing house. Existing shops. And a little pond here. These are the proposed building elevations for future homes on these lots. Construction materials consist of stucco, with rock accents and the roofs. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed, as they represent high quality design and construction materials. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required with annexation of this property. Some of the pertinent DA provisions: No direct lot access to Victory. Only Lots 3 and 4 have direct lot access to Mesa. South Coy Place shall be extended as a stub street to the north boundary for future extension. And future building elevations and construction materials shall comply with those submitted with this application. No written testimony was submitted on this application. Staff is recommending the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications be continued, so that the applicant can revise the preliminary plat and landscape plan to depict South Coy Street as a public street. Excuse me. Stub street to the north property boundary. Staff will stand for any questions at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? ~~E O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Sonya, could you explain, again, the stub street. And maybe I'm confused as to -- are you going to extend it further from what -- I'm confused with the cul-de-sac, I guess, on Coy Place. Watters: Yes. Certainly. Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, staff is requesting that this street right here be extended clear to the north boundary here and, then, when the property to the north eventually develops -- I'll show you here on the vicinity map, then, access will be provided to that site also for future interconnectivity and cross-access. O'Brien: So, they are not going to have I guess built out on those lots, of course, if the -- if it's going to be stubbed further, because it shows like it's going to be building lots there right now; right? If you go back to the previous -- Watters: The applicant is proposing building Lots on this subject property here. The property to the north is yet to develop. O'Brien: Okay. I was confused because of the -- of these -- find this thing. These guys here, if a road's going to go right through those properties are they going to build on them? =ti Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 15 of 45 Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Mr. Chair, actually. Sonya, could you go back to the landscape plan. So, is that a building lot up there in the northeast corner? Fourth? Is that Lot 4? Moe: Yes. Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yes, it is Lot 4. The applicant has told me that the plan is here -- the existing homeowner that owns this whole property lives right here. He is going to construct a new home here and, then, his son is going to move into this home here. Eventually what we perceive happening with this is a property boundary adjustment to move this lot line to here, so that these shop buildings will be associated with the future home on this lot. Moe: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: And then -- so, then, Lot 2 -- it's just kind of awkward looking, I guess. Moe: Well, it's a huge piece of property, too. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. No, I agree with that. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: This is Lot 2? Is Lot 2 intended to be a building -- a buildable lot? Newton-Huckabay: No. Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Lot 2 is going to be a buildable lot, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Marshall: And you mentioned that the three lots here will all take their access from this site. So, this lot will -- Wafters: There are two building lots here that will take this -- Lot 4 and Lot 3 will take access from Mesa. Marshall: Okay. Wafters: This lot and all of the rest of these will take access from South Coy Place. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. ='r:-, , ~:;:w; ~~~ K- 2 "` t:~, 3, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 16 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. The color is the size designation. On our transmissions nothing is in color, so it's hard to get -- Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Wyatt: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jed Wyatt. I'm with Landmark Engineering and Planning, with a business address of 332 Northside Boulevard in Nampa and it's a pleasure to be here representing this project tonight it's been a fun one for us to work on, because it's -- Mr. John Shays -- it's his project and he's lived here in that home for quite some time and it's property he's owned for eight or nine years and now he wants to develop it and he actually is intending to live on the site and he will actually -- hopes to live in Lot 2. Just a little bit of correction. And, then, he's going to sell that existing home to his son and so it's been a fun one to work on. As you can see with the landscape plan that's before you there, 90 percent of those trees are existing trees. That pond is an existing pond. Mr. Shay's got a very nice place there and his intention for this project is right in line with his current home and the quality that is there already. Also, as you saw on the building elevations, he's got a footprint and stuff picked out for the home he'd like to build on the lot and the building elevations he's submitted are in line with the home that he plans to build there and so we see it as a very nice project and an amenity for the whole neighborhood. The lots on there range in size from -- the smallest one is, obviously, the one up in the northeast comer, which is -- Moe: There should be a pointer there. Wyatt: -- 8,600 square feet. Thank you. Right here. And all the rest of them are over 12,000 square feet. So, they are nice size lots with nice homes. We'd like to thank staff for the time they put in to working through this with us and we agree with the staff report, with one exception, and I'd like to talk to you a little bit about that and that is the stub road to the north. If we can get the vicinity map placed up there. That's great. Thank you. As this property -- these properties to the north develop -- well, let me start with this. Generally, I'm in agreement with stub roads and interconnectivity. I understand why planning staff is -- has put that as a requirement and I like to see that on plats myself as I work on them. But in this case I don't think that -- good planning principal is a good principal for this particular site and the reason why is we have an arterial road here in Victory Road that's meant to carry a lot of traffic. It's good to limit accesses to those roads and we have been granted an access from ACRD for our --our project here, as there is no other point of access with the existing homes and shops, we couldn't get our access onto Mesa -- Mesa Road. So, we have an access approved through ACHD. Mesa Way, as you see here, continues up quite a long ways. That should be kind of a traffic funneler as these -- as these lots in the future develop and we will carry -- as you see the subdivision to the east all stub into that, the majority of the traffic add onto Victory Road. If we stub this road up in this direction, you're going to have additional trips, potentially, in the future that are going to be coming out to Victory Road. Through what will be a secondary access point and just it makes a little more planning sense and traffic sense, in my mind, to funnel that traffic onto Mesa Road. ..~,~ i~. ~- ''~ ~~ ~ °~~ ~ J E ~~ ~:;> a ~~ ~ .~w ~. F~ ~ _ o-~~ Y. 1 ley,. z _~ },.Y~~~ ~ ~ r x n. ~i °< nom. ° ~ `fit,: - ~ '13 i... 4 -, ~ p~ ~ a'~`K t ~ ~~~ ~ ~ a~i. ~ ~. ~.t ~ _ i... ~ ,~ 7 ~j' ~~ ~` r:,k1,~, ~~~ x „ _~~ t~~ t ~" r. j '~'~. t r k~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ' y: { ,. ~ , i , ` ~ ~= r ~d 1b:u _ } ~ y~: ~ ~- ~ ~ ~.y ~ ~ may;. 3 ',. }}~~ ;t+w+w 91°' `'~ ~> J~~'2 ~ Wi' t' ~ F~! STS #~~~~I j t Ems" .rF ° s ,13E ~'~, s~ ':; 'ta„ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 17 of 45 That's the first reason. The second one is that -- as you looked at the landscape plan that has been done and you see the work that he's put into his existing home and the monies spent on trees and whatnot and building elevations for what he plans on in the future, it's going to be a very nice project and with no guarantees of how it will develop to the north and the R-4 zoning around -- R-8 zoning around, prefer that we have the -- the cul-de-sac to have more of an intimate community there. And thank you for your time tonight and will stand for questions. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Is it Jim or -- Wyatt: Jed. O'Brien: Jed? Wyatt: Uh-huh. O'Brien: J-e -- Wyatt: J-e-d. Jed. O'Brien: So, this -- so this -- this stub street it's going to service this lot -- basically this lot here and this build out here, is that why they are going to stub it through the center of this -- Wyatt: Yeah. That's my understanding is it would stub to the north and so as that development occurs to the north it would just provide some interconnectivity. But if you look there is plenty of frontage off of Mesa Way and there is also another stub street provided here to the north. And so there seems to be ample -- ample space for access as those properties develop. O'Brien: So, this line here, then, is not -- it's just a dividing line, it's not going to be a future stub? Wyatt: It's a property line. O'Brien: It's a property line, so -- I guess I'm just -- my only concern is how these people here are going to have access, unless they go right through these people's property right now and I'm concerned about that, I guess. Something doesn't seem right about it all. ~< -0;, f~1 nt Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 ~fi ~ _ Page 18 of 45 Wyatt: Mesa Way would be their primary access, which runs along their entire piece of _ property. O'Brien: And did I hear your concerns about the traffic flow, then, should be maintained ~' on here and not up this way or -- ._~: `,y, ~ Wyatt: That was my thought. Yeah. Victory Road is an arterial road. It's good practice ~.: ; to limit our accesses onto it and funnel -- funnel the majority of traffic in at certain .= designated points. . ,~ '7 O'Brien: That's all I have. Thank you. ~`"' ' I want to discuss this a little bit further in here as well. Okay. Basically, Moe: Well : -~'~ , what you're saying, you got a stub street right there in that subdivision right there that ~ `'~~~~ will take care of this area right here. What are we doing here, if we don't do the `" connectivity through, so we got it, you want to have all these folks here, then, have to come out here, go down here, and, then, come this way to even get into any of this here. I mean that's why I think it's imperative that -- to have the connectivity of this road _ going all the way through this, so that eventually when they are building in, that these ~~ people do have some where to get down into here, as opposed to having to go out and ` ' '~ around and, then, turn coming back in and going back on the arterial again. ~` `~ `~~' ~ O'Brien: I agree. It was kind of confusing, because you think that they would have had some -- something there already as a proposal, I guess. ' ~t` Wyatt: You could connect these two properties without having to have access out to : Victory Road. I mean you could have -- both of the properties have access onto Mesa. .~; ~~; You have a stub street here and there can be connectivity between those two and you could get from here to this subdivision right in that -- in that way. The point I'm trying to }.,~ make is if and when this develops, the residents here could come this way or this way ~ as easily as that way to get out. ~' ~ 'f` Moe: I think just basically for safety purposes the fire department is going to want to be able to go, you know, all the way through into here, as well as come up in to do something here, just for safety purposes alone. Marshall: How much further up does Mesa Way go? How much is feeding onto Mesa ~.. Way there? Wafters: Unfortunately, my map doesn't cover that, Commissioner. ~~ n~ Wyatt: It doesn't go up much farther and it's a cul-de-sac, but as you look at the ; development directly to the north of it there is a stub street, which stubs directly into ~ s, where Mesa Way is heading. r r ~-''-~~.` Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. r >~;. ~~N, ty ~• ~' ,r ~." ~: .- 3; :~ }'- ;-'a ;r<~a. .. ,;~ ';~: ~'` ~; y -~" 'ii .a. ,x~' ~~. :; wq Meridian Planning ~ Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 19 of 45 Wyatt: Thank you. Moe: Well, this hearing took up the fact that we didn't have anyone signed up on the other ones, so -- you guys did good this time. First one on the list -- I'm going to butcher this real good. Aneke Billford -- Binford? Binford. I'm sorry. When you do come up, please, name and address, please. Binford: Good evening. Aneke Binford. 3101 South Mesa Way, Meridian. Let's see if I can run the pointer. Okay. Our property is this one right directly next to where Shays Cove is proposed. We have been down this road before with development. Two of our other neighbors on the street developed each of their five acre parcels, Cabella Creek Subdivision that's under development now and so we know that anything that's within that area of impact is going to be developed and we are not going to fight that. So, that being said, we are not completely opposed to Shays Cove. However, we are in agreement with staff that we feel that that road needs to be stubbed and not a cul-de- sac, just for future development of our ground, which is right here. The other stub road that's right there, that one we also requested when Glacier Bay went in. When Cabella Creek Subdivision went in, which is this road that comes here and this road right here, that dumps out onto Mesa Way. When that was being developed we had requested cul-de-sacs there and they told us that because of interconnectivity they wanted those `'~ ~ roads to go ahead and dump into Mesa. So, our feeling is that to keep that interconnectivity we would like to see that road stubbed, because we do plan to develop our property somewhere down the line as well. Could you flip to the one -- let's see. Go ~' ahead and go back one more. Sony. He was talking about how they can -- you know, if we do develop here, they can just run all the traffic from -- those lots can be accessed off of Mesa, but what happens with that is they are saying that the existing property where John Shay lives, that they can't run all of their lots onto Mesa Way, because of his shop and buildings and whatnot. So, that's kind of the same thing that would happen to us if we only had Mesa Way as an access to our property. So, yeah, we'd like to see that road stubbed. We are in agreement with staff on that. What else? think we do have some irrigation issues as well. My husband will probably speak to that a little bit later, because he's the imgation guy. And berming -- we'd like to see a four to five foot berm and white vinyl fence, which is consistent with everything else that's gone on, so -- Newton-Huckabay: A perimeter fence? Binford: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: Perimeter fence? Binford: Correct. And also I know they had a great landscaping plan, but they didn't show or explain to us -- we have a little piece -- yes. So, right there is our property line -- the back of our property line and, then, this is our pasture area. We'd like to make sure that four foot berm is here with the fencing. :~ _ ;, <r Y~ [-. fit. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 20 of 45 :~~a Moe: Earlier in testimony it was said that they were going to do the perimeter fence. } r : Binford: Okay. Yeah. Oh, am I up? <<,~ ;. Moe: Be quick. ;` Binford: Oka We were not aware of this smaller lot ri ht here when the Y• g y presented Lt'; .Y that to us at the kind of community meeting, so we are just a little curious how that got , in there. It's just not a large enough transition. The other homes across the street on ' ~~' Mesa Way that were originally five acre pieces, we requested half acre lots, which they felt was a good transition. The other properties on Mesa Way are five acre lots. So, we feel that that is awfully small of a transition to be thrown in there, so -- all right. Thank you. wT Moe: Thank you. Jed Wyatt. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay. Sue Haglund. ~~r ~>,; Haglund: Good evening. This is my first time in a public hearing. I just wanted to -- oh. R _~ Moe: Name and address, please. Haglund: Sue Haglund, 3126 South Glacier Bay Way and I'm a neighbor of John Shay ` and I think it's nice that he wants to do something with his property. I'm just wanting to _ ~ express concern for the busyness of Victory Road. As was pointed out, there is quite a ~T,J.~'? bit of house development around our neighborhood and ground is just sitting, there are no homes bein built, g there is just dirt sitting there and we have it on the south of Victo ~= '~~ ry and we have it up in that RUT, which is Majestic Point, it's all been plumbed, it's already, but there are no homes in there and I guess as a concerned neighbor I just don't want to see this go along and, then, it just sit and just be dirt and cement, you know, and also the -- right at the edge of the property on the left there in our home area `'}' the road -- Victory Road is elevated and so when you're coming down that hill you can °~ come very quickly and I'm concerned for traffic going into that -- that entrance into that ` ~, housing district. Those are my concerns. Thank you. ~ ~ " ~ Moe: Thank you very much. Roy Haglund. ~,~. R.Haglund: Roy Haglund. I also live at 3126, which is the second lot in from Victory that backs onto Mr. Shay's property. We moved up from southern California where we had lived for 20 years in 2006 and one of the things that was really appealing to us ~~': about that particular lot was the openness and the view and everything like that and so when he heard about the development we very sad and chagrined, as you can imagine, ..:~ .3 ,.e _ q-,. but I understand that, you know, it's Mr. Shay's property and he can do what he likes . . with it and if it was my property and I wouldn't want my neighbors to come and tell me couldn't do it. I do have a similar concern to what my wife said. We didn't discuss this ahead of time, but we do see all of the other develops around -- there is four within a half a mile and they are sitting there empty and, you know, we would prefer that if there ,;K '~_ ~y ~ ~~ ~ .