The URL can be used to link to this page

2008 10-16I MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ,J AH e REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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: _O Tom O'Brien —X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall X David Moe - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction — NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: Approve 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This item has been Re -Noticed) Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: Approve 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: Approve 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: Approve 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: Approve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. Ell ;�— MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. T t * zE 'Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, pis: 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: O Tom O'Brien _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay � Y x X Michael Rohm _X Joe Marshall X David Moe - chairman x' �Y 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 1 � B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP a IT roa`: wGi x 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. m Moore Company — north of E. Overland Road approximately 600 a� feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: Approve 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction —NEC of Meridian Road and ._ Ustick Road: Approve 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. :`1 i'ct.X pis: ; 4{T3"F t= ! 4 x' �Y 1 � a IT roa`: wGi x h 4 a� 5 � 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: Approve kN t N Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This Item has been Re -Noticed) Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by k Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: Approve WY t 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, x approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: Approve 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: Approve 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 November 20, 2008 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: Approve WY .4 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. AAA 5 x ry t �K d 41, i .fS# � t tx w. aE a 3 r' `Z�"�'. r c eli '. . ' -. ��'s� 9 ': '� ;. n Y C .r., t e "t P E:'k4.;C•i�+f` Y AGENDA NAME BACK TABLE FOR P & Z OR CIC DOOR OF CHAMBERS CLERKS STATION CITY COUNCIL SEATS/ PZ Fj0xtS CLERKS WALL CALENDAR REPOST IN LOBBY REFAX WEBSITE WEBLINK E-MAIL REVISED (YES/NO) REVISED DATE: 0 Eza [E-2� 0 ED— initial: Date: Time: 1. 2. 3. (:�VE RjDIAN1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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." Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Joe Marshall David Moe - chairman A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction — NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. r +e a f � tk "t a �5 �s t 1. 2. 3. (:�VE RjDIAN1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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." Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Michael Rohm Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: Wendy Newton-Huckabay Joe Marshall David Moe - chairman A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction — NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. r r +e a f a r r +e a a t H; r x ,W 41113, x § za r. Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This item has been Re -Noticed) 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park f Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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: 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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: 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: ej Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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: ... .. r= 0 yi $'LM17§'§ e� AP{ 7 f r. Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This item has been Re -Noticed) 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park f Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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: 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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: 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: ej Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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: ... .. 0 yi $'LM17§'§ AP{ 7 f b y rJ # 'T 4 1sY iU " T, xn ., C 3 ,#fi Efi4 �� AFib k t MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ,ri REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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." M •® 1. Roll -call Attendance: 5k Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay r x David Moe - chairman { 2. Adoption of the Agenda: a 44 3. Consent Agenda: E � A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ,ri REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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." n M •® 1. Roll -call Attendance: 5k Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay r Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe - chairman { 2. Adoption of the Agenda: r 3. Consent Agenda: E � A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: *#5 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 nZ feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: n M •® 5k 64'101 �ts' = ..• v { E � 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction — NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. 64'101 �ts' = ..• { E � ' two.° x. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r y. 04 X x t Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This item has xt. been Re -Noticed) } } 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a rn , Z residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: ` 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit t approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R r L districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage i F allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, t' approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: r 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for �m Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: l 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: RZ 08-005 Request s 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: 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots and 26 7 ' 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: fs` 11. Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: J 4 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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 8884433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r y. 04 , x t r y. , rn , Z Y 7. Mh t M. r L i Broadcast Report Date/Time 10-13-2008 04:44:53 p.m. Transmit Header Text City 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. /U e -T% ce,, Thpv i�-�q C�E IDIAI`r3 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING IDAHO REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Total Paaes Scanned : 2 Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the Cfly of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all Presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthtiul and honest to best of the abiftty of the presenter.' 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe - chairman 2- Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: S. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn for Approval: CUP 08-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi -tenant retail buildings on approximately 1.26 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 - forth of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of Eagle Road, Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Dorado Subdivision: 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility In an L-0 zoning district for Mills; Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction - NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT In Ada County to R-16 (Medium High Density Residential) (6.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acnes) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G; (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies - Northwest Moditen Planntng and zoning Commlasion Mee&q Agonda — October 16, 2W8 Page 1 of 2 A9 metafte presented at public pnregn pa sha8 become pmpoty of tba City cf Meridien. Anyone de0ft ecOMModetbn for dleahllllles related to docnanents ar4or hearing, please cm%W the City C hWe office ai 888AM at lead 48 houns VW to the pulmo oneetkV. TM.1 Donee r -91—A. o0 0019 No.1639 0029 b Remote Station 3810160 8989551 Start Time 04:11:12 p.m. 10- 13-2008 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 Duration 00:02:21 00:00:38 Pages 2/2 2/2 Line 1 1 Mode EC EC Job Type HS HS Results CP9600 CP19200 0039 004 2088848723 8886854 04:11:12 04:11:12 p.m.10-13-2008 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:29 00:00:29 2/2 2/2 1 1 EC EC HS HS CP28800 CP28800 005 639 12088985501 04:11:12 p.m.10-13-2008 00:00:34 2/Z 1 EC HS CP31200 006 639 8467366 04:11:12 p.m. 10- 13-2008 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 1639 8950390 04:11:12 p.m. 10- 13-2008 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS ICP31200 t `r rr ,,." a,. lx1 Y sr,:i z 1 df?'•��''{`FKiYU p J , 2 f 3 3 J E 'k'' l T `r rr ,,." a,. lx1 Y sr,:i df?'•��''{`FKiYU p J 3 Date/Time 10-13-2008 04:45:02 p.m. Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station w Duration Pages Line W Job Type Results 008 x 2088882682 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS t fl Date/Time 10-13-2008 04:45:02 p.m. Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 639 2088882682 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS fl Ali 639 xC 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:45 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 010 639 Date/Time 10-13-2008 04:45:02 p.m. Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 639 2088882682 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 639 8840745 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:45 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 010 639 2083876393 04:11:12 p.m. 10- 13-2008 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 011 639 208 287 7959 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:01:14 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 012 639 18885052 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 013 639 8886573 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:02:35 1/2 1 G3 HS FA9600 014 639 8881983 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:43 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 015 639 2083776449 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:56 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 016 639 4679562 04:11:12 p.m.10-13-2008 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 017 639 8886700 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 018 639 8884022 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:01:41 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 019 639 3886924 04:11:12 p.m. 10- 13-2008 00:00:57 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 020 639 8841159 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 021 639 8840744 04:11:12 p.m. 10-13-2008 00:00:31 1212 1 EC HS CP26400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct 4 r S ` i r ,-ro-'Se'9 t , 1. k4�1 E IDIAN ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING p H REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 16, 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 NeWendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 14pprYpve- B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: A.P r0 V -f— 4. Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate an animal care facility in an L -O zoning district for Mills Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction — NEC of Meridian Road and Ustick Road: 4 Pr0VC, 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. nnSiik f x. a X 1. 61 2 � � "� X 47, 4 1k e x .8 s A k N", i =F 4 u k yri} y ka`"1'yws, W F Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: (This item_ has been Re -Noticed) .R6c orni')1&-v6/ 6. Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: App ro ve- 7. Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: Appro v -e. 8. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: 9. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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: 10. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 anA south of E. Victory Road: Alanning 11. Request for Changes to the Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: Arps V, -e, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — October 16, 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. 9 Po #✓ yy b 7` 4 t s A i 4 u k y ka`"1'yws, W F k r s 3 �:; 1. y5�• s y wnk h., "2 y W'tt''�$•X�t'$ Goy 5}u � 6 October 13, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS t�ypovlc �,D jr0l Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. n F � j k N ( fi t iF t U R. at ow r r t y G $ Er A Y Vin+ +4 '1 fk w r„ lz q*PYxi.':,�t \.h ix _'7 �I� .Flx.k.:rt ;Y,✓ 's? J� . r...'ti .F a.. ` z f, sY 'fARat, t' g, K v <t 4 s v< October 13, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS t�ypovlc �,D jr0l Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. j k N ( fi t iF t q ? ow r G $ '1 r„ lz q*PYxi.':,�t \.h ix _'7 �I� .Flx.k.:rt ;Y,✓ 's? J� . r...'ti .F a.. ` f, sY 'fARat, t' Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina October 16, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 16, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Pete Friedman, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway 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 for October the 16th. I'd like to open the hearing tonight and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have one change this evening on Item -- excuse me -- RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge. It has been requested that they be continued to our regularly scheduled meeting of November the 20th. When those come up this evening in order we will, then, probably continue them so -- to that date. Other than that, the agenda will stay the same. So, if I can get a motion to approve the revised agenda. Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the revised agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: s� Ulk ei Mkt e j�. u A Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina October 16, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 16, 2008, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Sonya Watters, Pete Friedman, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway 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 for October the 16th. I'd like to open the hearing tonight and ask the clerk to call roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and we do have one change this evening on Item -- excuse me -- RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavanaugh Ridge. It has been requested that they be continued to our regularly scheduled meeting of November the 20th. When those come up this evening in order we will, then, probably continue them so -- to that date. Other than that, the agenda will stay the same. So, if I can get a motion to approve the revised agenda. Marshall: So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the revised agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 2, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: s� ei A �t r F �'�^ .S,0�1 }.,�.4d .�f as ,r� t c.d.'s,- p e k. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 2 of 64 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 ,.w 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: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on there. One being the approval of the meeting minutes of the October 22nd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and, then, the second item is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-023 for Grandview West. Any discussion? Comments? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. F Moe: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? ' 3 x Rohm: 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. k yapl Asx Moe: Before we open the public hearings, first, for those that may not have been to a Planning and Zoning meeting, I will just give you somewhat of our format this evening. will open a public hearing, at which time I will ask the staff to give a brief explanation of their -- of their comments and whatnot and once they are finished I will, then, ask the applicant to come forward. The applicant will have 15 minutes to express their concerns and their wants and whatnot and go through their -- their items. After the w applicant is done and if, in fact, the applicant has more than one speaking for person rr them, that is all in line in the 15 minute presentation. After that 15 minutes there are sign-up sheets in the back for anyone that would like to speak. In these hearings if you have been signed up you will have three minutes to speak, after which time when everyone's signature is done, I will ask one more time if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this hearing. If there are none, then, we will move along and I will ask the applicant to come back up forward and, basically, give a rebut Y testimony for clarification to some of the questions that may have come up in the public hearing After which time, then, the Commissioners will deliberate and make a portion. decision. 2i 2r f w y p f kSO- `.fi'tti" d„ a ^ t a + F �+�, ..#. +.d y dt[ rw mf. • 5 vNyt.s"Y is `a<?J.,'h, F1 d : ,7 4 r �� S 4 # t ,t. ea' c: : N` .y t s+v+w ! :* x 4 i b Z; •, n E- ,✓r4%P' D.: M. b i ,;- C > .&'.`1N 4.r.Y '.i"Mi'+. fi ' ! T.; "S : FY ) X: , :5 * , X ,x£ 8 Y ; . "i 4 I.r,4,.. y, .z' .. 1 S Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 3 of 64 Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 08-026 Request operate an animal care facility in an Veterinary by Dave Evans Construction Ustick Road: for Conditional Use Permit to L -O zoning district for Mills — NEC of Meridian Road and Moe: So, having said that, I'd like to open the public hearing for CUP 08-026 for Mills Veterinary and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you tonight is a Conditional Use Permit request for the Mills Veterinarian Clinic. The project is located in Settler's Crossing Subdivision, a lot within that subdivision. It's located on the south -- excuse me -- northeast comer of North Meridian Road and Ustick Road. Here is an aerial of the site now. As you can see on there, there are some buildings that are constructed there on that lot, this lot, and, then, you can see that building there as well. The applicant is proposing to go to the lot that is just north of the Anytime Fitness that's located on the comer. Here is the site plan that the applicant is proposing. The reason for the Conditional Use Permit is Unified Development Code requires a CUP approval for any animal care facilities in an L -O zoning district, so that's why we are here before you tonight. Again, here is the lot that the applicant is proposing to construct a 2,500 square foot building. Access for this subdivision is from the north off of Meridian Road from the southeast comer from Ustick Road and, then, Sundance Subdivision to the east of the site also has a local street that's connected to the subdivision as well. Staff has gone out to this site and they were -- based on the size of their building they were to provide five parking -- or, excuse me, provide five parking stalls on the site and they are going to construct ten on the site. The one thing that I do want to point out for Commission tonight is this parking currently is not installed. So, that would be constructed once the project goes through. I think in the staff report I had mentioned that although perimeter internal lot landscaping and some of those things have been installed already with the approval of the subdivision, that isn't the case along this buffer here along Meridian Road and along Ustick Road. One thing I did bring up in the staff report is there is 14 stalls in a row on the site plan and our code requires anything over -- if you have 12 or less, anything over 12 requires a planter island in that. So, I didn't condition the applicant to install that planter island at this time, but once this lot comes into east they will have to provide an additional landscape island there with trees and ground cover. Again, as I mentioned, landscaping has been installed. The applicant has done a real nice job. They are providing additional landscaping around the building's foundation and that's what you're seeing on this plan before you tonight. One thing I would like to point out to you is based on the specific standards of animal care facilities, outdoor -- all animals are to remain indoors and on this landscape plan the applicant has called out a pet area. So, based on the UDC, staff had recommended not -- to remove that from their landscape plan and not have it on the site. I will go to the elevations and, then, touch on that a little bit more later. Here is what the applicant is proposing. Staff feels the building is constructed of high quality materials, which will be stucco and with stone accents and the roofing will be a tile material. So, the other thing I'd point out is staff has issued a CZC on this site for an office shell, in anticipation that this CUP is to be approved tonight, then, that would affect that and if not it would have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 4 of 64 to remain an office shell as approved with the CZC. The other reason I put on this floor plan -- you can see here one thing as one of the conditions of approval for this project staff had restricted boarding of animals on the site based on the narrative that we received from the applicant. In there they had stated that they didn't anticipate that, but as we all know when you have a veterinarian clinic there are some surgical procedures that happen on site and so I have asked the applicant to provide me a copy of their floor plan, so that you can see the area that they are proposing to have animals on this site and keep them overnight. I would point out that staff isn't, you know, opposed to that. I mean we understand that those procedures do happen there, so I would put that out there for you. Again, you can see where the outdoor area -- outdoor pet area is. The only thing I would point out, too, is you can have fencing in an L -O zoning, it's just that you can't have animals in the -- going outside or -- they have to remain indoors at all times. So, with that staff is recommending approval of the CUP and I'd be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Are there any questions of staff at this time? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Come forward and state your name and address for the record, please. Powell: Rob Powell, 7761 West Riverside Drive, Boise, Idaho. 83714. In representing the applicant I would just like to say that -- that we are in agreement -- generally in agreement with the staff report that's been presented. We do take exception to one of the conditions and that is the one that deals with the -- the outdoor area that we have proposed. For this business to operate it really is necessary for occasional taking of animals outside to these areas -- to his fenced area. We felt by providing a six foot solid fence and it's a small area, I think you can see there it's 120 square feet, that that would, you know, screen -- screen anything. Whenever animals are taken outside they are -- you know, a staff member will always be with that animal. If there is -- if the animal defecated or urinated, any of that, it will be cleaned up. It will be a grass area as well. We have also located it on the east side of the building, so that it's away from the road. There will be another building built to the east of it that will kind of be hidden in that area. Dr. Douglas Mills is the business owner and operator of this and he's here tonight and he will talk a little bit more about just how important this outside animal area is. And, again, I would just like to emphasize that it's occasional use. It's not a normal thing that's used frequently throughout the day. But we feel like it is a very important part to his business. And, then, I'd also just like to make a general comment about the development. I think it's really shaping up to be a nice development with lots of diverse uses. We have an office in there, a dentist, a fitness gym that's located there. And, then, with this veterinary clinic it will only enhance that and I know that the Comp Plan really supports different types of uses and we feel like that that's something that -- that this is providing and that it's healthy for the community. We'd like to get a day care in here as well. So, it's really possible for someone to come to this development and go to work and drop their child at the day care, drop a dog off at the vet and things like that. And with traffic the way it is and fuel costs, you know that type of planning is a positive thing in the community and for the people in the development. So, those are the only things that I'd like to bring up. As I mentioned, Dr. Mills is here and he could talk more w y�r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 5 of 64 about the importance of this outdoor animal area and field any questions specifically about that. But I'm happy to answer any other questions if you have those at this time. Moe: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Rohm: No. Thank you. That was terrific. Powell: Thank you. Mills: Good evening. I'm Dr. Mills. Doug Mills. Nice to meet you all. Give you my address also? Okay. It's 9210 Edgeview Lane in Eagle, Idaho. And I'm here to represent my future business, hoping to get this started, you know, in the six months or so with construction and that sort of thing. I also want to reiterate, you know, our concern about the -- the walking area. I understand it's not a huge zoning use, but it is important, you know, with an animal hospital to have a small walking area for hospitalized patients to be taken out, you know, occasionally to urinate and/or defecate. There will be no boarding at the facility at all. The animals that are there under my care will be under hospitalized treatment, usually with intravenous medications, intravenous fluids, post-surgical care. And most of the time those animals are relatively quiet, you know, under of the giles of not feeling a hundred percent and, hopefully, for me to get them feeling better so they can go home within one or two days. Most of the time our hospitalized patients are infrequently there, obviously, based on, you know, client base and client use, you know, so it is, in my opinion, important to have that. I understand that, you know, it's a concern and I will definitely guarantee you that no animals will ever be outside without, you know, definite client -staff with them. Obviously, a dog, because cats aren't usually walked outside. Will be taken out on a leash and so there will be no uncontrolled animals. I think it fits with, you know, the park next door, a lot of people right across the street, a lot of people can take their pets across the street there also and I think it's good for the community. I would also like to reiterate if you have any further questions regarding this I would be happy to answers them. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Mills, what type of -- all animals are going to be cared for at this clinic or -- Mills: Yeah. It's a small animal facility only. There will be no large animal care. I'm a small animal practitioner. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Doctor, in regards to the area to take them out, would there be someone with the animal at all times or, basically, put them in and let them out? •' � Jz _ r r T " C Q q f( q s. { E4 x z v� M 3 y�r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 5 of 64 about the importance of this outdoor animal area and field any questions specifically about that. But I'm happy to answer any other questions if you have those at this time. Moe: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Rohm: No. Thank you. That was terrific. Powell: Thank you. Mills: Good evening. I'm Dr. Mills. Doug Mills. Nice to meet you all. Give you my address also? Okay. It's 9210 Edgeview Lane in Eagle, Idaho. And I'm here to represent my future business, hoping to get this started, you know, in the six months or so with construction and that sort of thing. I also want to reiterate, you know, our concern about the -- the walking area. I understand it's not a huge zoning use, but it is important, you know, with an animal hospital to have a small walking area for hospitalized patients to be taken out, you know, occasionally to urinate and/or defecate. There will be no boarding at the facility at all. The animals that are there under my care will be under hospitalized treatment, usually with intravenous medications, intravenous fluids, post-surgical care. And most of the time those animals are relatively quiet, you know, under of the giles of not feeling a hundred percent and, hopefully, for me to get them feeling better so they can go home within one or two days. Most of the time our hospitalized patients are infrequently there, obviously, based on, you know, client base and client use, you know, so it is, in my opinion, important to have that. I understand that, you know, it's a concern and I will definitely guarantee you that no animals will ever be outside without, you know, definite client -staff with them. Obviously, a dog, because cats aren't usually walked outside. Will be taken out on a leash and so there will be no uncontrolled animals. I think it fits with, you know, the park next door, a lot of people right across the street, a lot of people can take their pets across the street there also and I think it's good for the community. I would also like to reiterate if you have any further questions regarding this I would be happy to answers them. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Mills, what type of -- all animals are going to be cared for at this clinic or -- Mills: Yeah. It's a small animal facility only. There will be no large animal care. I'm a small animal practitioner. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Doctor, in regards to the area to take them out, would there be someone with the animal at all times or, basically, put them in and let them out? T " C { E4 x z v� s r „ i Y { " 3 k ,mac ,�: L Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 7 of 64 -- or someone on that staff wanted to walk a dog in the park and they could do that over there as well. I mean the code just says animals are to remain indoors at all times that go to that facility. So, it's not really much -- it's not really the fence that's an issue, it's calling it an outdoor pet area. That's the issue. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Follow up to that. If, in fact, we go -- you know, the animal is going to be escorted, if you will, that almost -- there is a response to the UDC if, in fact, we acknowledge that -- that the animal has to be escorted and waive off that. Can we make that as part of the motion or does that have to be part of the motion? Moe: I think maybe we could ask the gentleman at the end of the counter down here to -- Newton-Huckabay: Can we call it a courtyard? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you can't pass something that's prohibited by the code. You can't -- you cannot approve an outdoor area. You can certainly approve a grassy patch, an outdoor courtyard, but that would not be for an outdoor pet area. Newton-Huckabay: How does the UDC define outdoor pet area again? Rohm: Well, there is no definition for an outdoor pet area, because it's prohibited. Newton-Huckabay: It's prohibited. Marshall: I'm confused, then, by the UDC in that I am perfectly able to walk my dog right passed that building and if animals are not allowed outside, how can I walk my dog on that property -- across that property? I'm lost there. I mean any animal -- I mean once I get out of my car, that dog or cat is outside. Rohm: I guess the one case that comes to mind to me is one we had a Conditional Use Permit for a piece of property that had a bunch of trees on it that used to be part of a landscape business and, technically, the UDC says that you have to mitigate any trees that are removed. Well, we waived that off, because it was obvious that it was no longer going to be a landscape business, but you don't have to replace the hundreds of trees that were in a 12 -by -12 area and in some ways this almost seems similar to that, inasmuch as the intent of the UDC is not being compromised, because they are not going to be out there barking and left to their devices, so it's -- and, you know, legal counsel tells us that we can't, but it just almost defies being logical here to move forward and not allow something such as that. Marshall: I guess we go back to the definition of what constitutes a pet area and what constitutes a courtyard, in my opinion. '. . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 8 of 64 Moe: Mr. Hood. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't know that we -- staff can't recommend a solution, necessarily, tonight that will solve the issues here. However, you could craft a condition this evening, something to the effect of directing staff -- I know Mr. Friedman here is going to be coming up with a UDC text amendment here very shortly and we can make that part of this next amendment to clarify the intent of the UDC and, therefore, allow those pet areas through CUPs and leave that door open for these folks if the code does change, which I think it probably could and would. You know, it needs to go through the City Council, obviously, and it's going to be at least a few months, but when -- if the code does change and they are able to have that outdoor play area, so it's not specifically prohibited in the CUP right now, with the assumption that we will clean that up here in, again, a few months or so. Rohm: Good answer. Marshall: So, we can move ahead with this without officially agreeing to a pet area. Hood: In effect, yes. You just, basically, are silent on the back and, then, when the code changes, then, they are allowed to have that outdoor pet area. Marshall: I will shut up. Hood: If the code changes. Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, Mr. Baird. Baird: In keeping with what the intent of the code is, it's more likely the intent is to prevent a concentration of uses where an animal is put out all day. It's likely that when the code changes you might have two definitions. You might have a pet walking area associated with a veterinary clinic and that may be allowed and, then, still prohibiting the outdoor pet area. So, it might be adding of a definition. Again, my recommendation is the only thing you can do is not approve it, but, then, give some direction to find that solution that was just discussed. Rohm: Works for me. Moe: Okay. Any other discussion from -- we talked about the boarding issue and we have beat this other one to death. The hours of operation we are fine with. So, all I need is a motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 9 of 64 Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-026 for Mills Veterinary. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move we approve file number CUP 08-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with no modification. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 4, 2008: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 73.10 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (5.68 acres), L -O (Limited Office) (3.22 acres) and C -C (Community Business) (30.72 acres) and C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (33.47 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies — Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on AZ 08-005 for Meridian and Amity and start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Meridian Amity annexation. It has been continued since the August 7th hearing and been further continued from September 4th. As you recall back in August, the Commission acted on its Comprehensive Plan amendment to change a portion of this site, approximately 40 acres, from a medium density residential designation into a mixed use regional designation. I would inform the Commission that that approval has gone through the City Council -- that has gone through City Council and has been approved as the change to a mixed use regional designation. If you recall, the -- slide show froze up. If you recall, primarily the -- all the land around this was pretty much vacant land. The , $ i A.N a'Sas 4'`ra '{ ;` z 7 4 az Wiz. z 'r a 2S K N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 10 of 64 only really development -- or the subdivision to the south was Meridian Heights, zoned R-6. The rest of it was vacant land, agricultural land, zoned RUT. So, this pretty much -- this slide here tells the story. Again, this whole area is -- encompasses roughly 73 acres. The applicant has revised the Comp Plan since those last two hearing dates and I will try to go through those -- some of changes and inform you what has changed from that previous slide -- or previous concept plan to the new concept plan before you tonight. The one thing that -- that has changed and the reason why we continued it and asked the applicant to re -notice the project is the zoning designations have changed from the previous time that you saw this. This portion now up here in the northwest comer has been changed from R-8 zoning designation to an R-15 and that is roughly 7.5 acres. The previous concept plan shows roughly 5.6 acres. The office component up here has also changed. That was at 3.2 acres and now it's being shrunk down to 1.2 acres. And instead of having five pad sites, it references three. And, then, going to the east of that, this northern portion here that I am circling before you has changed from C- G zoning to a C -C zoning district. And, then, again, the southern half has remained C- G, as it was before you on the 7th. Again, the -- at that -- that previous concept plan showed, basically, a drive aisle along the back of the building. Staff had recommended the applicant provide a back -age road. The applicant was willing to do that and so on this concept plan tonight you do see the back -age road before you. The other changes is there was a pad site located here -- centrally located here. The applicant has gone with staffs recommendation and included the ten foot multi -use pathway. Instead of it going along the gas canal here, as the Meridian pathway depicts, the applicant's just running it from the west boundary to the east boundary and, then, connecting to Meridian Road. Staff is supportive of that. I did ask Steve Siddoway, the parks director, to provide some comments on that. He didn't get me any comments until after the print date of this project, but he was -- he has encouraged the applicant to come in and work with them as far as location and the requirements that the parks department would be looking for when that pathway goes in and that's part of the DA provisions as well. Again, the applicant is providing a plaza area that connects to that pathway, as well as some open space internally to the development. The last concept plan also staff had some concerns with the alignment of some of these drive aisles. The applicant has cleaned that up and, basically, aligned those drive aisles to try to address the staff concerns. One of the biggest concerns staff had still is the access to Meridian Road. We have talked with the applicant on that. They know what is staffs standpoint. The code restricts access to Meridian Road and the applicant still shows references to three access points to that road. This is a right -in -- right -in, right -out only at this location. Right -in. Right -out. Left -in. And, then, a right -in, right -out at that location as well. Other access points -- there are two access points proposed to Harris Street here. Full access points there. Two full access points to Amity Road and one right -in, right -out access point from Amity Road. Also, I'd like to include ACHD, ITD also gave me comments regarding the traffic impact study for the site. Basically, they were -- I'll move to that slide and try to bounce back, but these are some of the access scenarios that the traffic group analyzed and so I will let them get into those details further, but this is pretty much what ACHD and ITD have communicated to staff that they would prefer and that's pretty much no access to Meridian Road. They feel that that can work with that backage road and still serve the needs of that development. However, with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 11 of 64 conversations earlier this morning between the two, ITD has said they would be willing to grant a right -in, right -out at the quarter mile to the site. I would point out to the Commission that the applicant has submitted a variance application to staff and based on your recommendation tonight, if you want to move this onto City Council, that variance will catch up and be heard at the same time as this -- as the annexation