~i~~~~ i il.i f:': ~~J ~r~. ::-~;, ~v ...F ~- ,,, -: >~, -:~ ~, ;~:: Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 21 of 45 was a way to just delay this until the housing market turns, so that we didn't have to look at empty weed filled lots that would be great. Moe: Thank you very much. Judy Staub. Okay. From the audience she said that her concems have been met. Liz -- yeah. That's right. Okay. Echanis: Liz Echanis at 3042 South Glacier Bay Way in Glacier Springs and I have a few concems. We attended the meeting at the Shays and had some concems and they were never included in the application and, then, when I went down to check it and, then, I think you said there was no written information submitted on this and I hand delivered it down here for our subdivision with signatures from everybody. So, that has me a little concemed that -- Newton-Huckabay: You had a petition? Echanis: Yes. We signed an agreement -- in fact, I have copies in my file. I talked to Sonya and, then, I brought it down here on a Friday and give it to the gal and said I had extra copies and she said she would get them to you. So, this has me concemed, because you mentioned there is a six foot fence on the west boundary and there is not. We were concemed about landscaping and some privacy and for some issues like that to be addressed and, then, also there are so many Cabellas sitting there empty, and Majestic is sitting empty and I guess Cavanaugh is the one to the south of us. And if he wants to build, I mean I can understand him building his house, but maybe subdividing later, because we are going to have dirt surrounding us forever and it is true, Glacier -- if you look at Glacier Spring, we have one road in for all those houses and, then, you're going to put another road in and if you have been on Victory Road and you try to tum into our sub, which is just probably 300 feet from where this entrance is going to be, you can't see the cars coming. I mean it evens out a little bit toward Mesa. It's dangerous right now for us getting into our sub. So, that is a concem, too. The road safety on Victory is a huge concem. But we did have some issues that we wanted addressed and I'm surprised that it hasn't been. Moe: Are you speaking of this one here? Echanis: Yeah. And there is a typed letter to this. Moe: Uh-huh. Echanis: Okay. So, those are my concems. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Should we read into the -- note it for the record? Would you like me to do that, Mr. Chair? Moe: Sure. i..' ~I~ .., ~,; ,::i: r: ~. ^~{ `~:, ~, ;,~: ~,~ .- ~~;; w; ~ ~ ;3x >>, ,; ~, ~. ~. ,~: Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 22 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: I just wanted to note into the record the letter and the bullet points that Echanis -- Mrs. Echanis was pointing out and it was -- they would like development agreement provisions that would restrict the height of houses all -- to all single level on the west side of the property that borders Glacier Springs, which are all single level. This was received on September 12th, 2008. A minimum of 2,400 feet on the home. Landscaping for privacy, such as evergreens. They'd like to see taller fences. Currently the fence is -- of Glacier Springs Subdivision that borders the proposed development are the lower level. They would like to see a cul-de-sac and not a through road. We already have a road in front of our homes and this would be a way to keep the noise level down. And, then, some type of tum lane on Victory Road to help avoid a dangerous situation. Again, that was the letter received on September 12th. Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list is Randy Cash. Randy has evidently left. Ashley Bloom. All right. Ron LaFever. LaFever: Yes. My name is Ronald LaFever, 2962 Glacier Bay, and I do oppose this project for several reasons. I bought there because it is five acres behind us and I realize that you guys would like -- or the city would like to eventually develop everything. But if you would just -- within probably two or three blocks of us is 300 lots that aren't sold and only partially developed and I just don't think this is the right time to develop it. And if -- I developed some property in 1995 in McCall and the city council was reluctant and I asked them just to come to the property and look the situation over and after the meeting they got in their cars and went to the -- to the property and looked it over and, then, it was -- I wanted approved and it was. And I feel like if that's a possibility before this finally goes through, if you came to the property and saw how they want to get this road through and its at the bottom of the hill and it is five acres now, it just -- I don't think that this would go over with the City Council. I just don't think it would be an approved subdivision at this time with all the lots sitting and just my comment at this and like Liz brought up, there are four subdivisions within -- I'm going to say two to three blocks, maybe a quarter mile at the most with hundreds of lots that aren't sold and only partially developed. And so I do opposed it and that's what I have to say. Moe: Thank you very much. Brett Cash. Left with Randy. Shawn -- is that -- is it Shakori? I can't pronounce that very well C-h-a-k-o-r-i. Newton-Huckabay: S-h. Moe: Well, Linda Baker. Baker: Good evening. I'm Linda Baker at 3086 Glacier Bay Way. Nary: Would you pull the microphone down, ma'am. Baker: Most of my concerns have already been voiced by my neighbors. I am opposed to the subdivision at this time, again, because of all the vacant lots. The last bad wind storm we had dirt flying everywhere. I don't want to see that in my backyard for years to r~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 23 of 45 come. The other subdivision's been there it seems to me a couple years and there has only been one house built on the other side of Mesa. Glacier Bay -- my home is elevated from the property that we -- the proposed property right now. The fence, I believe, is five foot. I know it's not six foot. We have no windows on the second story. We would be having people looking into our yards. Incorrectly we were told before we bought our property that that property was five acre lots and could never be subdivided. Unfortunately, that was incorrect. But that was the basis that we bought our home on. Because of the wildlife back there, the view, I have my opposition at this time. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. That was all that were signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward, raise your hand and -- come forward, sir. Todd: Sorry I was a little late, I had another commitment, but Chris Todd with Landmark Engineering and Planning as well. Business address is 332 Broadmore Way. Here on behalf of John Shay, our client. The owner of this property and our client Mr. Shay wanted to do something a little bit different and unique for this area. The design and the preliminary plat that you see in front of you this evening are kind of the brainstorming efforts of the client and our firm to kind of match the goals that he was looking for and the piece of land that Mr. Shay owned. The design and the preliminary plat allowed for our client's goals to be achieved and high standards, quality design, and some superior homes. If you look through the application and the transmittal that was sent to planning and zoning, you will see some elevations of proposed housing types and elevations -- Moe: Those were all shown. Todd: And other -- also included with the application, other than those homes sites, was this color exhibit and landscaping plan. With the existing landscaping plan and the potential for the superior homes for this site, I feel that these are kind of wasted by putting in that stub street. I feel that the potential is lost with the extension of Coy Place for a variety of different reasons. I'm not going to rehash those, I think Jed went through them with the irrigation canal that's to the north and two properties -- could you show the vicinity map up one more time? Moe: Yeah. I was going to say, you're doing applicant discussions here and -- Newton-Huckabay: They have already been done. Todd: Okay. I feel that with the existing stub streets and the irrigation ditch that are there, as long -- as well as ACRD not commenting that they would like the stub street, feel that the design of this subdivision is kind of lost with the extension of the stub street and I will conclude my testimony there, because I don't want to step on any feet. Moe: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Yes, sir. l~ ~v: ~F.. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 24 of 45 ~~ ~~~,, y ~r_ M.Binford: Matt Binford, 3101 Mesa Way. So, we live on the property on the north of the developed agreement. So, one thing I -- I'm not -- neither really opposed, nor for this development. We know development's going to happen and this area -- you know, a high impact area, lots of development going on. What I'd like to point out, though, is John does a nice job, you know, he does quality development. These people you hear arguing against that development, I would think would encourage that. His home that he's going to build is going to be a nice house in this location. But beyond that, my other concern is irrigation between us and John right along this area. We flood irrigate from here down across. It catches a ditch in here. I just want to make sure that whatever they put in there is at least a three foot berm that would keep that water from going on this new development. And the other concern -- if you go back to that small lot, is this was a surprise to see it in this -- this rendering. It wasn't in the town meeting that John had and it really doesn't offer a lot of transition. All the lots across the road from Mesa Way -- these are all half acre lots, so this lot really just doesn't fit with what's currently existing. As my wife mentioned earlier, we would agree with the stub road here. The folks in Glacier Bay, their concerns are valid with the debris and all that that happens. We have lived with their development and also the development across the road. You know, that's growth, that's up to the city -- City of Meridian to decide what kind of growth they want, but that's all I have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, then. Wyatt: Jed Wyatt with Landmark Engineering and Planning, 332 Northside Boulevard in Nampa. And I tried to take some good notes. I hope that I can touch on all items here. The first one I'll address is this lot here and, yes, that is different than what was on our map in our neighborhood meeting and maybe Sonya, if I missed some of this, can explain some of the reasons why. That lot originally included these two shed structures on it, but because of some technicalities in the code and whatnot, we couldn't have a lot with a shed and not -- not a living structure mainly. So, we were planning on doing a lot line adjustment in the future and that lot will grow in size and, again, accompany those sheds. But we didn't add any lots. They are slightly configured differently, but the general intent is the same and it was just an effort to meet some of city code that we made the changes that we did for that lot. There was some concern on Victory Road and there is a little hill there and, yes, there is a little bit of a hill coming -- coming down, but it's been through ACHD. We have had engineers look at it and it's not a problem as far as sight distances. There is hills on pretty near any road you go on and it's -- the safety is not a concern with the experts that have looked at it. But that does bring up a good point with the housing that is next door. That housing is five or six feet taller than the backyards and the homes that will be say here and so, really, it's not any of the homes here that will be looking onto those, they will be looking into this. These lots are substantially larger than the lots adjacent to them anyway. Irrigation was brought up and we will insure that all the irrigation rights are met and work through that in our construction drawings and we will make sure that his historic irrigation rights are there. There is state laws that protect those and we will make sure that all his irrigation concerns are resolved. And let me look at my notes here real quick. Oh. Market 1_ ~ ~ ~ ~c as ~ ._zS ~ k Z.t`z $.~,~r: t x 1 ~ ;may ~ ,t y~» Y J V} 6', 3 ~ .,Fr ?rC,~ ~ ~2 ~~ k~M :? Z4i 'Q ti ' t 9~~~ 'r'~,; wr i `~'' e T n ``, ~ ~ •, k K l ~y !" yr1 hf ,N u2 A, ,~ i! L1q~ ~ £ 1 ~'i x; v* YX O~ -JL 1V 1:"~ Ott + G '~ ,+N~ ~ ;: ~m ~ ~ v ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~~; ,~. ~° .:c ~ Y '~F 2~M +~p fs ~, ,~` ~ri ~, ty 3.r• ~r~• ~ r4'. w `S} vsw a";. 1 ti~ ° ~n fir' ~ } .~ ;~;3 'Y Y~ty' r ~4~4 ,''~ ~~J .;gyp ~N ~ i, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 25 of 45 conditions was addressed. Three of the lots are spoken for already. There is only eight lots in here. These lots are unique, because they are quite a bit larger than anything that's around them. This isn't a -- this isn't aproject --atypical developer project, this is a landowner who wants to live on this project. It's pretty unique and it's really not a concern for the developer, the land owner. And that's all I have got from my notes. Just to touch on that, the stub road one last time, we would like to keep it a cul-de-sac for the intimacy within the neighborhood, the high quality of homes that we are proposing to build here, as well as we feel that there is -- there is ample cross-access opportunities available to the north and we thank you for your time and ask for your approval. Moe: Any other questions for the applicant, Commissioners? Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: So, what is the future intent of that lot for, the 8,600 -- you say that's going to be -- there is going to be a lot line adjustment and it will eventually connect to the sheds? Wyatt: Originally we had this lot with the home as its own lot without the sheds on it. You see that's kind of a funny shaped lot. Marshall: Right. Wyatt: And this lot, Lot 4, had the sheds on it. The city code says -- and maybe they can help me, again, to this, that we can't have that -- that lot with sheds on it without a living structure and so we put it on with this home and we hope in the future when we build a home on there that we can adjust that. Moe: Sonya, can you give us an explanation on that, please. Wafters: Yes, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. It's just like Mr. Wyatt said, city code does not allow for these structures to remain on the site without a primary residence, so they would have to be removed if it wasn't configured like it is. Wyatt: It's just a small technicality. The reason I brought it up is there was some -- some people noting that we added that lot and it was different than the neighborhood meeting. I just wanted to explain why we weren't trying to pull a fast one or anything, but that's the reason it looks the way it does. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Appreciate that. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 26 of 45 Wyatt: Thank you. Moe: Comments? Thoughts? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: These type of developments are difficult and I think we are going to start seeing more and more of them come in as we start to in fill. If -- you know, connectivity is something that they point you to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they hand you the book of good planning practice and connectivity is like number one in there to build good communities and this is the entryway, if you will, to the rest of the development along Mesa Way and I think it's critical to provide that connectivity and I would expect that any -- any -- to do anything else I think would be negligent on our part. If we said, oh, you can have a cul-de-sac to every development that wanted a cul- de-sac; there would be a lot of cul-de-sacs in the city. So, I think it's critical that that go through there. That may not be the best thing for the vision of your development, but I think it's the best thing for the city in the long run and for ultimately that area to develop as -- to its highest and best use. Understanding why lot -- I do think Lot 4 is an odd lot. Understanding why that is that way I think I'm okay with it. So, I have no -- I have no issues -- issues with that. Addressing the oversupply, I -- it's a valid concern and market conditions, but I don't believe that we have the right to tell someone that they can't do that because is oversupply on the market. I think that would be -- I'm not going to say anymore, because the attorney will tell me -- may correct me there. Probably justifiably so, but -- so, with that Ithink -- I think it's a great development. The elevations are beautiful. But I do believe it needs to stub through. That seems to be the sticking point. Moe: Thank you very much. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: Well, when I look at the lot to the north and knowing the feelings of the owners of that lot, I look at it and if they were to ever develop, they really don't have access and couldn't without that stubbing in. Right there. Yeah. This lot here. I mean if you go back to the aerial photo, please. Right there. I mean they might be able to get a -- you know, this is a separate lot, I believe. Newton-Huckabay: It is. Marshall: So, here -- they could -- they could stub in here and that's the only access they have and, what, we are going to put another cul-de-sac here? I -- I don't know what you do. I mean that -- that would be silly, you would have to stub to the north. I can't imagine not. I understand that it kind of doesn't meet the division of that little subdivision, it sounds like a very nice subdivision with a cul-de-sac. I love it. But that's ~r~ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 27 of 45 -- really, for connectivity, EMS, fire, things like that, as well as the neighbors to the north, if they are ever going to develop, they need that connectivity. Newton-Huckabay: Well, we have to leave options. Marshall: And the 8,600 square foot lot is not significantly smaller than these lots. These are not -- those are not half acre lots, those are, you know, fifth acre right in through here. I'm sure about the same size as the 8,600. So, I don't have aproblem -- I don't have a problem with Lot 4, especially considering the fact that the city code will not allow that to contain the sheds as well. Again, my one issue is the connectivity. I think it needs it. I really do. Unfortunately, I understand that it kind of goes against the idea of that subdivision and what they want to have there, but -- Newton-Huckabay: We should have stubbed somewhere in here when Glacier Springs went in. Marshall: Even if they had stubbed right in here. Newton-Huckabay: You know, we are covering 15 acres before we hit the stub. Marshall: Yeah. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: Yeah. It's a tough thing for us to decide what's in the best interest of the city, whether we approve the zoning or not. I think that we are kind of caught in a quandary of which direction to take. Stubbing that cul-de-sac out at a later time may seem like a solution for connectivity, but I think the value of the property surrounding that is going to drop considerably. I don't know who would want to buy that, especially with the size of the lots will be diminished considerably. The traffic flow will increase. But, then, again, you're going to have the need for connectivity to the property above that. So, we are kind of caught in a -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Your burden lies on helping decide what is in the best interest of the city. O'Brien: Exactly. .a .. .;.~ ~~ a ~~z >.~. ~Y„.:S K. D _:; :k~.4 ,y~ z k, Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 28 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Not what is the value of the property. O'Brien: Oh. That was just an after comment. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Marshall: I do have a quick question of Sonya. Newton-Huckabay: I'm getting corrected by the attorney, so -- Marshall: I'm sorry. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you raised a question earlier. It is within your discretion as this Commission to decide in an annexation request what's in the best interest of the city. The issue that's been raised by some of the testimony that there is an over abundance of residential housing that's already available and platted properties that are already available, is certainly within your discretion to exercise, because, again, it's an annexation request. So, it is not inappropriate for you to consider that if you want to. Again, you don't have to, but it's certainly within your purview to make that decision that it's not in the best interest of the city because of those reasons or certainly it's not a factor to you that it's -- that there is residential properties available and it's still in the best interest of the city. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Well, my question is do we have any comments from ACHD regarding the entrance there to Victory on what -- how far do they go? I didn't see an ACHD report. I assume they approved the entrance there, but was there any cautions or any comments that they gave? Wafters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner, let me pull up their report. They did approve the entrance, the access point. I'm not sure what the exact comment was, so give me a minute here. Marshall: I don't remember reading through it. It's not a separate report. Newton-Huckabay: There is not one in there. Marshall: There is not a separate report, at least that I can see, other than it was approved. I just thought maybe that would be in regard to coming down that hill and turning in and out of that subdivision and -- Moe: Right. O'Brien: Mr. Chair, if I might interject just one comment about the Ada County Highway District notations. I would like to know if that was based on the cul-de-sac without stubs ~~ ~` " ` Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 ' Page 29 of 45 _?tl, or is that -- be included in stubbing all the way through changes considerably the `~ amount of traffic that would access onto Victory Road and having driven that part of the .b ~ - ~' ~ ~ ' ~' highway for many years I can appreciate the concerns of the neighbors, but if they feel it meets their criteria, then, I don't have any issues with it. =' Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioners. In answer to Commissioner Marshall's question, there really wasn't much analysis in the ACHD report. They, basically, stated the ` applicant's proposal for the construction of Coy Place meets district policy and should ~~ ~~ be approved with this application. ;.; ,~ ~ ~'` ~ Moe: I'd like to follow that up, then, with the question that Mr. O'Brien brought up, then. Was that analysis given after, then, knowing that the city would want that street to go through -- to be stubbed through at a later day? Wafters: Prior to that. r,c 5F'E Moe: Prior to. Okay. So, ACRD only saw the -- =~s '~ Newton-Huckabay: Stub. Or the cul-de-sac. . , Moe: -- the cul-de-sac. Okay. Well, you three have commented. I guess I, myself, pretty much am in agreement with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Mr. Marshall in regards to the connectivity issue. I'm very concerned that it needs to be there. The ~j development itself, I -- you know, I -- with the amount of lots and whatnot in there, have no problem with it going forward as well. Just realizing that there is a lot of f ~ subdivisions and a lot of empty lots out -- you know, with a little different zoning all the ' ~` ~~ ` way through there. So, these are bigger lots and whatnot. I think it's a different condition all together, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's a little bit unique in the development, you know, with the type of rebuilding. Moe: But I do think it's very important that the connectivity is there and I would leave it ~~- ~ ;_~ at that. I guess there is one question I do have still of the applicant and that's based upon staffs recommendation that are dependent upon if, in fact, this Commission does make a recommendation that a stub street does go through, our time frame as far as. bringing any knew plat with the conditions noted in the recommendation that's basically our next meeting, which is in two weeks, that we got something that the applicant would ,; want to get taken care of in two weeks or is it going to take you longer or do decisions ``' Y need to be made as to what you want to do to go forward? Kind of need to have some , direction from them as well before we can decide what -- and we are still in public _~ ;-'~~ hearing open, so I want to get that -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. _~-= .~ ` ~~; _ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 "fit ~, z: Page 30 of 45 _ Newton-Huckabay: I would also like to see the fencing issue addressed when it comes back, making sure that it's a six foot fence or verifying that it is a six foot fence. Moe: Would the applicant come forward, please. ` Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, while they are making their way to the mike. _ ~ Moe: Yes, sir. ~~ ~ ~,,~ Hood: Just to keep scheduling in mind somewhat. We do have a hearing in two weeks, Sonya would need something tomorrow, probably, for first part of next week to do a revised staff report, to just keep that in mind. Also, November 6th, we are going to have potentially only three Commissioners, so keep that in mind as well, that we are going to 'r~'~: potentially have no quorum on that night. So, just to put those two concerns out there. ~.x 5; ~> Moe: Okay. ~. Newton-Huckabay: So, the soonest we would want to do anything is November 16th. ,t~ Moe: So, we can make it to that point and, then, we can go from there and -- ~., -~~` Wyatt: We could get something the first part of -- first part of next week. ~_, ~, , :~~ Moe: Okay. Okay. That will do. Thank you. Wyatt: Was there any other questions? Moe: That was it. Well, you know, while we are here, though, let's get the fencing :; ` :k details that you're looking for a little bit more ironed out. I'm sorry. f^F Newton-Huckabay: The Binfords were requesting to have the six foot white vinyl fence s ~ ~' ;~,.. ~.=v=~~ alon the north ro e g p p rty -- would be their south property line, your north property line, prior to construction. Did I get that right? Wyatt: We are planning on putting a fence there. We can put that in. It shouldn't be a problem. Newton-Huckabay: A six foot -- is the fence on the west side of the property -- how tall is that? ~ ~• Wyatt: There is one on the west and I thought it was six feet, but I got a picture of it in my landscape plan, but one of the neighbors was saying it wasn't. It's kind of up on a hill and so maybe I was mistaken in what -- it being a six foot fence. -r~; Newton-Huckabay: Will you verify -- ~~~, -~ .~t, _u; ,. :-c inn ~ ` ~y a }r ~- , ,, r~~^. ~ .. '"' fN ~..~ ~:; ..;,,~;; ~v ~ -: ~~ .r ::} ~~.:~,~ -~ ,, ~. Jl . i b _. - i V4r ~ ' ~_ :~~; ,f; ,~ ~ '` .,:~,. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 31 of 45 Wyatt: We can verify it. It's a very nice, brand new, vinyl fence. Newton-Huckabay: It's a vinyl fence? Wyatt: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. It's a white vinyl fence? Wyatt: White vinyl fence. Yeah. Moe: With your landscape drawing up here I'm kind of curious, were you -- are you doing any berming at all at the north? Basically the -- Wyatt: We were not going to do any berming on the north. There was some imgation concerns and we will do what we need to to take care of those irrigation concerns. Moe: Right. Wyatt: But we feel like our development's going to be very attractive. You're not going to have to buffer -- buffer us from -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with that. Moe: Anything else for -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I would just say for the benefit of those who testified that are higher than this property, I don't think it would be appropriate to put a burden on the developer to say you have to make your fence even higher, just because the properties to the west of you are higher. So, I would think as long as there is -- a fence in good repair, that the fence would be appropriate. I don't think -- Wyatt: I have a photo of the fence here. It's very poor quality in black and white. It's been photocopied, but the fence is -- you can pass that around if you like. Newton-Huckabay: Well, given the nature of the development you're proposing, it wouldn't be beneficial to you to have a broken down fence, but I believe the comments were wanting to have a taller fence and -- Nary: Ma'am, you can't talk from the audience. Moe: Are you okay? Newton-Huckabay: I think I'm okay. You're good. Moe: We are fine. Thank you. Okay. So -- ;~:w s~; r .. "M, .. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 32 of 45 ~}' Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public =;~~ testimony, I move to continue file numbers AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009, to the hearing ''~ date of November 20th, 2008, for the following reasons: The applicant will revise the plat to extend South Coy Place as a stub street to the north property boundary with a temporary turnaround for the fire department emergency access. The applicant shall submit ten copies of a revised plat and landscape plan to the Planning Department at "~ least ten days prior to the next Commission meeting on the November 20th date. ~~ November 20th, 2008. End of motion. ~, r ;~' Marshall: Second. :,;~:. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-012 and PP 08-009 for Shays Cove to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 20th, 2008, for the reasons as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? ; That motion carries. Y 1 Y ~:~ ~~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~~ ~~~` Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? . Moe: Mr. Nary. ` :~~~, Nary: For the -- I guess the benefit of the people that were here today to testify, you i have continued for that -- for that rendering, but are you taking testimony about those ~~ results, then, at that next hearing? Marshall: We didn't close the public hearing. Nary: Right. You have continued the hearing. I just want -- I don't know if these folks want to testify, but before they leave I thought you might want to make clear, since you ~'~ are going to be taking new evidence, that they probably could testify only about that, not ~~' '' about other stuff, just about the new information that's provided. ~ ~. ~ ':". r Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you made the motion. What would you like to do? Newton-Huckabay: Given the potential nature of the development to change, I would ~~ ~ say that we would take testimony only on the changes -- and the intention of my motion. ., {~, _ Moe: Okay. .~ ~;{ - Marshall: Second concurs. y~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nary, did we sufficiently cover that? : ,} ~r, ~+-~~ ~~f ~~:; ,, H., ,~;, ,y_'«, ._ ~'~ ~= "°' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 33 of 45 Nary: Just wanted to be sure before they left that they understood that they could testify at the next hearing, because the hearing is still open, but only about the new information that's being provided. t~ x Hood: And, Mr. Chair, before folks start to run out the door on this one, too, just a point K ;'~ of clarification for the applicant's sake. You did hear that they could provide that plat -- revised plat back to Sonya the first thing this next week, so it would be possible for them to meet our time requirements for processing this to be on the next hearing on the 16th of this month; correct? .{` ;~ Newton-Huckabay: I did not hear that, no. .p{.'t Moe: No. ~ * . ~;, Hood: Okay. That's why he was concerned that you didn't hear -- I heard him say that, but I didn't know if you took that into consideration and. just wanted to wait another four weeks to hear that or not. So, you have made the motion, you have acted on it, but that was just a point of clarification that Ididn't -- I don't know where we go from here or ~;~'. what. I don't know if anyone's left or not, but that was something that they brought up, ~" ~' so at this point maybe I'll look back to our legal counsel to see if they can rescind the '~ order-- if that's your -- I don't know if that's even a possibility, but that is what the ' ~~ '~' applicant said, in fact, was they could have something back to staff first part of this next week, again, meeting our requirements to have that on the 16th, if you so choose. Newton-Huckabay: Didn't you just say that you would have to have information by tomorrow to have it noticed for the next hearing? That's what -- where I based my .~;~ ::~T motion on. ,:~~ "`~' Hood: Yeah. Tomorrow or the first -- I mean, essentially, tomorrow. Monday -- we `~~' wouldn't do anything with it, probably, tomorrow anyways. But, yes, if they had ,t. something on Monday. At this point it's probably not worth -- Sonya would still be rushed, but she could get it done, so I -- I just wanted to make sure you heard it, but you _ didn't, so -- `..4i~- `+'1 Newton-Huckabay: I didn't and -- I mean for that reason, unless there is something more -- I would just like my motion to stand. Moe: I would agree. I would concur with that as well. ~" "' Marshall: I think we have had people leave, based on the information given. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. That's -- Hood: And I apologize for any miscommunication Ihad. I did by tomorrow -- normally '~~~ they couldn't get us something -- they are not going to go home and work on it right ;: a= ~t ~. >, ,:~- ~~;~ w~ ~~z f', a Meridian Planning & Zoning _ '' October 2, 2008 ' Page 34 of 45 ~, ?~~ " ~`~ now, but within the next couple of days isn't very typical either. So apologize for even ~r, , bringing it up, but I thought I would ask. ' Moe: You're excused. Thank you. ~~._ ~' Newton-Huckabay: Can we take five minutes? -fi::,: `~ 6 _~ Moe: What's that? _ Newton-Huckabay: Can we take five minutes? Moe: We are going to take a ten minute break. .;. : (Recess.) , f n '~~~ Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 08-024 Request for Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System by Joint School District No ~~ . 2 -1900 W. Pine Avenue: ;F ~~ ~~ Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 08-024 for ~ }- - ~ ~ Meridian High School PA system and have staff make their report. , , ~ " ~' Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission. The Conditional Use Permit before you is for two outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 district within 100 feet of a residential district, per requirement of ~~ ! UDC 11-3A-13. The property is located at 1900 West Pine Avenue, north of Pine, ~ approximately a quarter mile west of Linder Road. This is an aerial of the property. ~;f ~. ,_,~, Switch back for a minute here. To the north are single family residences in the Vineyards Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Meridian High School property, ~. N zoned C-G and single family residents. The Geile property, zoned RUT in Ada County. ~ To the east is Meridian High School property, zoned R-4. And to the west, again, is the Geile property, zoned RUT. An aerial view of the property. The ball fields are right here and right here, in relation to the residential home right here. A little history on this project. The ball fields were annexed as an R-4 zoning designation in 2006. A ` ? Conditional Use Permit was approved with the annexation for ball field lighting adjoining ~~~ ~ a residential district. A variance was also approved for exposed light bulbs in the light "' ~? fixtures on the ball fields. This is a copy of the proposed site plan. The locations of the ~ :+, $_ speakers are highlighted in yellow. The red arrows indicate the two speakers that are within 100 feet of the adjacent residence. The proposed hours of operation are from 5 : "` ~ 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. during the baseball season, March through May; during the summer season there will be sporadic games during the weekends used by youth - leagues and other community baseball groups. If other affiliations use the fields, they '~ ? must abide by the same hours of operation as the school does, as stated by the ``~~ ~ applicant. These are some photos of the existing speakers. They are mounted to the ' ~ ' light poles around the field. Written testimony was received from Paul Geile on this <' ~ ~t 2 5;: r^~ 7i,; ;; +~?~ ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ° " "'~ October 2, 2008 Page 35 of 45 ~;~ ., application. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request per the conditions of the staff report. Significant conditions of approval are as follows: The existing four speakers, two on each ball field, should be relocated either to the rear or side of the bleachers facing away from the Geile property to enable the volume level on ''` the speakers to be decreased and still meet the purpose. The applicant shall work with A t atronics, the folks who did the sound system, and staff to determine a suitable location "TM and possible shielding for the speakers that meet the intent of this requirement. The ~~~~ ~~-}_ applicant shall submit written documentation from Aatronics with the certificate of zoning compliance application that defines what volume level is appropriate for the proposed - use and proximity to the residence. An appropriate decibel level should be determined at the shared property boundary of the school and the adjacent Geile residence that - serves the purpose for announcements, but does not create excessive disturbance to the neighbors. The determined decibel level shall not be exceeded. Last, the hours of ~` operation for the proposed speaker system shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 '~, ., a.m. and 10:00 m. Staff will stand for an p• y questions the Commission may have at this ~r. ~'~~ time. Moe: Sonya, what was the time? ,; Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. f ~,~ - Moe: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? ~r:. I ~ Marshall: Yeah. Sonya, in the report somebody at staff went out to the field and looked - at new positions with somebody at Aatronics; is that correct? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner Marshall, myself and Pete Friedman in our office visited the site. Aatronics was not with us, so we just went out to !°~~ „ ,. see where everything was adjacent to the residence -- or in relation to the residence. ~~ ~.~ -.,, Marshall: And you felt there were some alternate positions that might be better suited? ~,-~ Watters: I felt there were. Currently, the -- like I said, the speakers are located on the light poles quite a distance up and out and they are positioned towards the residence and the bleachers, so I felt that they may be able to be relocated and the volume level decreased and closer to the target in the stands. ., `1 :. ° Marshall: Which would probably require the construction of a pole or something to hold ,~ ~~~~~ - them? r ,~- Watters: Probably. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. ''s=' Moe: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. . '~ ~: .; ;; ~~:~~: <; . ,, £.,, ~;e•; Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 ~` ~ - Page 36 of 45 -: ;, ~~: Kennedy: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners, last but not least -- I can't even hold it down here. Thank you for hearing our application tonight and I thank staff for working with us on here. My name is -- ~;;k ~+ Moe: Can you give your name and address? Kennedy: Okay. My name is Margie Kennedy, I'm with Hummel Architects, 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, Idaho, and I am representing the Meridian School District ~~~~~ and on behalf of the Meridian School District I'd like to address and comment on one of ~~{'~~~ the conditions of approval in Exhibit D that Sonya talked about and it's item 1.1A and it talks about relocating four speakers, so that the sound can be decreased and still meet x ~ , their purpose. The school district doesn't feel that all four speakers would create a hardship and excessive noise level at the adjacent property line. I know there is a ,.{ requirement of about speakers less than a hundred, but we do have two speakers that ,` are over the hundred foot limit from the property line and do meet the ordinances. And I must point out that that third light fixture is 95 feet away from the property line, so it's 'T~:{'~ kind of a borderline right now. So, I believe that there is just one speaker that's in ., question with proximity to our neighbor's property line. In addition, the purpose of the `r ` speakers is also to announce to the players on the field and not just the people in the ~~:~ . bleachers. With that in mind we'd like to propose to relocate, as Sonya talked about, just one of the speakers that is closest to the west property line or the Geile's house there. The condition talks about mounting the speaker on the bleachers and our only concern here -- and I think you kind of followed up with an additional pole, but we might throw out there, too, that we don't want to put them on the bleachers, because kids will ~;~ get to them and vandalize them and whatnot. So, we would like to propose to put them on the poles of the nets that are right in front of the bleachers, you know, six feet and r,`.. `~° put them at a height that brings them a lot further down than those pictures that kind of show them way up on the pole. So, we will bring it down to just above the level of the last height of the bleachers or another option here is that there is a forthcoming concessions building that's 12 feet from the bleachers. In other words the concession , ~~' building is -- let me point out to you. And this concessions building was approved in the original CUP. Just due to funding we haven't built it yet, but it's right there and the =~~ bleachers are right there. So, we do have an option of mounting speakers on that building, you know, really close and kind of getting down at the level, as opposed to _ some of those pictures that you saw way up there. So, we feel that this speaker having , the closest proximity to the property line -- you know, we will test different locations and - appropriate sound levels for the speaker, working with our neighbors, Mr. Geile, for determining the appropriate sound level for the speaker. It's not the school district's intention to blast the sound system, you know, having respect for Mr. Geile's privacy, `~' but we'd like to have a reasonable announcement system that brings to life a baseball ~ ` '~` game which includes and informs the spectators, keeping them part of the game, just as much as the players are. So, it's an important element to the ball game and we will a:' work with that one speaker that's probably a little too close to his house there. So, we have no objections to that. So, with that I thank you for your time. z; ~; - :~ ,~ ~~~'~ ~ ~n y f~ '~ ~ f~ X ~iru 3 - t - ~+1 t'~~~ v n t ~ ~. 6w ~. ~ ~ , F u V ~ k _ r' ~` ~ . Sp>~ F,~F~3; G . ~•"~ e ~~. t -'+yy~cc~~ 4 i1r+ .K ~r ti ~~ f ~a ~~ ' ; ~ ~j "~ ,~ _s r~jey~6c h ,~~~, t f . ~ ~ ~3nr~'i~, . . ~ _'~ ~~ ~eN ~ - ,,~ ,~; ~. ~~ ..+ ~~ ~. u .: r~ ~ ~`k 2 Y~ ~ f ~ ~ ~: .P./,*,~.~ ~~ } ~ r ~ ~ _ ~~~t' - } ~~ ~ ~~ ~ , , . ~~ f~ ~._ _ +` r *~? `~ y _y: y ~~ r~., ~„ ,. ,;~ ~- ~~ ':;<, ?~;r,' ~q Meridian Planning ~ Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 37 of 45 ' Moe: Margie, can you take the pointer and just kind of show where the speakers are located on the plan. Kennedy: So, that -- Chairman Moe, this one here is the one that's kind of in question, because it's -- it's real close there. This one here, you know, it's over a hundred feet and so is this one and this is the one that's like 95 feet going across there. So, I'm thinking this is the one that -- if you look back to the pictures, this is the one we are talking about right now and you can see how high it is up in the ground and up in the sky and Mr. Geile's house is down here. So, by taking that and, you know, seeing this pole with the nets on, we could either do that or the concessions building will be built right here and, you know, we can put the speaker on that building and, you know, try to aim it here, opposed to everywhere. Newton-Huckabay: Would that be a hundred feet from the residence or the property `~` ~ line? Kennedy: No, it would not be. Newton-Huckabay: How far would it be? Kennedy: I mean from here to here is probably 70 feet. I mean we are still within the hundred feet, but we would be willing to work, you know, with Mr. Geile as far as a, you know, decibel level at his property line. Marshall: I'm curious, what is this speaker pointed at right now? I mean the camera is pointed at it, right where I would be standing if I were here? Kennedy: Well, the bleachers are right here, so the theory is that this was announcing down to these people. Marshall: Is that -- is that speaker pointing away from me, then, is what you're saying? Kennedy: It's kind of pointing right at you right now. Marshall: Right. It kind of looks like it's pointing away from the bleachers. Kennedy: Oh. No, it's really -- that black is pointing to there right now. Marshall: Okay. So, it's pointing away from me. Kennedy: Yeah. I mean it's pointing towards the bleachers. Marshall: Yeah. I see -- is this the same one? Moe: See, that pole is on the other side of the bleachers. ~,~:.. ~,;,~;. <:•: F;, '': r "` . r. ;,_ ,, ~,. ,- {. -1;' _~- ~~r Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 38 of 45 Kennedy: And these bleaches here are the ones that are to the right. These are different bleachers. Marshall: I've got one eye. No depth perception there. I got it. All right. Okay. So, this really isn't pointing towards the -- the players at all, is it? Kennedy: No, but Ithink -- Marshall: There is another one pointing at the players? Kennedy: No, but I think because of the height, that, you know, the sound -- the intention of the sound is that, you know, it spreads like this, whereas if we took that speaker and moved it down, we felt like this one, the level of the noise -- you know, is addressed to here and, then, this one that's over a hundred feet and if it's kept up higher, you know, it would work enough for the players on the field. So, that I would like to keep this one up high and bring this one down low. And, you know, I have had several conversations with Mr. Geile and I know his biggest concern is the noise level and maybe I'll let him speak himself, maybe not so much as where it's at, but I think to him it's his noise level on his property. Marshall: I want to speak to an audio engineer that can help me. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Kennedy: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Paul Geile. T.Geile: May I stand with him? Moe: You sure can. Geile: My name is Paul Geile and my address is 4717 Willow Lane in Boise, Idaho. And I'm here presenting some -- T.Geile: And my name is Tom Geile. I am the one next to the speaker and I live at 2150 West Pine. Geile: He's the owner of the property. One of the -- I guess one of the things that sort of brought this whole issue to light is I happened to be there one day when Aatronics came out to test this system and I became aware of its potential. It is -- it can be incredibly loud. So, we were -- we were kind of concerned about our own welfare and living in that same house. There is, in fact, just one residence directly to the west of there. But that sits on a 20 acre parcel that's currently in the land use map as high density residential, so there is potentially another 200 doors of people that might be affected by the decision that's made tonight and when I heard what -- how loud this ~:- ti 2 ~:~;` i,'"r Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 `"` Page 39 of 45 ~; ~' ~ thing could be, we started looking immediately for a regulator to project ourselves and ~~' our future -- future development potential and what we found was that the high school is, essentially, exempt from -- from noise violation and -- or noise violation complaints ~; and, then, this thing of the CUP came up and we needed to interject any possible limitation that was going to ever happen in this CUP process and the neighbors -- we `F had a little neighborhood meeting, as imagined -- or is required, but at that meeting I, '~:~ there was some discussion of having some limitation of hours, some redesign of the system, so that the spillage wasn't as bad. We asked specifically about design work h~`~ that had been done to sort of limit the spillage and I got the impression from that meeting that, essentially, since none had been done and that wouldn't be surprising in '! the event that the school knew already they were exempt for a noise spillage violation. I .~ r~ have a quick question of clarification here real quick. Several places on the application it mentions an 8:00 -- or 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. time limitation and the very last one has '~ an 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Which of those will be in effect? The 3:00 to 10:00. Excuse ` ` me. And one has an 8:00 to 10:00. ~:, Newton-Huckabay: It's 8:00 to 10:00. fir; Geile: The 8:00 in the morning until -- 8:00 to 10:00 is what's proposed to be passed ~h~ tonight? w Newton-Huckabay: The 3:00 to 10:00 ---the 3:00 to 10:00 would be -- what they are : : : _ , : , .. saying -- would be during the school year, that's when it would most likely be used. ' _ ;~' ~~:~ Geile: Okay. We also have a kind of conceptual agreement that we will negotiate a db .:;.;. limitation and we sure would like to see that before they get a CUP passed, because it : _ ~ °~ seems kind of odd that we are going through a fair amount of regulatory process here '~' that may create something -- essentially a completely unregulated use if -- if they have the right to do whatever they would like with those speakers without anybody's ability to complain. It seemed alittle -- not very defensible for a neighbor. And the last point is the hundred foot rule is probably not as huge a concern to us as -- as how loud the thing I s,~%~ is. It has demonstrated its potential to be incredibly loud from however distant it is and '~~~~ we -- if we can get with the applicant to negotiate time of use, which seems to not be an ~ E, ,. ~~ issue, and a db limit at the property line, that would put us -- start us off in the right ~' direction. And on the question of a sound engineer, if these are proposed as separate ~' systems, each producing say a 70 db at the property line, I don't know what that will produce in combination, if they were both in use. And that's the end of my testimony. ~" T.Geile: Well, I'm, basically, in agreement with Paul. The day that they tested the ~"=~~' system -- that Aatronics tested the system -- essentially, I'm in agreement with Paul on ~~:~: pretty near all of it. The day that they tested the system I had to ask them to turn it down. I was in my yard and I -- it was unbearable. So, it could be very, very I }V - unbearable at our house. Our house from the property line to our garage is . ; approximately, oh, 30 feet. So, we are still within the hundred feet of the speaker at our home, let alone anything else. The hours of operation I don't have any problem with. '`=' And as Paul said, the decibel level at the property line, both on the west side and the Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ~;' ";_ ` Rw October 2, 2008 Page 40 of 45 north side of my property, is what we would be concerned about, which is something ~_~ "~ ~ that I would hope that we could put in this Conditional Use Permit. The speakers as to ~~~~ Mar ie talked about, movin the s Bakers off of the ole, I believe would hel 9 9 p p P getting °~~ -,-, the noise level down to a certain extent. And this one speaker that we were talking ; ~., about here on the left, it is -- it is almost turned parallel with the -- the fence, the ~~' backstop. So, it really isn't pointing too much at our house. A little bit, but not very ~y:~ much. But the other thing that I want to bring up is that this last spring I have had a real ~`'~~ good working relationship with Geoff -- Geoff Stands, is he still there -- the principal -- in returning the baseballs that come into my property from the foul balls. I returned ~ r~` approximately 30 balls, including softballs and baseballs, from the baseball and softball '`~ diamond in the back. I asked him not to have the kids climb over and we worked out a _ti very nice agreement to get that done and I'd like to continue those kinds of things with ~~~ the school. So, I'm hoping that we can work something out with a decibel level at the ,,.~ property line and we'd work from there. And I think that covers it. Thank you. :~_ Moe: Thank you very much. >~~~-~~' Moe: Gil. ~r~i ~ Maclennan: Gil Maclennan. I live at 1210 North Rutledge, which is on the -- would be fi`,a: ~ the northwest comer of the baseball field. It would be right up in the comer up there. Let's see. Right there. That's our property right there. Basically, the PA system works ~:x` :?'~ really good. This summer the hours of operations we don't have an objection to, but the db level. The other night they had things going on and Iwent -- I wish I had a db level ~ ~ thing, because it was deafening. During the weekends on -- in the -- when they rent the s ' ` baseball fields out, the other teams we had -- it was so deafening up at the softball field, .,h~ ~ which is the closest one to our house, they had one set of music going on and the `°" ~~ ~~:>;,a maintenance guys were out there running their machinery and they had it loud enough so they didn't have to have ear phones on. I came back around, because we were 4 ;'- k .,. . trying to get them to turn it down and I went by the Geiles down by the other baseball ~~~- ~ diamond and they had theirs on a different system and it was deafening. I mean literally }` °' deafening. When they have -- it's -- the PA system itself, they don't -- the voice is great. L.K. What the complaint is is -- now, I'm a musician, so I'm not objecting to music, but the ., decibel point of the music -- and some of the music that they play on that thing is just -- you wouldn't have it in your own home. And as loud as they run those things, we have it ~~ in our open home. We have gone inside, closed the doors, and it's just boom, boom, boom, boom. So, there is an issue of regulating the sound volume on it. I have no :r- '' problem at all with them using it at the baseball -- you never hear them when they are `~ ~' ` calling a game, but you definitely hear them when they crank the radio up. And they do crank it up. And that's about all I have to say, is that there needs to be some control on the sound level of what's going on and I know the high school is not always under control of it, because they lease that thing out, but I mean it is -- it's loud. Very loud. They work great. But you don't hear the game being called. What you hear is the music going on. Thank you. ~~:~ Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. i ~ ~_ Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 41 of 45 =: ~ .:, 4 Moe: Thank you. There is no one else, so would the applicant a oh. Please come ~~: forward. ' N ~ `n Stewart: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Scott Stewart, I'm the district administrator, representing the Meridian School District, at 1303 East Central Drive here ''~ in Meridian and I agree with a lot that has been shared tonight regarding the fields and . everything. If we could go to the picture of the -- of the speakers and this particular Y speaker is of concern, because Mr. Geile's home is right here and that flow goes right ' `~ out there and -- and I'm not much concerned about, as we have heard, the location, as `- much as the decibel level and that is something that -- whether we need to have the .~ ~ : ~ =~~ company come out and work with us in turning that speaker, so we don't have as much flow over the shared property line or whatever it takes, I'd like to be able to get to the ,~`~' point where we could, myself personally, go out there and work with them on an - acceptable level, so that it meets our purpose to announce the game and to serve as a public address system, but at the same time we are good neighbors as a school district z and we have been there awhile and plan on staying there and so that's what I'd like to ~z ~,,,; ~: share tonight. ~~- ~z-z`"~~ ' Moe: Well, I have a question for you, just -- maybe I'm just out of it here but public , address, calling a game, who's doing the music? Stewart: Commissioner, the spirit of baseball and baseball games, a lot of times between innings as a batter comes up, a lot of times they will have a little blurp of ~~ music, that can be regulated. Also, the field maintenance that occurs are the kids. We `_:~` don't have a number of maintenance people out there working, the kids work it, when "' ' ~ they are working after a game or something, they turn music on for entertainment. Now, ~ ~ ~` I think we probably all could agree that the choice of their music would not be our choice, but at the same time the decibel level would be the concern. I'd like to be able to work with our vendor. Aatronics to get some sort of a mechanism where we have "° '. control where there is a limit to the volume that can be done on that -- those systems, so that even if they were to crank it, it would crank well less than that, but that was -- `~ Moe: That's my concern, you have got two neighbors here and they are off the sides of ~ the field and they are both having -- they are both here with the same complaint. - Stewart: And those are two different systems. Correct. And that's what we would like to address as well. Any further questions? -~~ Moe: Thank you. Well, everyone in the audience has spoke, other than the applicant ~j ~ now may come back up and address the issues that have been brought. ~.