is heard before City Council. Also, I'd point out if you wanted to see a modified concept plan without access points, it's well within your power to ask for a continuance and see a revised concept plan before making a recommendation onto City Council. So, here is the elevations that they are proposing. The previous staff report did ask for additional elevations, but after staff kind an analyzed everything and looked at the code and realized that this site will be subject to design review, we felt confident that we could just allow the applicant to go through the design review process once that identified tenants for this site. So, we made that as a DA provision that they will -- any building on the site will be subject to design review. So, that should -- hopefully, that gives you a little bit more peace of mind that you are seeing some high quality buildings being developed on this site. But what they did submit was this annexation and I didn't show it at the CPA hearing, but this is part of their large box multi -tenant -- I think it was the intention of the applicant to really just show us what type of building materials would be provided out there and the quality of construction. Staff has analyzed this and feels that these are high quality building materials and are supportive of what the applicant is proposing to construct on the site. These additional elevations are the rear facades. One of the DA provisions that staff brought up -- some of the concerns, anyways -- I'll go back to the concept plan. As you can see there is some pretty large buildings that abut some future residential to the west and so staff felt that these larger buildings should incorporate some type of modulation, incorporate the loading docks, and have some kind of decorative elements on the back of those facades to help to kind of blend in and add some -- break up some of that massing of the buildings. So, in the development agreement we have also required some of those provisions to be in place as well. And the applicant's in agreement with that. And these are some of the details -- if I had to choose one I would go with the Kohl's building. If any of you have driven there and seen the back of Kohl's and some of those pilasters that they have on there, as you can see here, it is a pretty high quality large box building. With that, like I said, I want to go over some of the DA provisions for you tonight, some of the ones that we think are of issue will be a topic of discussion from the applicant tonight, so I wanted to keep -- have Commission be aware of what -- what they are wanting to discuss tonight. I apologize, I didn't number the DA provisions, I just put bullet points, so what I have tried to do in my cheat sheet tonight that I gave you, I put those DA provisions in there so you guys can reference off those, but these are some of the same DA provisions the applicant will want to discuss with you tonight as far as modifications to those. So, with bullet point one, again, that's where we required all buildings be subject to design review, as well as the rear facade, which would have similar architectural features as the front facades. Again, we have required -- if you look at the concept plan, we required that multi -use pathway here and that green space being constructed prior to the first occupancy. We have also required that the 35 foot landscape buffer, with a ten foot pathway, be constructed for the entire length of Meridian Road. We have also restricted access to Meridian Road and any existing access points be vacated with annexation of this �a�ej a„4 `k SS 3 t .55. a\ 3(.s ?1* n n %i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 11 of 64 conversations earlier this morning between the two, ITD has said they would be willing to grant a right -in, right -out at the quarter mile to the site. I would point out to the Commission that the applicant has submitted a variance application to staff and based on your recommendation tonight, if you want to move this onto City Council, that variance will catch up and be heard at the same time as this -- as the annexation is heard before City Council. Also, I'd point out if you wanted to see a modified concept plan without access points, it's well within your power to ask for a continuance and see a revised concept plan before making a recommendation onto City Council. So, here is the elevations that they are proposing. The previous staff report did ask for additional elevations, but after staff kind an analyzed everything and looked at the code and realized that this site will be subject to design review, we felt confident that we could just allow the applicant to go through the design review process once that identified tenants for this site. So, we made that as a DA provision that they will -- any building on the site will be subject to design review. So, that should -- hopefully, that gives you a little bit more peace of mind that you are seeing some high quality buildings being developed on this site. But what they did submit was this annexation and I didn't show it at the CPA hearing, but this is part of their large box multi -tenant -- I think it was the intention of the applicant to really just show us what type of building materials would be provided out there and the quality of construction. Staff has analyzed this and feels that these are high quality building materials and are supportive of what the applicant is proposing to construct on the site. These additional elevations are the rear facades. One of the DA provisions that staff brought up -- some of the concerns, anyways -- I'll go back to the concept plan. As you can see there is some pretty large buildings that abut some future residential to the west and so staff felt that these larger buildings should incorporate some type of modulation, incorporate the loading docks, and have some kind of decorative elements on the back of those facades to help to kind of blend in and add some -- break up some of that massing of the buildings. So, in the development agreement we have also required some of those provisions to be in place as well. And the applicant's in agreement with that. And these are some of the details -- if I had to choose one I would go with the Kohl's building. If any of you have driven there and seen the back of Kohl's and some of those pilasters that they have on there, as you can see here, it is a pretty high quality large box building. With that, like I said, I want to go over some of the DA provisions for you tonight, some of the ones that we think are of issue will be a topic of discussion from the applicant tonight, so I wanted to keep -- have Commission be aware of what -- what they are wanting to discuss tonight. I apologize, I didn't number the DA provisions, I just put bullet points, so what I have tried to do in my cheat sheet tonight that I gave you, I put those DA provisions in there so you guys can reference off those, but these are some of the same DA provisions the applicant will want to discuss with you tonight as far as modifications to those. So, with bullet point one, again, that's where we required all buildings be subject to design review, as well as the rear facade, which would have similar architectural features as the front facades. Again, we have required -- if you look at the concept plan, we required that multi -use pathway here and that green space being constructed prior to the first occupancy. We have also required that the 35 foot landscape buffer, with a ten foot pathway, be constructed for the entire length of Meridian Road. We have also restricted access to Meridian Road and any existing access points be vacated with annexation of this `k SS 3 .55. > ?1* n n %i s e z y X V4,'&? F s k 2 � 1, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 12 of 64 project. Staff has also required that this back -age road be completed in its entirety prior to the first building permit. And, then, also the one thing I haven't brought up to you is this northwest pipeline here that runs through the site. Staff has asked that they coordinate with that gas company to insure that the safety measures are in place so that construction could happen on that site. I have also contacted Mr. Gordon Hamilton. I hope he's in the audience tonight. He's nodding. He is. So, he's willing to talk to you a little bit more and explain kind of their role in this development process as well. And with that -- or I should say staff also received comments from Paul Taylor and James Persey in agreement -- or in favor of the project and with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions at the present time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Bill, why is it that I -- I don't recall on the original plan that this large of store was this close to single family residential. Was that exactly where it was before? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I don't believe that building has shifted, so yes. Marshall: Okay. Parsons: I believe it was like that. But this -- the single family starts here. One thing to point out, this was the project that you saw with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and so Becky McKay was working with the applicant to try to give you guys an overall picture of how this would develop in the future. So, keep in mind that the annexation is really from this point on and going down here. This right here will be subject to a different -- these design standards here won't even be applicable when they come in with this greenbelt -- I mean some of this stuff will, but these -- this landscape buffer here will realistically only have to be 20 feet. So, what Becky is showing on here is probably exceeding what you're going to see when the applications come in. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. I'm with Hawkins Companies, 855 Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank you for hearing this -- this request for annexation and zoning again tonight. As Bill has just stated, we have modified the concept plan based on your comments and staffs direction. I'd like to � r t s � vz � Y{ tl l ;k w F i g 4 h srtt E � Y i � � 7 t ar,.. 1'• S Y J; ..t h." .*} z l3 �L ar vi Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 12 of 64 project. Staff has also required that this back -age road be completed in its entirety prior to the first building permit. And, then, also the one thing I haven't brought up to you is this northwest pipeline here that runs through the site. Staff has asked that they coordinate with that gas company to insure that the safety measures are in place so that construction could happen on that site. I have also contacted Mr. Gordon Hamilton. I hope he's in the audience tonight. He's nodding. He is. So, he's willing to talk to you a little bit more and explain kind of their role in this development process as well. And with that -- or I should say staff also received comments from Paul Taylor and James Persey in agreement -- or in favor of the project and with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions at the present time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Bill, why is it that I -- I don't recall on the original plan that this large of store was this close to single family residential. Was that exactly where it was before? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I don't believe that building has shifted, so yes. Marshall: Okay. Parsons: I believe it was like that. But this -- the single family starts here. One thing to point out, this was the project that you saw with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and so Becky McKay was working with the applicant to try to give you guys an overall picture of how this would develop in the future. So, keep in mind that the annexation is really from this point on and going down here. This right here will be subject to a different -- these design standards here won't even be applicable when they come in with this greenbelt -- I mean some of this stuff will, but these -- this landscape buffer here will realistically only have to be 20 feet. So, what Becky is showing on here is probably exceeding what you're going to see when the applications come in. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. I'm with Hawkins Companies, 855 Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank you for hearing this -- this request for annexation and zoning again tonight. As Bill has just stated, we have modified the concept plan based on your comments and staffs direction. I'd like to � r t s � vz tl l ;k -f F i g Y i ar,.. 1'• S Y J; ..t h." .*} Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 12 of 64 project. Staff has also required that this back -age road be completed in its entirety prior to the first building permit. And, then, also the one thing I haven't brought up to you is this northwest pipeline here that runs through the site. Staff has asked that they coordinate with that gas company to insure that the safety measures are in place so that construction could happen on that site. I have also contacted Mr. Gordon Hamilton. I hope he's in the audience tonight. He's nodding. He is. So, he's willing to talk to you a little bit more and explain kind of their role in this development process as well. And with that -- or I should say staff also received comments from Paul Taylor and James Persey in agreement -- or in favor of the project and with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions at the present time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Bill, why is it that I -- I don't recall on the original plan that this large of store was this close to single family residential. Was that exactly where it was before? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I don't believe that building has shifted, so yes. Marshall: Okay. Parsons: I believe it was like that. But this -- the single family starts here. One thing to point out, this was the project that you saw with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and so Becky McKay was working with the applicant to try to give you guys an overall picture of how this would develop in the future. So, keep in mind that the annexation is really from this point on and going down here. This right here will be subject to a different -- these design standards here won't even be applicable when they come in with this greenbelt -- I mean some of this stuff will, but these -- this landscape buffer here will realistically only have to be 20 feet. So, what Becky is showing on here is probably exceeding what you're going to see when the applications come in. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. I'm with Hawkins Companies, 855 Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank you for hearing this -- this request for annexation and zoning again tonight. As Bill has just stated, we have modified the concept plan based on your comments and staffs direction. I'd like to t s � vz tl l ;k -f F i g Y i ar,.. 1'• Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 12 of 64 project. Staff has also required that this back -age road be completed in its entirety prior to the first building permit. And, then, also the one thing I haven't brought up to you is this northwest pipeline here that runs through the site. Staff has asked that they coordinate with that gas company to insure that the safety measures are in place so that construction could happen on that site. I have also contacted Mr. Gordon Hamilton. I hope he's in the audience tonight. He's nodding. He is. So, he's willing to talk to you a little bit more and explain kind of their role in this development process as well. And with that -- or I should say staff also received comments from Paul Taylor and James Persey in agreement -- or in favor of the project and with that staff is recommending approval of the annexation and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you, Bill. Any questions at the present time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Marshall: I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Bill, why is it that I -- I don't recall on the original plan that this large of store was this close to single family residential. Was that exactly where it was before? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I don't believe that building has shifted, so yes. Marshall: Okay. Parsons: I believe it was like that. But this -- the single family starts here. One thing to point out, this was the project that you saw with the Comprehensive Plan amendment and so Becky McKay was working with the applicant to try to give you guys an overall picture of how this would develop in the future. So, keep in mind that the annexation is really from this point on and going down here. This right here will be subject to a different -- these design standards here won't even be applicable when they come in with this greenbelt -- I mean some of this stuff will, but these -- this landscape buffer here will realistically only have to be 20 feet. So, what Becky is showing on here is probably exceeding what you're going to see when the applications come in. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. I'm with Hawkins Companies, 855 Broad Street, Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I want to thank you for hearing this -- this request for annexation and zoning again tonight. As Bill has just stated, we have modified the concept plan based on your comments and staffs direction. I'd like to t s � vz ;k -f F i g Y i 1'• S Y J; ..t h." .*} l3 �L ar vi p�'e,'?''�1Si5 . Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 13 of 64 begin tonight by focusing on the -- the attention on the first note in staffs report and reiterate some of the significant changes we have made to our site plan. And, again, Bill has kind of covered this, but we have modified zoning designation, addressed the buffering concerns, relocated the pathway network through the site, added an outdoor plaza and open space amenity centrally located on the site, and a back -age road to insure the connectivity to the existing and future developments in the area. We have spent significant time and energy working with staff to revise this concept plan and to address the concerns raised by the Commission and staff. We believe this improved plan will -- is designed to utilize and will utilize land for the highest and best interest and in accordance with the goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. In Section 10 staff has gone through -- and as Bill mentioned, has bulleted items. I went ahead and made a color copy of this with our red lines. I thought it would be a little easier to follow. I'm sorry I didn't get it to Bill before, but if I could just hand that out to everyone now. In this section staff has outlined 17 bullet points that they would like to include as conditions in the development agreement. These conditions are the culmination of the annexation and zoning issues from the application. We are in general agreement with these items and we have submitted a couple of minor clarification comments and are proposing changes regarding the access and the phasing of the landscaping and back -age roads. Our first concern relates to the timing of development improvements in bullets 11, 12 and 16. And those of you who have followed the construction of Meridian's new City Hall are aware, the completion of a large project can be very challenging. We hope to have our development and all its improvements complete as soon as possible, but the timing of the entire project can be very lengthy and difficult. The development of a 73 acre site does not happen overnight and we are simply requesting that you allow us the flexibility to phase our new development and complete the back -age road and perimeter landscaping in two phases prior to the issuance of the certificates of occupancy for any buildings within the respective phase. For example, the -- if the first building is proposed south of the concept plan's east -west drive aisle -- so, this -- anywhere south of here -- we would -- we would like to have the improvements of the landscaping and the back -age road for that section, as well as the -- the center drive aisle and the park and open space amenity. We would like those things -- would all have to be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy on that building. And, then, the same thing on the northern half of the site prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the building up there, we would have to have installed the landscaping and the completion of the back -age road for that section. So, it allows us the flexibility to do it in two phases. We are not sure which -- the northern or the southern, which one would come first at this point in time, so it would allow us the flexibility to take care of that without doing all those improvements prior to even pulling a building permit. The second item of concern is the 20 foot landscaping requirement along the back -age road. We have added the back -age road to the development plan at staff and Commission's direction for improved connectivity of the future development to the west. As initially indicated with staff and discussed with staff, the addition of the back -age road provides an increased buffer to the adjacent properties. The back -age road will include a 40 foot right of way, a five foot sidewalk, and we are proposing a ten foot landscape band. Additionally, we have committed to high end architectural treatments on the rear elevations of the buildings and screening of the trash enclosures and loading docks Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 14 of 64 along the western property line of the development. We ask that the condition be amended to allow for the back -age road and a ten foot landscaping to serve as a buffer to the west. Last we request the removal of development agreement condition prohibiting access points onto Meridian Road. Our concept plan only proposes three of our seven deeded access points. The access points are deeded by the state of Idaho and are valuable property rights. The transportation impact analysis shows that the three access points constructed with dedicated deceleration and acceleration lanes will allow for the sufficient traffic flow on Meridian Road. Yet, these access points are critical to the operational success of any users of the development and, more importantly, to service the area population. We have continued to work with ITD and ACHD as recently as today on the access design and we ask for your support in exploring details of these options with those respective agencies. One additional item I'd like to touch on is the northwest pipeline. We have met with the pipeline representatives in the past. I believe we can work out an acceptable arrangement. The pipeline representatives having acknowledged to us that the growth in the area and the Department of Transportation regulations will trigger the need to upgrade the pipeline. We believe we can stage the construction and timing of our development to provide Williams Pipeline Company with the opportunity the complete the upgrades that they may need. In conclusion, we agree with staffs recommendation for approval. We have submitted the red lines for the requested modifications to the development agreement, which are, in summary, clarifying the language which allows the flexibility for the phasing of the construction of the development. Remove or modify of bullet number 13 to allow us to coordinate with ITD and ACHD for access onto Meridian Road. And, last, reduce the landscaping band along the back -age road from 20 feet to ten. With these changes in the development agreement and conditions, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the City Council. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have or discuss any items which you may have an interest on. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Let's talk about the access to Meridian Road for a minute here. You know, we try real hard to stick with recommendations of staff and the state of Idaho and ACHD and we have got three proposed accesses to Meridian Road and from the staff report it appears that there may be room for maybe a little leeway of putting a right - in, right -out at the quarter mile. If, in fact, we were to stick with that in and of itself, then, that also flies in the face of your phasing, because there is no access road at the halfway point of your development. So, to me it almost -- that becomes a significant issue before we can move forward period, is we got to resolve where we are going to go with access to Meridian Road before we can discuss the phasing or any other aspect of modifications to the staff report from your perspective. So, anyway, that's -- that's as I see it. So, if anybody else has any comments on the -- on the access onto Meridian Road, maybe we can discuss that portion of it before we move forward. Moe: Well, Mr. Rohm, I would tell you that I think that you -- you hit it right on the head as far as I'm concerned. We have dealt with this issue many a time and simply -- I'm surprised that their -- that ITD may be approving the right -in, right -out. I mean it's not to r� fr , } n. "2 � Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 14 of 64 along the western property line of the development. We ask that the condition be amended to allow for the back -age road and a ten foot landscaping to serve as a buffer to the west. Last we request the removal of development agreement condition prohibiting access points onto Meridian Road. Our concept plan only proposes three of our seven deeded access points. The access points are deeded by the state of Idaho and are valuable property rights. The transportation impact analysis shows that the three access points constructed with dedicated deceleration and acceleration lanes will allow for the sufficient traffic flow on Meridian Road. Yet, these access points are critical to the operational success of any users of the development and, more importantly, to service the area population. We have continued to work with ITD and ACHD as recently as today on the access design and we ask for your support in exploring details of these options with those respective agencies. One additional item I'd like to touch on is the northwest pipeline. We have met with the pipeline representatives in the past. I believe we can work out an acceptable arrangement. The pipeline representatives having acknowledged to us that the growth in the area and the Department of Transportation regulations will trigger the need to upgrade the pipeline. We believe we can stage the construction and timing of our development to provide Williams Pipeline Company with the opportunity the complete the upgrades that they may need. In conclusion, we agree with staffs recommendation for approval. We have submitted the red lines for the requested modifications to the development agreement, which are, in summary, clarifying the language which allows the flexibility for the phasing of the construction of the development. Remove or modify of bullet number 13 to allow us to coordinate with ITD and ACHD for access onto Meridian Road. And, last, reduce the landscaping band along the back -age road from 20 feet to ten. With these changes in the development agreement and conditions, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the City Council. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have or discuss any items which you may have an interest on. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Let's talk about the access to Meridian Road for a minute here. You know, we try real hard to stick with recommendations of staff and the state of Idaho and ACHD and we have got three proposed accesses to Meridian Road and from the staff report it appears that there may be room for maybe a little leeway of putting a right - in, right -out at the quarter mile. If, in fact, we were to stick with that in and of itself, then, that also flies in the face of your phasing, because there is no access road at the halfway point of your development. So, to me it almost -- that becomes a significant issue before we can move forward period, is we got to resolve where we are going to go with access to Meridian Road before we can discuss the phasing or any other aspect of modifications to the staff report from your perspective. So, anyway, that's -- that's as I see it. So, if anybody else has any comments on the -- on the access onto Meridian Road, maybe we can discuss that portion of it before we move forward. Moe: Well, Mr. Rohm, I would tell you that I think that you -- you hit it right on the head as far as I'm concerned. We have dealt with this issue many a time and simply -- I'm surprised that their -- that ITD may be approving the right -in, right -out. I mean it's not to fr , n. "2 � 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 14 of 64 along the western property line of the development. We ask that the condition be amended to allow for the back -age road and a ten foot landscaping to serve as a buffer to the west. Last we request the removal of development agreement condition prohibiting access points onto Meridian Road. Our concept plan only proposes three of our seven deeded access points. The access points are deeded by the state of Idaho and are valuable property rights. The transportation impact analysis shows that the three access points constructed with dedicated deceleration and acceleration lanes will allow for the sufficient traffic flow on Meridian Road. Yet, these access points are critical to the operational success of any users of the development and, more importantly, to service the area population. We have continued to work with ITD and ACHD as recently as today on the access design and we ask for your support in exploring details of these options with those respective agencies. One additional item I'd like to touch on is the northwest pipeline. We have met with the pipeline representatives in the past. I believe we can work out an acceptable arrangement. The pipeline representatives having acknowledged to us that the growth in the area and the Department of Transportation regulations will trigger the need to upgrade the pipeline. We believe we can stage the construction and timing of our development to provide Williams Pipeline Company with the opportunity the complete the upgrades that they may need. In conclusion, we agree with staffs recommendation for approval. We have submitted the red lines for the requested modifications to the development agreement, which are, in summary, clarifying the language which allows the flexibility for the phasing of the construction of the development. Remove or modify of bullet number 13 to allow us to coordinate with ITD and ACHD for access onto Meridian Road. And, last, reduce the landscaping band along the back -age road from 20 feet to ten. With these changes in the development agreement and conditions, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval to the City Council. I'd be happy to answer any other questions you may have or discuss any items which you may have an interest on. Moe: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Let's talk about the access to Meridian Road for a minute here. You know, we try real hard to stick with recommendations of staff and the state of Idaho and ACHD and we have got three proposed accesses to Meridian Road and from the staff report it appears that there may be room for maybe a little leeway of putting a right - in, right -out at the quarter mile. If, in fact, we were to stick with that in and of itself, then, that also flies in the face of your phasing, because there is no access road at the halfway point of your development. So, to me it almost -- that becomes a significant issue before we can move forward period, is we got to resolve where we are going to go with access to Meridian Road before we can discuss the phasing or any other aspect of modifications to the staff report from your perspective. So, anyway, that's -- that's as I see it. So, if anybody else has any comments on the -- on the access onto Meridian Road, maybe we can discuss that portion of it before we move forward. Moe: Well, Mr. Rohm, I would tell you that I think that you -- you hit it right on the head as far as I'm concerned. We have dealt with this issue many a time and simply -- I'm surprised that their -- that ITD may be approving the right -in, right -out. I mean it's not to n. "2 � gi X. fi t�n*�a�ws s kigk- 4�P i ' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 15 of 64 done yet, but I mean that may be the only thing. But the back -age road and everything else is going to bring everybody right into -- if they are going to shop, they aren't going to have any problems going down Amity and going in and taking that road back and doing the shopping ' Marshall: I have had conversations with ITD. They have indicated to me that they feel compelled by state law to offer access if we approve it, simple because of a state highway that there is a state law stating that there has to be reasonable access allowed to anything and anything that's -- that is approved as C -G, we, as a city, approve that access, they feel compelled to do so and so they tend to do that and that's what's happened to Eagle Road. That's exactly what's happened to Eagle Road. And, personally, that's why I'm against approving accesses, because ITD will not say no and ,..' we need to and it has to be us that does that. Rohm: So, are you opposed to the access even at the quarter mile? Marshall: That's a tough one for me to go against. I don't know. That's one I'm F pondering. But the other accesses, no, I cannot see three accesses whatsoever. Rohm: Well -- and that kind of is where the discussion is again is if, in fact -- if we could even get to the one access off of Meridian Road, I don't know how you would phase it and not have an additional access and -- do you have some comment on that? _VA Evans: Sure. Well, kind of the two to that I think -- and 111 take the easier parts question _ one first I think and that's access for the phasing aspects. If we were to develop the site and just, for instance, we go to the southern portion first, we would complete the back - age road, the southern portion of the back -age road. We would, obviously, have the x accesses off Amity. And, then, we would complete the center drive aisle that goes to t the middle of the site and that's where the right -in, right -out would be. So, we would have that one point for traffic to come in and a road for them to come along -- they would be able to enter there and come along in this site and go down and -- you know, x and visit this section of thero e p p rtY• K Rohm: Is that the quarter mile? fi z Evans: That's about the quarter mile. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Evans: So, that's where it would be. So, I believe we would phase it so that, yes, this '.. access would happen immediately with the development, you know, and, then, we would also have the right -in, right -out access there, full access -- or three-quarter access there and full access on the back -age road. So, there would be ways to get into the site. Similarly, we would have Harris Street on the north and the access point there. And, again, this, if we choose to come in on this side of the site. So, I think that -- I think the phasing and the access issue we can work out. ..x'sI ji, F d S 1 �.1 ��^�X ( 7 h t yt GG LL ( U t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 16 of 64 Rohm: I agree. That would be the -- Evans: Okay. You want to talk about it or -- we have with us tonight our traffic engineers from Kittleson and Associates. And a quick summary is they have looked at the access points and with those three access points it actually -- it is not detrimental, significantly, to the functioning of Meridian Road. And, in fact, might help it at Amity and Meridian. So, I will let them talk to you about that. Daleidin: Good evening. Andy Daleidin with Kittleson & Associates. I'm a senior engineer. Address 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and staff. To answer your question related to access on Meridian Road, I think what we have done has been working collaboratively with ITD, ACHD, and your staff over the last eight months related to the traffic impact study. In terms of the initial comments from ITD and ACHD, which are included in the staff report, we met with them this morning to go through the access elements with Amity Road, Harris, as well as Meridian Road, and what we found in talking with them is that the access points on Amity Road are acceptable from ACHD. We found on Harris Street those are acceptable and with Meridian Road as your staff pointed out, ITD would consider the right -in, right -out at the quarter mile. Related to the other access points that are proposed at Meridian Road at the eighth mile, the eighth mile being north of Amity Road and an eighth mile south of Harris Street, and those are both proposed as right -in, right -out driveways. They would both include a right southbound right tum deceleration lane. It's -- you know, that would meet ITD standards associated with that. So, as traffic traveling down Meridian Road south through traffic, it would be -- if you were turning into the site you would actually have a dedicated lane to separate out, adequate time to decelerate, slow down, make that turn, and the actual -- the speed differential that is always a concern with driveways, it's very minimal, it's very minimal once you're providing a full deceleration lane to separate the through traffic and the right turning traffic. And so, yes, there may be a minimal decline decrease in traffic -- in speed on Meridian Road, but not to the degree that some might think. And when I say, you know, degree, we are talking, you know, maybe one mile per hour, you know, for the decrease in terms of the speed on that facility, it isn't a major one when you're providing an actual deceleration lane associated with that. Does that help answer the question related to the driveways at those two locations? Marshall: My issue is that with additional access points here, as opposed to pushing traffic back out to these major roads to go through lights, you're pumping it right out onto here and that slows down traffic. The problem is as we do more and more and we get people on this side of the road wanting to have three accesses and people just -- yours slows down traffic, theirs slows down traffic, everybody slows down traffic and before long we have Eagle Road and I do not believe that Eagle Road is capable of doing at its designed speed because of the number of accesses that have been granted. For that reason I don't believe that additional accesses are not going to have an influence on the traffic there. Maybe one or two might have a small influence, but the problem is lots of them all up and down the road will and I would prefer to see the -- the traffic pushed C f W Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 17 of 64 back out onto these roads and go through lights and I think that's the same thing we are hearing from ITD or ACHD, we are hearing from city staff. I don't see these accesses }' as being positive for traffic flow on Meridian. That's -- and to me your answer is not „ answering my question, it's saying that it's not going to have a detrimental effect and disagree. I'm sorry. j Daleidin: The -- can laddress -- Marshall: Uh-huh. Daleidin: The -- when we looked at the traffic impact analysis and assessing the . different scenarios, one of the things that we were looking at associated with those ;.T driveways was trying to seek out at solution that distributed the traffic multiple locations from the sight and not loading specific -- you know, specific intersections. All the traffic k going to Harris Street or all the traffic going to Amity Road and so similar to the situation j where we are looking at providing the north -south collector, the back -age road, that has been implemented, it's the same concept as providing your east -west connections through the site to that back -age road to distribute the traffic through the site and not 5 load just directly to Amity Road and Harris, which, then, feeds to Meridian Road as a traffic signal. And so we were trying to distribute the traffic, instead of just seeing turning movements that would route to Hams or Amity Road and occur at those two traffic signals, by providing those access points on Meridian Road, they become through traffic and have a less impact -- you know, for the most part a less impact at the intersections of Amity -Meridian and Amity and Harris. And so from that standpoint there is a benefit of providing access on Meridian Road to off load the turning movement traffic that would occur at Meridian and Amity, as well as Harris and Meridian. F Marshall: I appreciate your perspective. Moe: Thank you very much. There is no one signed up for the public hearing. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up. State your name and address for the record, please. ni Hamilton: Good evening, Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Commission. My name is Gordon Hamilton and I'm with Williams Northwest Pipeline. Our business address is 1301 South Locust Grove. I'd like to first just tell you a little bit about the pipeline. There are two pipelines that we operate. The first one was constructed through this area in 1955 and it's a 22 inch diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline. The second pipeline was constructed in 1981 and it's a 24 inch diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline. These pipelines cant' all of the natural gas that is used in southern Idaho and most of the natural gas that is used in the northwestern United States. Our customers -- Intermountain Gas, obviously, is our biggest customer around here, but we also deliver to a number of generators who generate electricity for Idaho Power. And let's see if I can -- we operate the pipelines under federal authority under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and our safety regulations are administered by the Department of Transportation. In this area pipelines are fully compatible with the Z � ?