~ ,~ti ',~ Kennedy: Chairman, Commissioners, Margie Kennedy again. I just want to comment that when the system was new and first brought out, my guess is that it probably was abused a little bit, kids get their new toys and they crank them up too high and I don't believe that there is probably been a policy with the district as far as how loud it can be T ; t.f mss, f~~K ^:-; P+' ,, r;. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning _ October 2, 2008 .: ' Page 42 of 45 . , `~~'~` yet and so we are kind of working our way through this, kind of seeing what the ~~ Commissioners and staff would do and, then, we are going to need set up policies for J, hti;``"3u the students who will be supervised by faculty members. So, I think what they heard was a new toy and it will be brought down and we will try and limit it to the games and - try not do so much maintenance and an ongoing thing, because the idea is that it is for the baseball games. Si ~~.~: Moe: Is there the possibility that the school district and neighbors and Aatronics can all get together and review the decibels at the property line to see how we can regulate the ~~ whole system to make sure it doesn't go -- ~~. .,~ Kennedy: I have got control of one myself personally, so I have one to go out there just .: ~ to see what the sound level is, even with the one high up in the air, just, 'you know, out of curiosity to see how it is and after speaking with Aatronics, they did tell me that the k; system they have is controllable and can set limits on it, so knowing that I can do that, thi k h n t at we should be able to come to an agreement. z,, " `' Moe: My concern is putting the one speaker on the pole of the backstop and getting it ~ ~ ~ down low enough to be below the top of the bleachers and, then, it was probably going to be in site of someone watching the ball game and they are not going to want that { either, so putting it on the concession stand is probably a better idea there. v : ~ Marshall: Again, I don't care if they don't move them. The issue, I think, is not to hit a , , t~ decibel level that doesn't bother neighbors and I think the whole idea behind moving = them, the suggestions of where they go, things like that, were simply ideas on how to ~ ,~ control that and if Aatronics can come in and control one of the speakers over the other, ~ I guess through balance -- you know, just stereo; right? They can just change the , balance and push it more towards one than the other. I don't know -- or maybe they ~~ _ have some other means of doing that, but whatever it is, if they can control it to everybody's satisfaction, I think that's the issue. ~` ~;~" Moe: Any other questions of the applicant? "~ ~~ - Newton-Huckaba : I don t have an y y questions of the applicant. I would just say that someone who works in the sound industry for my paid job, I'm pretty confident that Aatronics has a lot of things in their tool box to fix this issue and they have db, they have hertz, they have frequency, they have lots of things that -- at their disposal that they can use to make this system I'm most certain more palatable in putting db levels at :; k~~, -- so, I'm comfortable there. I guess my question is more procedural in how do we proceed forward on this with the unknown of how it's going to be resolved? We can't really- issue a Conditional Use Permit with a bunch of open-ended solutions or potential "'~ '"" solutions, I don't think. Moe: Well, we can -- I would anticipate we could probably just continue this hearing until said time that Aatronics has been out to the site and they have made some changes and we can get verification of those changes. ;_ „~; ..; a,._~,~~ ~_k, - x~Y~: . l~v i,. ~, ~ - ~ - i.' Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 43 of 45 Newton-Huckabay: Have we ever continued a CUP before? Moe: No, but we can probably get some instruction from the gentleman down at the end of the table here. Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no different than any of your other hearings. You can continue it for that specific evidence and, then, obviously, offer the ability to come and testify about that new evidence. I would agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that without knowing specifically where these would be located or how that would be impacting to the neighbors, you really couldn't go forward without that. So, I don't know if -- it seems like two weeks might be a little rapid to get that information, but you certainly can continue it, that's not a problem. I don't imagine they are using it much right at the moment anyway, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I was going to say, I think that we are not in the midst of high school baseball season. Nary: Right. Moe: Any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: I think I have said quite enough for one day. Moe: Before the applicant left so quickly here -- I guess I want to get -- get an opinion. Would you have a problem, you know, with some time limit as far as getting Aatronics and you folks together to see what can be done and get the sound levels down to a point where neighbors might be okay with the system? Kennedy: Uh-huh. Chairman Moe, I think that -- you know, that November 20th hearing date, I think that would be something we could shoot for. Moe: Excellent. Perfect. Thank you very much. Kennedy: All right. Thank you. Moe: It had to be on the record. That's why you had to come back up, so -- Marshall: Should we leave the public testimony open? Newton-Huckabay: I believe so. Moe: Yes. I believe so. So, having said that -- Marshall: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number CUP 08-024 to the hearing date of November 20th, to provide time for the ?k;.',. .~~:~.~ . ,_` t;` >' x u; _„6; ~' e ~F ~: -rl ~'". k ~~ p ,k~ pf _S~d,£ 4 F - ~~ ~";f ;: w.;,:t r_,. 7;I =, ..~. <' -:: ; ~t; ~y ~=~; <,i ~, : ~?~;. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 2, 2008 Page 44 of 45 school district and the neighbors to get together and get a hold of Aatronics and come to some type of mutual understanding as to the decibel level that would be acceptable to everyone involved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if Commissioner Marshall would consider for his motion that it be a sound engineer, in case Aatronics, for some reason, isn't available, they could still use a sound engineer, rather than one specific business IS -- Marshall: Any sound engineer. Nary: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 08-024 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of November 20th for the purposes as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, before your last motion, if I can ask one more clarification question. You make it a motion, said all parties involved, I assume you're referring to the two -- three parties this evening that testified, not necessarily everyone that mayor may not be within 300 feet. Marshall: That was correct. Hood: Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Moe: Okay. Now, you can make that motion. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjoum. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:17 P.M. - ri _;F~~~ .°:; G < rya r raw 'sue .-a: ,g .4. `. <:;: { . r: ~... j.:,d:= ~`', y C ,. f{ ~i ~ 4 ~^ ,_ 1~> c ~. }~ e (': - 7. i•~~~., -t'F~"i . f '~ ~1 ~~.`:. .. ~x. ~;. ~,. ~;` ~ ~~-~: ~; ,_ ~l; ~ ~: <.~; t September 29, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~A REQUEST Approve Minutes of September 18, 2008 Planning 8~ Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY ~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. .*, ~s: . September 29, 2008 CUP 08-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT Kinsan Chgn ITEM NO. 3~B REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 10,995 square foot restaurant in a C-G zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for this site for Great Wall Restaurant - 2590 N. Eagle Road ~,~~, AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AtFached Findings CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. =a~ ; ~`'~ q' x ~'% CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIAN~--- LAW AND ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit fora 6,772 Square Foot Restaurant per Requirement of the Development Agreement, by Kinsan Chan. Case No(s). CUP-08-022 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 18, 2008 (Findings on October 2, 2008) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, 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. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-022 Page 1 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 Chairman of the Commission 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, Building Elevations, and Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, 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 ', 4r~ adopted, it is hereby ordered that: ` ~^; ;;I 1. The applicant's Conditional User Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site - Plan and Landscape Plan, attached in Exhibit A of the staff report dated September 18, "'` j~ 2008, is hereby conditionally approved; and, . ;«~~ ~~~--:=a 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff ' Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, incorporated by reference. 1 ;,':: D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits ~~~ Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration r,,; ~: Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a °' maximum eriod of ei teen 18 months unless otherwise a roved b the Ci ~~ ~. p ~ ( ) pP Y ty. 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 -a: 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 ~ ~ ~ - 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 a 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 ''r;~; Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may ~ v ," CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-022 '''" Page 2 ?~~ ~'. ~ .~ r, ~~ ~. ~ . :ia„ : ~~^ , ~Hx j ~s~ ~ (> t, ii~ `"1R1~ ; M..'~.k' _ t~FC 1 _ ~ ~~~• 1 ~.1 ~. l ~ RN' ~' i~l .~~ f Lam,: siP y„ kn ~ S Y ~~ ~ -~ - rt ~~ '' . ( ''.`-~ ~~ ~ ~a ~ ' ~ ~. _ v ~ 4 ~# t * + ~t~ 1 - 1~ rha'"~ ~~yyy f Ian f} }pp}} 9Y ~a r~lf tN4S x~s~~ ~ ~ti yam, - ~2~F E is jYi.~~t s ~~ T +. w jj~~" ~ iii ~ ~ ~ F~ .3 ~~ f ~1 ~~ ~,i'~ _ ., ~yx a ~.,~~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ t.. : ._. ;~: '.~ , s ?'~ require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code ~-~ (Y, Title 11. \~ ~. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis f'' 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. " `, :;`z 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 r ~~r for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for =` ;~~ Judicial Review maybe filed. ~~ ~ . '`~t~~ ~ 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 r 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 September 18 2008 ~ ~',~~ . '_,~ , . ;.; ; ".'S; "!. ~a „:= `~ ~ + 1~ 4 . . ~4 i ~ ~ Y~ }:i ', t,~ : r-' i''~ ~ n r~ i~ ~g~s^y,; ~ ~ . d# ~`''` ' ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~~':: CASE NO(S). CUP-08-022 Page 3 ~ ~~~~ r ~` ~-;: , -.:~, i` " .,_! :F; ~, ~ h ',f k '.- .:y-; By action of the Planning & Zonin Commission at its re lar meetin held on the °~ g Su g • w~~ day of ~~ `~l7 ~t ,Y' , 2008. , ~< rr i1 ,,, :, - COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) ~-~ COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED u; r '' COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED ~., -~~ ~ ~`~~' COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED__~ `~~ ~ COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED t _ ~~ ,~, :w F '~ N D ID MOE 'q~L ttest: .~ C~' ~ r~ ~, o '~, SEAL = °~ ~ a Green, Deputy City Clerk ,9 ~~ Q ~. ~T ~ ~ ` • ~ 1 9 ,, -,,~ c ~oP,,,, -, out . ,,, , ,, Copy served upon Applicant, The Plariniiig~D~~i 'artment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. ~. _~ E,, t =, ~ ~ ~ .~, 3 ~" ~~ BY~ Dated: f ~ ~ ~- - City Cl 's Office <~ h CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-022 s,~ Page 4 ~~ ~+t~ . z~~: ;: '.,:_ f ., ~.,: , ; , <: ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SE ~R 1 ~4, g -,,\ - ~~ --t ~I ~_-~ i, "~~~~ STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: September 18, 2008 {{ ~~P ~ r ~~o~ 'r, „`Jtl ] ~u~ ~~G° !{U'C _. ry~i~1l~`1V~,'J TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 I ~ ~ FI {~ . SUBJECT: Great Wall Restaurant ;;; • CUP-08-022 j~~, Conditional Use Permit fora ~ n~ 6,772 square foot restaurant, per ~~~"~ requirement of the Development Agreement ~,: 1 z '`~::~. • DES-08-019 Design Review for structure/site located adjacent to an entryway corridor, per requirement of UDC 11-3A-19B 1. 5UIVIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ,' ~ The Applicant, Kinsan Chan, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a i n °.,;~. - 6,772square foot restaurant in an existing C-G zoning District. A CUP is required because of the ' Development Agreement (DA) in effect for this site (Redfeather Subdivision No. 2). Design Review ~s, ~ approval of the proposed structure and site is also requested because of the site's location adjacent to an entryway corridor, per requirement of UDC 11-3A-19B. ` °, ~ The site is located on the east side of Eagle Road, approximately 1/3 mile south of E. Ustick Road. -~ This property was annexed as part of Redfeather Subdivision No. 2 in 2003/4 but was not included ;' ~: within the preliminary plat boundary; the subject property consists of one un-platted, 1.21 acre parcel '~ of land zoned C-G. ~~;~~, 2. 5UIVIIVIARY RECOMMENDATION fT ~~ ~ The subject applications (CUP-08-022 & DES-08-019) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested CUP & DES ` 4 applications below and recommended conditions of approval for the CUP application. Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-022 for the Great Wall Restaurant, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in ::~~ °'` Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Note.• Per UDC 11-SA-2, Design rte, Review (DES) applications are approved at the administrative level by the Planning Director. However, because DES approval is requested concurrently with the CUP, Staff has included analysis ~~; ~' ~'' ~ ~`~'~ on the DES request in this staff report; the DES application does not require Commission action. The Meridian Planning and Zonnns Commission heard this item on September 18 2008 At the public hearinst. they moved to approve CUP-08-022 a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: ~_ `` i. In favor: Mike Fairchild ,,;~, r ii. In opposition: None a,,.. ~; iii. Commenting: 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 Commission Chans?es to Staff Recommendation• t£r k er~~.`.~~ ~' ` Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 1 :; ~, ;4''~ ;:&: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 i. Approved per the revised site and landscape plans and buildznst elevations presented at the hearing and included in Exhibit A. 11. Install 6-foot tall chainlink fencinu alnnu the north nrnnprty hnnnr~arv arii to the South Slous:h, per UDC 11-3A-6B3 as required in condition of approval #l.l.e in Exhibit B. <~ 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS .~ :, ` Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- r " ? 022 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, with the following ' ~" modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to `u~,, direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and ~~~ _ "=; Zoning Commission meeting on October 2, 2008. `` Denial ~_ After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-08- 022, as presented during the hearing on September 18, 2008, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain 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 Zoning Commission meeting on October 2, 2008. '.~~ ~_;;F:,~' Continuance "' `` ` After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 08-022 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you ~~;~k should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ,~' 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS ,~'.,~ a. Site Address/Location: ~~. ~ I `~~~=" The site is located on the east side of N. Eagle Road, approximately 1/3 mile south of E. Ustick ~~~J'i~~. ~1 ~ ,;:: Road (Parcel #S1104233802) Northwest '/a of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 East `" b. Owner: ~'; Kinsan Chan 2064 S. Doe Creek .~~ fi Boise, ID 83709 ~. l k =" c. Applicant: Same as Owner ;` d. Contact: Mike Fairchild ~-=~~ 1518 Mulligan Street °~`'' ~ Middleton ID 83644 :~., , ~' e. Present Zoning District: C-G (General Retail & Service Commercial District) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Regional (MU-R) ~' - f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 2 ,e..r s 3;~ T -~ s +~ . „~ ~ ~iti N4 ~jl "t ~ ~ ~~ P~ ~ ~ ~," r ~~ J n „s ~'i~' e », ~& c~ y~.;,,s ~: :;'~: ~? Vii. :: a ~- -_r.~~~ ;;' =A:1 ~:i. -, r ; ;,. _~ ,~~ „•~ ~.~ ~ f'' ~.Y4L•< ... :r ", ..,fy -~, ,~,' t~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 approval for a ~&9~-5 6,772 square foot restaurant for Great Wall Chinese Restaurant, per requirement of the DA for this site. Design Review approval is also requested for the proposed structure and site, per requirement of UDC 11-3A-19B. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: Taken from Applicant's narrative: "This project will be developed in coordination with adjacent developments to insure overall continuity of secondary roads, pedestrian walkways, landscaping, and in agreement with prescribed Planning Department goals in this area. Building design standards will also be adhered to." See Applicant's narrative for more information. 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 Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11-SA-2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute design review as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SA-2D, this type of application is approved at administrative level by the Director. c. Newspaper notifications published on: September 1, and 15, 2008 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 22, 2008 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 27, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The subject property is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The north boundary of the site is adjacent to the South Slough. The property to the north of the South Slough is being developed commercially. There are a few existing and vacant residential properties to the south. The property to the east was recently approved for apartments. Lastly, the property to the west across Eagle Road contains single-family residential uses in Carol Subdivision and office uses in Stokesberry Subdivision. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Existing residences that were annexed with Redfeather Estates No. 2, zoned C-G 2. East: Vacant; recently approved multi-family residential development (Regency at River Valley), approved for 204 residential units, zoned R-40 3. South: Vacant; recently approved development (Regency at River Valley), approved for commercial (C-C) zoning -pending DA approval 4. West: Single-family residential properties in Carol Subdivision, zoned Rl (Ada County) & R-2; and offices (Stokesberry Subdivision), zoned L-O d. History of Previous Actions Pertaining to this Site: • This property was annexed (AZ-03-021) in 2003 with a C-G zoning district as part of Redfeather Subdivision No. 2. A Development Agreement (Instrument #104129529) was approved and recorded with the annexation that included provisions for development of the property. Specific DA provisions are as follows: 1) Any future uses of the property are required to be approved through the CUP process; 2) Either a public or private backage street generally paralleling Eagle Road shall be incorporated into the design of future site plans; and 3) A conceptual master plan demonstrating interconnectivity, transitional uses, access points, and other key land planning issues is required prior to any Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 3 r2: ~~ -n E~i ;T s.rS' ,9; :,~: ~: _r~' ;~f ~~• is ~. ~~,!: ,; ~. ~ -``^ .. <'.4; `: a ',~; >~,- ;~~,_;.. CT1'Y OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 1 S, 2008 detailed CUP applications being submitted on either the Bryson or Schrammeck properties for the C-G zone. • A Variance (VAR-OS-004) was approved earlier this year for a temporary access to Eagle Road for this site. Temporary access was granted until such time as access becomes available to the site from either the north or the south. At such time, the temporary access shall be removed and the required street buffer landscaping adjacent to Eagle Road shall be constructed. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: 12 inch sewer main is located in Eagle road running through the North West portion of this property under the South Slough Location of water: 12 inch water main is located in Eagle road running through the North West portion of this property under the South Slough Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on the site. 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The South Slough runs across the northeast corner of the site. 5. Hazards: No hazards are known to exist on the site. The South Slough is to the north of the property. 6. Existing Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) 7. Parcel Size: 1.21 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: i n~ 6,772 square feet 2. Hours of Operation: 11 am to 10 pm g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 22 2. Parking spaces provided: 56 (including 2 handicap stalls) 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 Per UDC 11-3G6B, one parking space is required per 500 square feet ofgross floor area in commercial districts; the proposed parking exceeds this requirement. h. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A minimum 35-foot wide buffer is required to be constructed along N. Eagle Road, an entryway corridor and principal arterial street. Landscaping within the street buffers shall comply with the landscaping standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required along the east property boundary adjacent to the future multi-family development (Regency at River Valley) 3. Other landscaping standards: Parking lot landscaping is required in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 4 ;~.; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 i. Required dimensional standards for the C-G zone, per UDC 11-2B-3: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS' C-G Front setback in feet 0 Rear setback in feet 0 Interior side setback in feet 0 Street landsca buffer in feet Local 10 Collector 20 Arterial 25 En a corridor 35 Interstate 50 Landscape buffer to residential uses in feet "* 25 [see note below] Maxmum buildin hei ht in feet 65 Maximum building size without design standard approval as set forth in 11-3A 3 in s uare feet 200,000 Parking requirements See Chapter 3 Article C. off-street parking and loading re uirements Landsca ing re uirements See Cha ter 3 Article B. landsca ing re uirements '*All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted Transportation Plan. "°minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. ***Where the adjacent property is vacant, the Director shall determine the adjacent property designation based on the Comprehensive Plan designation. ~~,, ,1 ;. j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access for this site is proposed from one temporary access point to/from N. Eagle Road previously approved with VAR-08-004. Upon development of the parcels to the south, a backage road will be required which will provide access to the subject property via cross-access easements from the future extension of River Valley Street. Staff and ITD are supportive of the proposed temporary access to/from the site via Eagle Road as approved with VAR-08-004. Please see Staff's comments below in Section 10, for more information. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On August 29, 2008, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present included: 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 The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Mixed Use - ~~ ~ } Regional." In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, mixed use areas generally provide for a ~.K~ combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of the mixed use designation is to identify key areas which are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design ti~~ opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. ;~„ , The purpose of the MU-R category is to designate areas at prominent corners of major arterials for developments that provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential or public uses. The ~a Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 5 E~~ +{Mk ~, r.; .~ ~ ~ - . a d '~~~ ti ;,.y'i ~ ~~ y ~ ^t t * ~ i f Hr d :~~,~. - rb ~ ark ~ - i~ ~p$ C , 4t ?, F ..F p~~ ~,~p i+ 4l {~~rt ~' t t i' ~ - ykF-+i' , c 4r i~ f y-"... •. f ,'i L tl +}r- r T, '4`~G i ~!~' .! r: K } 3r ~• y ~ -. 9 P k.-~,Y~ , ~ ~ ~ pzr~'.'~~3 ~ ~' •i. `'~~ycn~ ? ` F r. . ,1 ~N' {' i~'1 L `f C ~ 3~`~~ {~ J ,I_:., ~c1.c ~~ .°3'S y .,,.r 5? } ~q~ t . . ._, ,= ~_~ ~, ~~= _? „'. ~: -~~ ~~: ~~. ', is ,,, '`: ~- ,s. xw. ", '.f: -: , •.Y 1 :; ' ~,; ~r~;;-. ~y ~.:,~ ~;: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The detailed standards for the category provide an incentive for public and quasi/public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. The following standards will apply to this category: o Residential uses shall comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre o Retail uses shall comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area o There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses o All developments shall have a mix of at least three of the four types of uses: retail, non-retail commercial, public/quasi-public and residential o Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the developer maybe eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: - Supportive public and quasi-public uses would include parks, plazas, outdoor dining and gathering areas, open space, environmental restoration, libraries, public schools, etc. - All such areas must be open to the public and not limited to patrons of the development. - For land that is being donated (or nominally sold) to the public, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible fora 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a five-acre library site, the project would be eligible for ten additional acres of retail development. - For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park, tot-lot or playfield, the developer is eligible fora 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area, the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. - For plazas that are integrated into a retail project, the developer shall be eligible fora 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point (such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza, the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. Sample uses include: All 1VI[T-N (grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional offices, medicaUdental clinics, retaiUgift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, public uses) and MU-C (clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station, department stores) categories, entertainment uses, major employment centers, clean industry. Staff believes that the proposed restaurant use of the property is consistent with the MLT-R designation. (please see Analysis, Section 10 below for more information). Staff fords the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis below policy in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 6 }. `' -' ' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 ` 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 subject ~-~ '~- ~~~ property 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. ~, _ ~~ - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department '~ (MPD). - The roadway adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the ~~:~' - -` Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This :: service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. ,~ Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided 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. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of ~`"<<` existing access points on arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action item 12) Upon development of the properties to the south of the subject property, a backage road will _ be constructed for access to the site and cross-access will be required for all properties for access to/from the future extension of E. River Valley Street. Until such time, the site was _"" = approved a temporary access to Eagle Road. ~ ,x`~ When this property was annexed with the Redfeather #2 development, the City planned for inter-connectivity between the subjectproperty (the Schrammekproperty) and the property to the north (the Bryson property). Since that time, the Gateway Marketplace development was - . approved north of the Bryson property. At that time, cross-access was required to be granted ' ~* to the Bryson property for future access. Also, when the Bryson property develops, Allys Way will be required to be extended along the east property boundary, which will also provide =~ `~ access to the site. Staff does not believe that it is necessary or feasible to require the 'Y ~ applicant to construct or share the cost of a bridge across the South Slough as access will be ., provided to both properties without the need for access to an arterial street (Eagle Road). - • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along N. Eagle Road, a principal arterial - ` ~ ~ street. Said buffer should be landscaped in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11- y,fi 3B-7C and installed prior to occupancy of the proposed building on this site. ~~ • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) This property is currently in the City and is able to be provided with City services. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." ., (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) ~ ~;,~ . Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 7 .:~. ,~; ~,- ~:~. . ~,, ~.: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 Staff believes that the proposed restaurant will contribute to the variety of uses in this area of the City. • Chapter V, Goal I, Objective A, Action 11 -Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, South Slough ...etc.) throughout commercial, industrial, and residential areas. The South Slough crosses the northeast corner of this property. Staff' does not believe that improving the creek is necessary as most of it is off-site. However, Staff does believe that the waterway may present a safety hazard to small children visiting the restaurant. For this reason, Staff is recommending that fencing be installed along the north boundary of the site. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) Internal parking lot landscaping is proposed with this application and should be installed -% and maintained in accordance with the applicable standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7 and 11- 3B-8. - Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible ~-; ;: with the existing and future surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any '~~""` verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the ~~~'~ applicant's request is appropriate for this property. °~`~" 9. ZONING ORDINANCE '. ' _ ' a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted, ~_ ~~ accessory, and conditional uses in the C-G zoning district. Restaurant uses are principally ). permitted in the C-G district. The Applicant is requesting a CUP per requirement of the DA for - all future uses on this site. i b. Purpose Statement of the Commercial Districts: The purpose of the commercial districts is to (' ~, ~ .~ provide for the retail and service needs of the communi 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 10. ANALYSIS ~~ a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the CUP '_'~ request as proposed, with the following comments: CUP: The applicant is requesting CUP approval in accordance with the DA requirements for Redfeather Subdivision No. 2. Per the DA, "All future uses of the property shall be approved only through the CUP process." The applicant has submitted a site plan (dated: 9/08, prepared by Mike Fairchild, labeled as Sheet Al) and building elevations (dated: 9/07, prepared by Mike Fairchild, labeled as Sheet A3) showing how the property is proposed to develop with a X9-5 6,772, square foot Great Wall Chinese Restaurant. (The applicant s narrative states that there will be a drive-thru window associated with the restaurant; however, the drive-thru was not called out on the site plan or discussed in their pre-application meeting. Staff discussed with the applicant the details of the proposed drive-thru. The applicant stated that the owner wanted the drive-thru t~: window to be located on the east side of the building; however, there is not sufficient room for a 2-way drive aisle for the parking area and adrive-thru. The applicant decided to withdraw the request for adrive-thru window for this reason.) Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 8 CTl'1' OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 Conceptual Master Plan: The DA in effect for this site requires a conceptual master plan to be submitted prior to any detailed CUP application to demonstrate interconnectivity, transitional `~ uses, access points, and other key land planning issues. The applicant has submitted a conceptual '' ~ master plan which includes the subject property and the properties to the south (see Exhibit A.5). ~` This plan shows a common drive aisle for access to all of the properties on the south side of the ^<:~: South Slough from the future extension of E. River Valley Street. It also shows the recently approved Regency at River Valley multi-family residential development to the east. Staffbelieves ;r that the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated how development of the subject property will tie in with those to the south and east when they develop. :~ The DA requirement for a conceptual master plan to be submitted was intended to apply to the subject property (referred to a Shrammek) and the Bryson property to the north across the South -'~ ; Slough. A bridge across the South Slough was originally planned for interconnectivitybettyeen Y1 these properties. Due to the development that has taken place and/or been approved for the property north of the Bryson property and the property east and south of the subject property (Regency at River Valley) since the site was annexed, Staff believes that interconnectivity and cross-access has been provided to the subject property and the Bryson property as intended, ' although not exactly the way the City had envisioned. Also, there is only about a 30-foot long section of the South Slough that crosses this site at the northeast corner of the property, the rest of ~` the South Slough is located off-site. For these reasons, Staff is not recommending the applicant be `a? ., required to construct or submit a road trust for a bridge across the South Slough. -~` ' Dimensional Standards: Per UDC 11-2B-3, there is no required front, interior side, or rear ~~ setback in the C-G zoning district. Where landscape buffers are required, buildings must be setback at least the width of the required buffer, regardless of the required setback. ` ''~ ~ ~;~~-:~~ The maximum buildin hei t ul the C-G district is 65 feet• the restaurant is ro osed to be a g ~ ~ p P maximum height of 24 feet, which complies with this requirement. The maximum square footage ~. ''. I of structures in the C-G district is 200,000 squaze feet without design standazd approval. c,~^' ` Access: Access for this site is proposed from one temporary full-access point to/from N. Eagle Road previously approved with VAR-08-004. Upon development of the parcels to the south, a backage road will be required to be constructed along the east boundary of all of the properties , from the future extension of River Valley to the subject property. This backage road will provide ~;~ access to the subject property via cross-access easements across the pazcels to the south. An ~`~2~ access (bridge) to t$e north is not proposed for interconnectivity and cross-access to the Bryon property and Staff is not requiring one be provided. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B, in commercial districts, one off-street parking space is required ~'` ` per 500 squaze feet of gross floor area. Based on the total squaze footage of the proposed structure :~,~ 08;993 6,772 s.f.), 22 parking stalls are required; 56 spaces aze proposed to be provided. Additionally, per UDC 11-3C-6G, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces, or portion thereof, in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Per this requirement, a minimum of 2 bicycle spaces are required to be provided ;;. on the site. ,~,.. 4';:; Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the site plan included in Exhibit A.2 submitted with this application. The following items should to be shown on a revised site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application: • Per UDC 11-3C-6G, provide a minimum of 2 bicycle pazking spaces on the site in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. • Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Road; ,:~ revise plan accordingly. The buffer shown scales out at approximately 34 feet in width. Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 9 :~: Y'.t' r ;i, rc~ S ~ ~+~ ~. ~`r`~ ~+ S ~ , `, t ~ °"°~~ __ . ~ ~ ~ =`' '' ~ k r- ~ a ~~~ ~, ~% „'~F~s,;~o s eg ~ ~: ,r i~ ~~~i9;~_. h ~ < ~s ~ s ~; 4c; "~ `' i. ' ~ ~ ~= ~, s ~'1 ~ ~} a~ -~.$ r, ~ , > ~~`i~ { ~ i "ht 5 I ~~3 ~. '~ f ~ ~ :.a+-: e , ~ r ~: A } }'. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 • Either widen the landscape buffer adjacent to the row of parking along the south property boundary to 7 feet to allow for vehicle overhang and shorten the stall lengths to 17 feet or install wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent vehicle overhang into the landscape area, per UDC 11-3C-SB4. • The trash enclosure is depicted within NMID's easement for the South Slough; the trash enclosure should be relocated outside of the easement unless approved in writing by NMID prior to CZC submittal. Landscaping: Staff has reviewed the landscape plan, included as Exhibit A.3, submitted with this application. The following items should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance: :4,;~ • Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Road; -; revise plan accordingly. The buffer shown scales out at approximately 34 feet in width. • Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the future multi-family residential development as ~~* shown. Said buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the standards listed in UDC . 11-3B-9C for landscape buffers to adjoining uses. Per these standards, all buffer areas : ~3'r shall be comprised of, but. not limited to a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, ~~~~'~ ~-. lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The required buffer area shall result in a barrier 4 ' that allows trees to touch at the time of tree maturity. Revise the plan to comply with this • w- < ~i: requirement. • Two trees are depicted within NMID's easement for the South Slough; these trees shall ' =I be relocated elsewhere on site outside of the easement unless approved by NMID. ~_~-> ~~ • Per UDC 11-3B-8C2d, each interior planter that serves a double row of parking spaces ,FBI shall have at least two trees. Add trees accordingly in the planter islands on the north and ~,;? south ends of the double row of parking on the east side of the building. ~, • Either widen the landscape buffer adjacent to the row of parking along the south property r . boon to 7 feet to all dary ow for overhang and shorten the stall lengths to 17 feet or install I wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent overhang into the landscape area, per UDC 11-3C-SB4. • Per UDC 11-3B-8Clb, the perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one tree per 35 linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Per this requirement, ~ ~<~ add one additional tree within the buffer along the south property boundary. • Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on implementing the proposed protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. The Applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, Parks Department, for confirmation of the caliper inches of trees to be mitigated and approval of the tree mitigation plan. Multi-Use Pathway: Per UDC 11-3H-4C3, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along SH 55 (Eagle Road). Said pathway shall be placed within a public use easement and streetlights and landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the Eagle Road Corridor Study. According to the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the City's multi-use pathway system is not planned to cross this site. A portion of the pathway is planned along the north side of the South Slough to the east of this site on the Regency at River Valley property but does not follow along the South Slough all the way to the subject property. Instead the pathway crosses the South Slough at a bridge and extends south to the future extension of River Valley Street and goes west to the Eagle/River Valley intersection. Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 10 ,_y r i i~ w ear:' h ~} ~ r aG' t fi . :. ..r %~1'r' .'S to ~ ~~ .. ~t xj ~hr a 3'~ \;w M.Y.. r~ ~.~~~~ a~ _ f '~ ,, ~ r ~~~ t '_ i _ 7 it- w a` c{ t~ ~' r ¢~. ., i k,: L ~ R~ ~ 3 ' ! C~ b~' f.~~? ,. F ,. cry ~r~ s R ` r k ~ Y ~^ r ',t~ 1 a 1 ~ Y •: y ~ /4VF~ ~7r p yV'~z~ ~~~ 44 y ( X i ~W~. ` 5`i i - l ~Y 7 1 _ y 1. ;W ~}y~}, C ~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are from 11 am to 10 pm. Staff does not object to the proposed hours of operation. Easements: An NMID imgation district easement for the South Slough runs along the north boundary of the site. No structures may be built or landscaping installed within this easement unless approved by NMID. Fencing: No fencing is proposed with this application. The South Slough crosses the northeast corner of the site and is adjacent to the north property boundary. There is an existing irrigation district easement for the South Slough along the northern boundary of the site. Because Staff feels that the South Slough may present a safety hazard to small children visiting the restaurant, Staff is recommending that the applicant install fencing in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6B3 generally along the north property boundary as allowed through a license agreement with NMID. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: The South Slough runs adjacent to the north/northeast boundary of this site and crosses the northeast corner of the site. Per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, which ',; intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. The South Slough is a ~" '=` natural waterway and will remain open. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the South Slough should a''~ ` 'I be improved and protected with development of this properly. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to improve the South Slough with development of this site as most of the waterway is ``~., =~ located off-site. However, Staff is requesting that fencing be installed along the northern boundary of the site to prevent small children from accessing the waterway (see above). '`ti'p`' Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be `~` ~`v supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing 4:~',;. surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle- `~~"` oint connection to the c 5° ; , i p ulinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas `'`'.- ~ prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in '~ accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Building Elevations: Building elevations for the proposed restaurant were submitted with the CUP and Design Review applications and are included in Exhibit A.4. Exterior materials are proposed to consist of stucco with the roofing per the architectural drawing. The other color photo elevation included in Exhibit A.4 is shown as a representation of the colors that will be used on the building and does not represent the architectural style of the proposed structure. The proposed building shall be generally constructed in accordance with the elevations shown in Exhibit A and the conditions of approved included in Exhibit B. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed elevations with the conditions noted below .under the Design Review section (see below). Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted, prior to issuance of building permits, for the proposed restaurant. The site/landscape plan submitted with the CZC shall be revised to comply with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this report. All improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. DESIGN REVIEW: Per UDC 11-3A-19B, because the site is located adjacent to an entryway corridor (Eagle Road), the proposed structure and site are subject to the design review standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C. The applicant has applied for Design Review approval with the subject CUP application. Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 11 '`:;s °t~ 4-, Yom;; 'i Y. Y~ Y' ~~ {:. ~ {{ wb f-rT~t .L~ ~l, :~9. t ~- ~ y~~~ .1~ `~ CTI'I' OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18; 2008 The applicant shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C as follows: ~_"~ 1. Architectural Character: x, a. Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the ~= ` facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) ` ~ of the length of the facade. The roofline of the building facade visible from Eagle ~~ Road modulates in height for 25% of the facade length, which meets this requirement. b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly -~ defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. The primary building entrance is defined by a raised and projected facade on the east side of the building. The west elevation facing Eagle Road does not comply with the requirement for windows, awnings, or arcades to total a minimum 30% of _ the fagade length facing a public street; the elevations shall be revised to comply with this requirement: The applicant should bring revised elevations to the public hearing. ~~.`-~' c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) ~~`°~rF t overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying ~, parapet heights; and e) cornices. The proposed roof design incorporates varying roof 'i~'' I ; planes and parapet heights, and sloped roofs, which complies with this requirement. = , d. Pattern variations: At least two (2) changes in one (1) or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and/ materials. °:~~' I The building is proposed to consist of stucco and rock with file roojing and be two colors, which complies with this requirement. ,~;'~~ e. Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. The applicant states in their narrative that all roof top mechanical units will be completely screened ~k from view as required All ground-level mechanical equipment is also required to be screened, as required 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. Exterior building materials are proposed to consist of two different colors of stucco as depicted in the color sample in Exhibit A.4 with rock accents and a the roof, which complies with this requirement. (Note: The building elevations do not depict rock as an accent material but the applicant has stated in their narrative that rock will be used as a building material.) 3. Parl~ng Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. The parking shown on the site plan complies with this requirement. (No parking is shown between the structure and Eagle Road,.) Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 12 ~. F ., ~:- ~' ! f bn_~ ~,g '" t ' . " r~~~', . ~ ~ `,~~ ~, ,,,F - f~ fr ~~ ,-;:~ ~ ,~:; tt ark y -:' ;~s ,,;:; ~~_ ~ ~~t -. y {rt N ~ t ~ ,[ ~+t4} -z ~, r .4t' '.; _. -5( `:U -~ r a:1a ~~ s, r{ ~~, ~~~ ~~.' i 4 "~. +FF ~r;- L ~ ~ } J ~n _ ;_ '.;; r CTfY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 µ .,.~ 4. Pedestrian walkways: s~ -' 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. An 8 foot wide walkway is proposed from the ~; sidewalk along Eagle Road to the sidewalk leading to the main entrance of the ~~ structure, as required. ~' = b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving `' ` ~~i •.~,-,,~ surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. NA (The required walkway does not cross vehicular driving surfaces.) ' "< ~.` 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. NA (No aisle ,lengths exceed 1 SO parking spaces or are greater than 200' away from the main building entrance on the site.) :.,.~ `" °A d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning ~ ~ or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. The applicant states `1 J' that the entire front of the building will be protected from the weather by a covered walk. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-022 for a restaurant, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of September 18, 2008, based on the ' 3 ~~ Findings of Fact as listed in Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in ~' ' ~` Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on September "'~' 18, 2008. At the public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-08-022 ~, ~~ 11. E~1~ITS - A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map ~}~; ~'%L 2. Site Plan (REVISED: dated 9/08, labeled as Sheet Al, prepared by Mike Fairchild Architect) .~ s'' 3. Landscape Plan (REVISED: dated 10/26/07, labeled as Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land ~a Group) ~,: 4. Building Elevations (REVISED: dated 9/07, labeled as Sheet A3, prepared by Mike Fairchild Architect) 5. Conceptual Master Plan B. Conditions of Approval ~,F~L t ~ ~ «~ 1. Planning Department ° ~ ~ ~` 2. Public Works Department _ ~~_ 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department '~ ~ 5. Parks Department '= MI. 6. Sanitary Service Company °~ 7. Ada County Highway District `t { Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 13 s ...:, ': i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 8. Idaho Transportation Department C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Great Wall Restaurant CUP Page 14 •;. a: ~~~ r..~: '~ _ ,;~~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 2. Site Plan VISED: dated 9/08, labeled as Sheet Al, prepared by Mike Fairchild Architect) ~~ ,~ a ~~ ~... _ aq „4'Vt ~YI:: L Exhibit C Page Z "~-'.3'. p~ ~,` '~ 'i'; ~; ,' {' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 3. Landscape Plan (REVISED: dated 10/26/07, labeled as Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land Group) _._. PLATITIND ~',1- - - - -- --- .~, am ~~ n PLAN1'INfl .,,,,_. PLANT S#IEDULE D J ~ g O W ~ (~ ~ rn m W `0118 THEE PLANTI(~ , axes Exhibit C Page 3 ~ ~ M r ~ ~' ' ~ • , s £ F ' ., ~ -~ ~ SZ w ' p`. . ' .~Sr ££~~ ~?fY~i ~ ~ Kr ~Nr ~ lip2•k': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~3 t ~ _ Z ` + ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' +h 7 .ira* -~ , ~ k~ . ~ ~.1 ! E=s M ~x_~y. ~ ~ ' ~3~5 ''~ ? cZ ,s,~t 't ~, ~~s` v~ ~`, y~ ,~? , r' Fr ~ r~~11ta ~~ . Y ~iE ., <~ Z d y 4 'F Q } 4 ~ K a t h ~c ~ ~~ ` S~< {~ e { Y 9LltL~~ ~ _- 1 W " S ry. qr, ~~ ~ MM~'~ ^14 hf !~ ~~ 4Y '~ ~4 '{ ~ ti y ~~ ~ x K4' L Rh f ~. F :. i $"'. 1' r .t. ~-,'r .~ 1'K . ~~ ] ~~ ~ ~ W F r n:'- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 4. Building Elevations VISED: dated: 9/07, labeled as Sheet A3, prepazed by Mike Fairchild Architect ~~ra ~rt~ ~~ f E." XI11171t C _,. . ....e-__ --:~r.~~ .. .. ,4...x_.4 w rYy ,. ~J~~~ l-~ Example of Colors Only ~. _ . r~~~~ Page 4 ~ K k r- ~ , ~!~,i~jq +~~+ ` .f ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~P ~ . ~ ~~ ~.A f? ~~~ ~ N~ S 4 n'4 '~ n ~ i f < r S up?~ E N r ~ ~ y ,~~t Yt " '1 .y , .~ - ~ w~'~ .. n- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 5. Conceptual Master Plan p" '_ .., ,- f . ~ r-~ f~ !^- ~_`- ~ ~ '~(` l 11~ '~ !! ~ ~ (,11111 _ ~ ~ ~I !~'~'~; ~"a~aw~ 7B9 Gpm ParpLg ~ma. I _ z i:. ,.nr,~ ~ ..ill It - ~ u~~~K~.. :^„~. 414 Yu@dP~giaaq t., I I I i I LI fi~},~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ fspa~ B ~ ~~L r ~~~• ~~ -°1 ~ - ,ilk _ v ~ •t ~ • f i }~ _ ~ ~~ ;_ •~ - f lT(Tl I h -~ ~ ~ ~a1~1 ~-1 ~ L.,~ e- , f ~~ l r~ ~ r a ~ n ~ -?~-~ '~° ° _ a ~ `!I.LLL U_I.llL 111 J.iL(i "! ~~--,h i ! ~ ~ ! I,~ ~ ~za e.agz•i oeaJ~I ~ x~a o.e m~ ~ I I I .. ~ ~~ .l_'~ ) f) 111 ~i -fT ~ ~ p~g-f-d-,16'^~r~-Ord-~,-~r~ i I - - - - - - --'`- PaOP~ wrvEn vALLa1/ eaao PER aCNO 1 ~-s------ --~-`~--. _. - -..w F W-k--- ___- _ ~- _. a7Wi®8'IM6 RI1If+fl Y6LLaY @CAO ~ ~ _"~ ~ ^~YW.QfY R011D P6RAGMD _ _- ++I• TaaNffiPO6r6T1ON 041PkRTC ~ I Exhibit C Page 5 ~' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 ~'; B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 'The site plan, attached as Exhibit A.2, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ- 03-021 and Development Agreement Instrument No. 104129529, and VAR-08-004). The applicant shall revise the site plan(s) as follows: a. Per UDC 11-3C-6G, provide a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces on the site in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. b. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Road; revise plan accordingly. c. Either widen the landscape buffer adjacent to the row of parking along the south property boundary to 7 feet to allow for vehicle overhang and shorten the stall lengths to 17 feet or install wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent vehicle overhang into the landscape area, per UDC 11-3C-SB4. d. The trash enclosure is depicted within NMID's easement for the South Slough; the trash enclosure should be relocated outside of the easement unless approved by NMID. e. Six-foot tall chainlink fPencing shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B3 along the north property boundary adjacent to the South Slough, as allowed through a license agreement with NMID. 1.2 The landscape plan, attached as Exhibit A.3, is approved with the following modifications: a. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Eagle Road; revise plan accordingly. b. Per UDC Table 11-2B-3, a 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the future multi-family residential development as shown. Said buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C for landscape buffers to adjoining uses. Per these standards, all buffer areas shall be comprised of, but not limited to a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. The required buffer area shall result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of tree maturity. Revise the plan to comply with this requirement. c. Two trees are depicted within NMID's easement for the South Slough; these trees shall be relocated elsewhere on site outside of the easement unless approved by NMID. d. Per UDC 11-3B-8C2d, each interior planter that serves a double row of parking spaces shall have at least two trees. Add trees accordingly in the planter islands on the north and south ends of the double row of parking on the east side of the building. e. Either widen the landscape buffer adjacent to the row of parking along the south property boundary to 7 feet to allow for overhang and shorten the stall lengths to 17 feet or install wheel stops within the parking stalls to prevent overhang into the landscape area, per UDC 11-3C-SB4. f. Per UDC 11-3B-8Clb, the perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one tree per 35 linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Per this requirement, add one additional tree within the buffer along the south property boundary. g. Per UDC 11-3B-10, the applicant should work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on implementing the proposed protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. The Exhibit C ,..,x Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 Applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, Parks Department, for confirmation of the caliper inches of trees to be mitigated and approval of the tree mitigation plan. 1.3 A 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway shall be constructed on the site along N. Eagle Road (SH 55), per UDC 11-3H-4C3, as proposed. Said pathway shall be constructed within a public use easement. Streetlights and landscaping shall be installed consistent with the Eagle Road Corridor Study. 1.4 The applicant's request for Design Review (DE5-08-019) approval of the proposed structure and site is approved with the following modifications to the building elevations: a. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum 30% of the fagade length facing Eagle Road, per UDC 11-3A-19C. The applicant submitted revised elevations at the public hearing that. comply with this requirement included in Exhibit A).] 1.5 Building elevations for the proposed restaurant shall comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A.4, with the condition of approval noted above. Building materials shall consist of stucco with rock accents and a the roof, at a minimum. 1.6 Access to Eagle Road is approved temporarily until such time as the properties to the south develop and a common drive aisle is constructed from the subject property to the future extension of E. River Valley Street. At such time, the temporary access shall be removed and all access shall be provided from E. River Valley Street; direct lot access to Eagle Road shall be prohibited. The landscape buffer and 10-foot wide multi-use pathway adjacent to Eagle Road shall also be constructed at the time the temporary access is removed. 1.7 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application with revised plans that comply with the site plan, building elevations, and conditions of approval listed herein, prior to issuance of building permits. 1.8 A common drive aisle shall be constructed along the east boundary of the site as proposed. A cross-access easement shall be granted to the properties to the south to E. River Valley Street. A copy of the recorded cross-access easement shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site. 1.9 Unless modified by the Commission, business hours of operation are not limited for this use on '° this site. ti:~ ~.. 1.10 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 ~'F.~ accompany any request for temporary occupancy. Y~?~~F 1.11 No new signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign ~~ ~ ~` permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (iTDC 11-3D). 4~. ~' '~ 1.12 The Applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord "'' with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. `~~I ':;"{ ~,~w..;,~. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N Eagle Road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of Exhibit C Page 7 Fi ~ ~ Y i tN 4~ h ~_A ~ ,.. ,. ~~y ~: ~ ,• ~4'yl ~C:Sy~' ~ ~~~ f _ . f ~*_;5... t ,~ tf h k R~ ~ ~ :. ~ '! ~ t F ~ < V ~' t E . F; ~" ~ ab~aN~f:. ~ <.~ a ~. ~,~ ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ ~. >~ ~~ . ~„ ~;r 1~` t S ~~ ~~* ni. F ~% ~~ ~ r _ [tea ~ ~~ . ,4r5;, <,.. 7 ~~. ~.. ~~ e ~'. r <.~ - ~~~ `~~ ~~ 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in N Eagle Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXIiIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to issuance of an occupancy permit Exhibit C Page 8 +_. !. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 ''„}y . 4~ }; :~ .11 ll development improvements including but not limited to sewer fencing micro-paths . _ , , , , pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining ~~. ' certificates of occupancy. ,, 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan ~~ approval letter. " "" 2.13 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting `.~; that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.14 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.15 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. ~` f`'~` 2.16 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom ` ~ elevation of the building pad is at least 1-foot above. _~~- 2.17 The applicants design engineer shall certify that all seepage beds out of the public right- of-way are installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification must be received by the City of Meridian Fublic Works Department prior to the project receiving final approval. 2.18 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and ':~;~ ,,,. approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the :_:~ project. ~~ ~' ~ u ~ 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. ~: '' a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. `„ ~ ~ b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. ~ ~ `' ~ ~ d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finished grade to the center of the 4 %Z" outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. .k h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing ' 4i buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. " '~ 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. ~~ r ,; 3.4 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide and support an imposed weight of 75,000 GVW. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". ~~ 3.6 Fire lanes, streets, and structures including the canopy height of mature trees shall have a vertical ~~ o-:~ clearance of 13'6. ~ °,~ 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather Exhibit C Page 9 :.~ n~; _:; 3;.~ ~~< r : ; .: `; .<,: ~~ ::5 ~ /,, ~~~ ,,;` .. k ;, -~;a . ~ ~ ' x ,`,,, ~..y r~ ~'' ~ ~,~, ;; -'. Ir ~. `:,i= ~„'_~~: ~ V ~< `t :~y'}~j F p.. ..;:, ~-; } ~;. ° . gin, t. :.~ -• :<~a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.8 Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 3.9 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.10 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 3.11 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.12 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.13 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.14 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.15 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.16 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.17 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 3.18 Multi-Family and Commercial projects shall be required to provide additiona160" wide access point to the building from the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code complaint Handicap parking stalls maybe included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian Fire Department for details per IFC Section 504.1. 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 with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Waste enclosure access: The applicant shall provide drive-on capability for 6 and 8 cubic yard containers. Allow a minimum of 60 ft. frontal clearance for such containers. 6.3 Waste enclosure gate locks: The applicant shall provide gate locks for both open and closed positions. Exhibit C Page 10 ;c~~; . '~; x.- ,,.. ~i?',`4; _~; n ., a, .^~t e h; ~•{ 3; f..: fir,:=; '~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 6.4 Waste enclosure dimensions: The applicant shall provide a minimum of 12 ft. clearance inside of the enclosure gates with the gates in the open position. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Exhibit C 11 ~ ~ ~~~~ 6~ixo C~ra~ lti N1d~. Sherey R. F 1st Vim 1 Bnr~, 2e~ Yf~ 1~1 S, FPdPIdE1S. ~~G179P ~. A1P~ P Page ~- :~~: ~i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 8. Idaho Transportation Department 1~AHO IDl4N0 ThtaNSPORTATtQN DEPARTMENT 1 P.O. Bex 8028 (20B} 3348300 ~ * sfise, i® e3~o~-zoas {td.Idaha.gcv ~~ ~ F~ Aug°u<gt 28.218 ~'ity caT Meridian Planning Department 6Ei0 E. Wat~.it~~pe+ry Lane Sunte 2t12 Merydlan, Idaha $3642 FAX 888-6854 Re: Curative: 2590 Eagle Read Route: 51155 MP 13.75 Name: Kinsan Chan - Greaz Wall Restaurant Case Nh. CIJP 08-022 He~.ring Date: September D 8a 241)8 bear Zoning Administrator, ~~ ~ annin~ D t'aa~~~ 4` Access to E.agl~a Rpacl should beat lo+~ti®ns that eompl}= 7th the TTD access policy and the ~.gle RoIId lnfi'astntcture Plan only. We arc requesting a condition of the CLTP be that the access shaven on the site glen will be temporary until such time that River °4`allcy Street is eonatruc,Ked. 14~`hen River Valley Street is etinstruc~ted the temporary acresg w~i1i be re~mavcxi and all areeres r~~ll be from River Valley Street. Any and all access points, and env ether amenities such as landscaping v~rithia the right cif way, will require a permit Tram TID. Access issues should be r~lved as soon as possible. Any work dcme on the State Right of Way will require a permit, Permit applications arc available Trurn this office. Please have the. applicant c~csrttIICt Matt ~4'ard at 8150 Chinden blvd. 83714 in Boise ar ca11(2Q8) 334- 8341 to attain a permit applicatian. ITyau haEPe env questions please call the at 334-R37?. Sincerely, Para CitaIden P:E. Aca~ess ivlanagerrient Engineer Exhibit C 12 Page ~,.,' ~!idt. is ~ `~;~y 4 s~ _ w ~} .s r %. i t rS r ?~-~,l t +~ :. ~ < r Ft: i ! _ a Hp 'z '' `. i~'r' ~- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC 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 Commission finds that the existing site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and comply with the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff's analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission fords that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Mixed Use -Regional. The property is currently zoned C-G, which complies with this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). ~~ 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other 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. '" ``~i The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, -;~,~ ~*{ the Development Agreement and previous conditions of approval for this site, the operation of the ~' proposed restaurant should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with ~< '`~r~ the existing and intended character of the area. Further, Staff believes that the proposed use will ~.~' i=i not adversely change the essential character of the area. :~;'-,r 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. ~~ 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services "'~~ such as hi hwa s streets schools arks olice and fire rotection draina a structures ~.~ g Y> >P ~P P ~ g refuse disposal, water, and sewer. _;~: The Commission fords that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public ~`~ facilities and services. 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 fords there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that 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. Exhibit C 13 Page ~. 3 ~," >.f 3 ~,. b A ~~ ~~ ' ~~~ h F4 ~ f'lY J : , , i }. ~ ~' ' ~t ~ ~`~ ;if,' „ 0 F ~ ,j' Y ~~r - :J U J~ kt~3~1e M ~ J r ~ ~~' ~' ~,a;,: r~ ~"; `,~ a~`,, ~ , ` ~ ~ r; ~ti4. .,y. ~~ ~ y$~J, .~ - ~ 1~t~= f :_ , i,-: `i~,. n~f~r -: ~;;; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 ,^ k'~ E~ The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, the Commission does ` 7 not believe that the amount generated by the proposed new use of the property will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not ,;~ anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 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 the proposed use. The Commission finds that the ro osed use will not result i °~:. k ,~^ p p n the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. ~t _, ~` ~{ •...,,: ;, ",s 'i -•'-9S~ - ~;: :S :t yak; :,; ~_ ~,,'~ ,, r f ,~ ~ ~ ', . fi R ~~ ~~ £ ^( Exhibit C Page _ ~" ;~ ~: nr 14 _a~. ;~~:: - I Septe 'er 29, 2008 RZ 08-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING~MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT Primeland Development Company, LLP ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Cont. PH from 9/18-Rezone of 93.64 acres from L-0 (Limited Office} 8~ R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail 8~ Service Commercfal)(25.10ocres), L-0 {Limited Office)(10.70 acres), C-C (Community Business}{37.84 acres) & R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential (20 acres) zones for Volterra Mixed Use - w/o N. Ten Mile Rd & n/o W. McMillan Rd 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 Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report ~'`~~ c Contacted: C ~ uca ~~. ~ y~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~• Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~; ~' ~3 `_ Sept CUP 08-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. S REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi-tenant retail buildings on on approx. 1.25 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as required by the DA provisions of the Dorado Sub for Grandview West - n/side of E. Overland Rd, 600' w/o Eagle Rd, Lot 1 8~ 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision 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: See Attached Sigi See Attached Staff Report ~o~ ~I ~.D No Comment See Attached Gomments See Attached Comments See Attached Gomments Contacted:. ~ Date: ~ Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~~ Mal~eriails pr~~ented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ># 4 ~ ~~ _ ~.T September 29, 2008 RZ 08-005 k~: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 :; APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 y REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ?;. ~;~ ,~ ~H5 CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Request for Continuance ;, CITY ATTORNEY ~~ w;~~ v CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ ~.. 'D~~'~ ~` ~c n ~ ~ t ~ ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ ~~ ~ ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~I ~ /~i CITY WATER DEPT: l CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ~,4; ,- . M, CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~ ~~ r - ~~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments s SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: >,.~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ~.:> -~,, -;:f NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See ~~~ached Comments '~~ F SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: '~y OTHER: See Sign PostiAg rs r~ Contacted: ~ Date: Phone: ~~ ~ ~ ~• Emailed: Staff- Initials: Materials pre~.en~d at publictings shall become property of the City of Meridian. z l ~, x.;~~r ~~.; ~~. _ °~- ::.: ti (, " _ .°~. i ~ *, September 29, 2008 PP 08-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 ~~; APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 ~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots & 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh ~`~ Ridge -east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road AGENCY COMMENTS ti CITY CLERK: See RZ Packet BSI CITY ENGINEER: ~u `~=m= CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: o~~ CITY ATTORNEY ~,/~~ ~ `~ "~ ` CITY POLICE DEPT: ~" ~ ~ 1?'l1 ~'C~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ CITY BUILDWG DEPT: ~i. ' CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: i y~: _.'~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~ ; Y ,+'• ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ' '> .~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: .~?: ~~,"t- SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~ ,. ~ IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: ;, r~ Emailed: Staff'Initials: ~,, ' ~` Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r, ~,,., -,.~ ,s- ., < i i:. r. i 1Y~r - t$Ir ;' _ _ .. ~~1. ~.:. t:'~ `'~!; ~:''E~f ~,,, 3i ~:i ^; ,:' ; ~, ~ ', ~` ;;: ,~} ~Y >, k... '~. £'~f: °: °' ~. '~ ~~>~f~ ~t~'~~ t ;, .,~.~;~ :; ;,t, ~.,: , ~, -; N Sept rnb 'r 29, 2008 AZ 08-012 MER ,'IA PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 d APPL ~' T Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. $ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 9/18/08 -Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to an R-4 zone for Shays Cove - 3155 S. Mesa Way AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY n~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ n~ .V ./ CITY FIRE DEPT: 1 `~~ ~ ~ " ` ~~ 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: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: _~~,~/t/'1 v~ ~ G!~(~ Date: ~ ~ Q Phone: Emailed:' h YL U y ~C ~~r~/1a,~-~/- ~ - C Om Staff Initials: ~'~ AAaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of AAeridfan. '~.r. September 29, 2008 PP 08-009 :; ~4 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT Land~larl~ Engineering & Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 9/18/08 -Preliminary Plat approval of 8single-family residential building lots and 3 comon lots on 4.45 acres in a proposed R-4 zoning district for Shays Cove - 3155 S. Mesa Way ,_.~ AGENCY COMMENTS ~,.~ _ f. ; ~ CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: ` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY ~. CITY POLICE DEPT: - r ~ ~~' F ,n ~ ' ~ ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: b ~~ CITY WATER DEPT: ' ~~ CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: '°_ '` CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: :-n ` ' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~.~_ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: _ .. ~a < <y. '~~ ~' OTHER: .~ ~~~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. 'r~ ='J'f' k K~ ~; ;;' V. ~'~ti z tN~" ":;f '.:' 29 CUP 08-024 MERIDIAN N LIING 8~ ZONING MEETING October 2, 2008 APPLICANT Jt School District No. 2 ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for outdoor speaker systems for the Meridian High School ball fields in an R-4 zoning district for Meridian High PA System - 1900 W. Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ~~ CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~` CITY ATT RN O EY -pJ ^ CITY POLICE DEPT: . ~/"" ,v CITY FIRE DEPT: V" ~`. CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached. Letter by Paul Geile /Attached Sign Positng Contacted: ' G /~ Date: / ~ Phone: Emailed: mKtv>Iyt~~ ~ tu~ry-ao~/I~t~ C~~Staff Initials: ~~^ Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Clty of Merldlan.