+T[ C yn u x v ? M 3 _ „3' rt + r r x t t y Y § Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 18 of 64 current land use, which is, basically, agricultural and when we see developments occur, typically what we are -- what we like to see is an open trail system, something that allows us access to the pipelines. This is a critical item for us in that we do numerous inspections for corrosion. We are able to do an electrical inspection over the ground and that will help us find areas where we are having problems coating or corrosion and if we find anything like that we have to excavate the pipeline and repair it. We also run tools through the pipeline and these tools will go through and measure the wall thickness, look for any areas of corrosion or damage to the pipeline, dents, or anything along those lines. Once, again, if we find something that concerns us, we have to be able excavate it immediately. So, we have to have access to these pipelines. And, in fact, our easements do give us the right to have those accesses. We have had some conversations with the applicants. I think it's been more than a year since we have spoken and I don't think we reached any conclusions at that time. I am saddened to see that there -- there was an indicated open area trail system here and I'm saddened to see that the applicant has -- has changed that. So, I guess that's about the extent. I could take any questions that you have. Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I just have a couple. Do you have any pipelines under other urban areas anywhere? Hamilton: Oh, yes. We run through the Seattle area. Through Portland. Through Gresham. We operate pipelines in -- and, actually, our sister company is Transco, operates even in New York City. Marshall: So, do you do -- go underneath roads? Hamilton: We go under roads, yes, we do. Marshall: And under parking lots? Hamilton: It's possible to place them under parking lots. Now, this is always -- anytime you do this -- but you have got to recognize the situation that you have placed the future in, in that you have no notice at all. We may be in a situation of going up in there and digging up that parking lot and that's the situation we would be in. Also, before we would allow a parking lot to be placed over us, we would have to do a full inspection of the line. The line has been in the ground since 1955 and the other one since 1981. Marshall: So, does that include excavating a line to inspect it? Hamilton: That would be full excavation and inspection of the line. Marshall: Okay. And you say you have an electrical inspection for corrosion? r t a' 7 t Yi ini ' r g�b X F id K Y d Atw� �r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 18 of 64 current land use, which is, basically, agricultural and when we see developments occur, typically what we are -- what we like to see is an open trail system, something that allows us access to the pipelines. This is a critical item for us in that we do numerous inspections for corrosion. We are able to do an electrical inspection over the ground and that will help us find areas where we are having problems coating or corrosion and if we find anything like that we have to excavate the pipeline and repair it. We also run tools through the pipeline and these tools will go through and measure the wall thickness, look for any areas of corrosion or damage to the pipeline, dents, or anything along those lines. Once, again, if we find something that concerns us, we have to be able excavate it immediately. So, we have to have access to these pipelines. And, in fact, our easements do give us the right to have those accesses. We have had some conversations with the applicants. I think it's been more than a year since we have spoken and I don't think we reached any conclusions at that time. I am saddened to see that there -- there was an indicated open area trail system here and I'm saddened to see that the applicant has -- has changed that. So, I guess that's about the extent. I could take any questions that you have. Marshall: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I just have a couple. Do you have any pipelines under other urban areas anywhere? Hamilton: Oh, yes. We run through the Seattle area. Through Portland. Through Gresham. We operate pipelines in -- and, actually, our sister company is Transco, operates even in New York City. Marshall: So, do you do -- go underneath roads? Hamilton: We go under roads, yes, we do. Marshall: And under parking lots? Hamilton: It's possible to place them under parking lots. Now, this is always -- anytime you do this -- but you have got to recognize the situation that you have placed the future in, in that you have no notice at all. We may be in a situation of going up in there and digging up that parking lot and that's the situation we would be in. Also, before we would allow a parking lot to be placed over us, we would have to do a full inspection of the line. The line has been in the ground since 1955 and the other one since 1981. Marshall: So, does that include excavating a line to inspect it? Hamilton: That would be full excavation and inspection of the line. Marshall: Okay. And you say you have an electrical inspection for corrosion? 7 t Yi ini ' r g�b X F id K Y d A aa �g � .�wwddvQ .'t 1 -14,0'i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 19 of 64 Hamilton: That's correct. Some of the cathartic protection, you maintain a direct current on the pipeline and it causes ions to flow to the pipeline, instead of away from the pipeline and you can measure the potential in the pipeline to determine areas that are -- Marshall: Which can still be done under a parking lot and street? Hamilton: It can if you -- if you install inspection areas. You need to -- you need to put areas where you can actually make contact with the soil. Marshall: How far apart do those need to be? Hamilton: Oh, probably 50 feet would be adequate, something like that. Marshall: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I guess my only comment is I would presume that the easement associated with the pipeline itself spells out the specific of your right to maintain and if, in fact, the developers adhere to the specifics of the right of way, then, at the end of the day everybody is protected. Would you concur with that? Hamilton: I would. I would also say that it's like when you're talking about the traffic situation on Meridian Road, that there are areas -- there are ways to do it that are more compatible and there are ways to do it that are less compatible. You know, this is a -- it is a critical facility. There are millions of people relying on it and -- and the most compatible way to operate a pipeline in an urban area is to maintain a green space and in most cases if this was to be an urban use, a subdivision you can see that if -- it's very compatible to that. A parking lot is not a best case. Rohm: Yeah. Now, is it right that the -- that gas flows both directions, assume this is from the north, what is it, the Rockies to the -- Hamilton: We have -- we have the capabilities of flowing the pipeline in both directions, but right now the Canadian gas is very expensive. Rockies gas is inexpensive. Rohm: It's kind of like the transmission grid in the electrical system, electricity flows both ways, just as your -- as your gas would. Hamilton: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Well, again, there is ample time for others that would like to come forward. None wanting to come forward. But we have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 20 of 64 multiple issues to discuss here as far as -- just kind of curious as far as some opinions in regards to some of the bullet points that -- in regards to the -- the applicant wanting to change some of these items and whatnot. Rohm: I would like to make just one further comment about the natural gas line. The representative from Williams hit the nail right on the head and the fact of the matter is that that pipeline doesn't serve just the community we live in, it serves all the way from the south all the way to Seattle and everything in between. So, it's of significant importance that the integrity of that easement be adhered to and I don't think we should at any point in time deviate from that or lose site of that, because that is a huge issue from one end to the other. Moe: I agree. A couple things. I guess I would -- I'll ask the question of the Commissioners in regards to the fact that this -- this access that has not really been resolved. You know, this is an open item and, basically, for us to act on this hearing as a whole, that means that we are either going to have to agree with what's shown or make a recommendation to change or whatever on the access or we have the opportunity to continue it until we see the new plan with what access has been finally approved. Rohm: Well, let me just throw out what -- my thoughts and, then, we will get some discussion going here. This is -- this is a commercial development that there is a lot at stake here and to not have any access to the development off of Meridian Road I think compromises the project as a whole. I am not in support of three accesses at all, but I do believe that in -- I don't know, quote, unquote, fairness to the developer, having one access at the quarter mile, which lets the project so you have traffic flow that doesn't -- everything has to come in from the backside or the back -age road, if you will, seems to be in keeping with the desires of the city to minimize access to Meridian Road, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of the developers as a whole. So, from -- from my position I think one access, right -in, right -out, at the quarter mile is a healthy compromise to this development and they will still be able to phase the development in a fashion that the entire back -age road would not have to be constructed at -- at the time that the project began. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: If that center drive aisle were a right -in, right -out only, I'm not sure about fire and EMS not having the back -age road all the way through. I don't know. I don't know what their concerns would be about that. Rohm: Well, they always have access off of Harris and/or Amity. So, the fact that it's a right -in, right -out off of Meridian doesn't preclude them from gaining access to the development at all. I mean they still have total access into the -- the development. Marshall: Right. Right. They usually like to move access, so -- } }s kWyA s pS tii f u F , t r' 1t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 20 of 64 multiple issues to discuss here as far as -- just kind of curious as far as some opinions in regards to some of the bullet points that -- in regards to the -- the applicant wanting to change some of these items and whatnot. Rohm: I would like to make just one further comment about the natural gas line. The representative from Williams hit the nail right on the head and the fact of the matter is that that pipeline doesn't serve just the community we live in, it serves all the way from the south all the way to Seattle and everything in between. So, it's of significant importance that the integrity of that easement be adhered to and I don't think we should at any point in time deviate from that or lose site of that, because that is a huge issue from one end to the other. Moe: I agree. A couple things. I guess I would -- I'll ask the question of the Commissioners in regards to the fact that this -- this access that has not really been resolved. You know, this is an open item and, basically, for us to act on this hearing as a whole, that means that we are either going to have to agree with what's shown or make a recommendation to change or whatever on the access or we have the opportunity to continue it until we see the new plan with what access has been finally approved. Rohm: Well, let me just throw out what -- my thoughts and, then, we will get some discussion going here. This is -- this is a commercial development that there is a lot at stake here and to not have any access to the development off of Meridian Road I think compromises the project as a whole. I am not in support of three accesses at all, but I do believe that in -- I don't know, quote, unquote, fairness to the developer, having one access at the quarter mile, which lets the project so you have traffic flow that doesn't -- everything has to come in from the backside or the back -age road, if you will, seems to be in keeping with the desires of the city to minimize access to Meridian Road, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of the developers as a whole. So, from -- from my position I think one access, right -in, right -out, at the quarter mile is a healthy compromise to this development and they will still be able to phase the development in a fashion that the entire back -age road would not have to be constructed at -- at the time that the project began. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: If that center drive aisle were a right -in, right -out only, I'm not sure about fire and EMS not having the back -age road all the way through. I don't know. I don't know what their concerns would be about that. Rohm: Well, they always have access off of Harris and/or Amity. So, the fact that it's a right -in, right -out off of Meridian doesn't preclude them from gaining access to the development at all. I mean they still have total access into the -- the development. Marshall: Right. Right. They usually like to move access, so -- } }s kWyA 2 pS tii f u Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 20 of 64 multiple issues to discuss here as far as -- just kind of curious as far as some opinions in regards to some of the bullet points that -- in regards to the -- the applicant wanting to change some of these items and whatnot. Rohm: I would like to make just one further comment about the natural gas line. The representative from Williams hit the nail right on the head and the fact of the matter is that that pipeline doesn't serve just the community we live in, it serves all the way from the south all the way to Seattle and everything in between. So, it's of significant importance that the integrity of that easement be adhered to and I don't think we should at any point in time deviate from that or lose site of that, because that is a huge issue from one end to the other. Moe: I agree. A couple things. I guess I would -- I'll ask the question of the Commissioners in regards to the fact that this -- this access that has not really been resolved. You know, this is an open item and, basically, for us to act on this hearing as a whole, that means that we are either going to have to agree with what's shown or make a recommendation to change or whatever on the access or we have the opportunity to continue it until we see the new plan with what access has been finally approved. Rohm: Well, let me just throw out what -- my thoughts and, then, we will get some discussion going here. This is -- this is a commercial development that there is a lot at stake here and to not have any access to the development off of Meridian Road I think compromises the project as a whole. I am not in support of three accesses at all, but I do believe that in -- I don't know, quote, unquote, fairness to the developer, having one access at the quarter mile, which lets the project so you have traffic flow that doesn't -- everything has to come in from the backside or the back -age road, if you will, seems to be in keeping with the desires of the city to minimize access to Meridian Road, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of the developers as a whole. So, from -- from my position I think one access, right -in, right -out, at the quarter mile is a healthy compromise to this development and they will still be able to phase the development in a fashion that the entire back -age road would not have to be constructed at -- at the time that the project began. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: If that center drive aisle were a right -in, right -out only, I'm not sure about fire and EMS not having the back -age road all the way through. I don't know. I don't know what their concerns would be about that. Rohm: Well, they always have access off of Harris and/or Amity. So, the fact that it's a right -in, right -out off of Meridian doesn't preclude them from gaining access to the development at all. I mean they still have total access into the -- the development. Marshall: Right. Right. They usually like to move access, so -- } }s kWyA 2 pS tii f Y4 i t r' 1t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 20 of 64 multiple issues to discuss here as far as -- just kind of curious as far as some opinions in regards to some of the bullet points that -- in regards to the -- the applicant wanting to change some of these items and whatnot. Rohm: I would like to make just one further comment about the natural gas line. The representative from Williams hit the nail right on the head and the fact of the matter is that that pipeline doesn't serve just the community we live in, it serves all the way from the south all the way to Seattle and everything in between. So, it's of significant importance that the integrity of that easement be adhered to and I don't think we should at any point in time deviate from that or lose site of that, because that is a huge issue from one end to the other. Moe: I agree. A couple things. I guess I would -- I'll ask the question of the Commissioners in regards to the fact that this -- this access that has not really been resolved. You know, this is an open item and, basically, for us to act on this hearing as a whole, that means that we are either going to have to agree with what's shown or make a recommendation to change or whatever on the access or we have the opportunity to continue it until we see the new plan with what access has been finally approved. Rohm: Well, let me just throw out what -- my thoughts and, then, we will get some discussion going here. This is -- this is a commercial development that there is a lot at stake here and to not have any access to the development off of Meridian Road I think compromises the project as a whole. I am not in support of three accesses at all, but I do believe that in -- I don't know, quote, unquote, fairness to the developer, having one access at the quarter mile, which lets the project so you have traffic flow that doesn't -- everything has to come in from the backside or the back -age road, if you will, seems to be in keeping with the desires of the city to minimize access to Meridian Road, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of the developers as a whole. So, from -- from my position I think one access, right -in, right -out, at the quarter mile is a healthy compromise to this development and they will still be able to phase the development in a fashion that the entire back -age road would not have to be constructed at -- at the time that the project began. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from. Moe: Okay. Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: If that center drive aisle were a right -in, right -out only, I'm not sure about fire and EMS not having the back -age road all the way through. I don't know. I don't know what their concerns would be about that. Rohm: Well, they always have access off of Harris and/or Amity. So, the fact that it's a right -in, right -out off of Meridian doesn't preclude them from gaining access to the development at all. I mean they still have total access into the -- the development. Marshall: Right. Right. They usually like to move access, so -- } kWyA 2 pS tii f Y4 i 1t ty 3ii4d s b Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 21 of 64 Moe: I do realize that it's a significant cost impact to do the full back -age road all the way through -- Marshall: Yeah. Moe: -- you know, for a development that, you know, they are hoping to fill in. However, you know, a couple things that come to my mind is I like to be able to see that some of these developments -- that they are -- they are taking the step that they are planning to go forward and do as much as possible, you know, to create the -- the whole shopping center is going to come in. I, quite frankly, would like to see the improvements on Meridian Road go all the way through, not just one phase at a time. Rohm: The back -age road? Moe: The back -age road, as well as the front landscaping onto Meridian Road, is that -- and, again, on the -- as far as the right -in, right -out, I agree one hundred percent. One entrance on Meridian Road, right -in, right -out, I have no problem with whatsoever. But beyond that I don't want to see anymore than that as well. But I, myself, would like to see the back -age road go in, as well as the landscaping that's going to be fronting this development in as well, all at one time. Rohm: Seems reasonable. So, I guess we need to get the applicant back up here and discuss what we have discussed. Overy: Good evening. Jason Overy. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 wanted to come up and -- you know, Lance may come up also to add a few things, but I did want to stress to you, the Commission, that we understand the pipeline. It is a very important pipeline that serves this northwest and that in the discussions we had, as Mr. Hamilton mentioned, over a year ago, we recognize that and part of the discussions related to the engineering and the work that would need to take place, so that there could be upgrades and testing to be done and we are more than happy to sit down with Mr. Hamilton and his team to continue to work through those before, you know, we move forward to do that, so they have the opportunity to, you know, do whatever improvements and things they need to have done, so I wanted to stress that to you, because you have made a very important point. In listening to, you know, your concerns related to the back -age road and to the landscaping on Meridian Road -- and I do appreciate the fact that we recognize these are definitely different economic times than we were in 18 months ago, 24 months ago, when even developers could go get, as a condition of the development agreement, the funding we needed to do that. We are looking for some flexibility to come in, still develop, put a shovel in the ground and make that -- get something going on this, but trying to reduce some of those costs to make sure we can get it going. Now, can we concede and say, yes, hey, we will -- we recognize it would be great to have the landscaping along Meridian Road and we would be willing to do that and change that, but, you know, a back -age road -- a 40 foot wide road that we have put in, that's a significantly much more costly item than saying, hey, x rv,• � ,. }int n. �r'k��I4�? 4 dr ;3 F F i a r 9 y i - c z ka 3 4 p Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 22 of 64 let's continue our landscaping for another quarter mile, because, again, we are talking quarter mile segments. These are very significant, you know, undertakings to make this happen. And one additional item of cost that we -- that didn't come up or surface during the presentations is we will be extending utilities as part of the conditions of the development agreement from Victory approximately a mile. I mean that's a significant undertaking to kick off either phase of this development. So, we are just looking for some consideration or some -- some potential help to offset, hey, maybe we can live with that without the full back -age road. Maybe we can put in the landscaping along Meridian, because it is the entryway corridor and have a compromise on that level. Mr. Marshall, I did want to make sure that -- to elaborate a little bit on what Commissioner Rohm said as far as the loop would go with -- with an access point at the quarter mile, whether it came in off that or off the back -age road or off Amity, they would create a full loop. We would have a full circulation, whether it was the southern half of the development or the northern half of the development that came in first, so that we could address that concern for -- that you brought up as far as fire. So, I hope that helps answer some of those questions. Moe: Any other questions? Marshall: The other question stems to the pipeline and that would be -- it doesn't -- I don't know, it sounds like you guys talked, but is there any way to take some more of this and extend it along here to put a larger percentage of that pipeline under greenscape? Overy: You know, when we have looked at this, it really is a -- definitely a constraining element on our site planning for this. You know, we -- as much as it would be nice and we try to take working with staff in the necessary steps to let's create that amenity, which was brought up with -- in the last hearing, where do you go if you're on this pathway? Where does it lead to? And it really wasn't leading to anywhere, so we said what can we do with the constraints we have and that was let's create this open space, let's create this gathering space, people can get on this pathway, they can -- from those neighborhoods they will get to it, they can come to our shopping center. If they want to stop and eat ice cream or do whatever in that covered patio, then, we have created an open space amenity to at least recognize that this now is a ten foot pathway that comes through our center and it does provide somewhere to go. Now, I'm hoping I'm answering your question, Commissioner Marshall, on that, but we really couldn't see how we could carve it through that parking lot to do that and still maintain, you know, an adequate field for our tenant there. Rohm: Let me just throw this out. That pipeline runs all the way from the northwest down into Colorado. There are other cases that have occurred where development's taking place. I think that before we can really act on this application, I think we would like to see some concurrence between you, the developer, and Williams as the pipeline people and you guys come up with something that works between you and them and we can continue of this until you get something that works and I don't care if you expand the greenway or if you allow them to provide protection of -- appropriate location to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 23 of 64 protect the integrity of the pipeline, but I want to know that that's been resolved before we move forward. I just -- I'm not comfortable saying, well, you figure that out after we move this forward. I think that from my perspective, because that's such a significant issue, I'm not comfortable just saying work it out, I'd like to see what the answer is .. ,; before we move this forward. Overy: I'll let -- Tracy, our legal counsel, may be able to address some of the issues related to rights of the easements and, you know, keep in mind that we have the right to f use our property and -- Newton-Huckabay: And I state that up front, that there are specifics to the easement >> associated with the pipeline. They know it and you know it and all of that is well and good, but I want to know what the answer is. ' Ove And we will be happy ppy to help provide that as Mr. Hamilton has mentioned, it's governed by the Department of Transportation and other agencies that say the house happens or so much density of people are within 660 feet or some number and I'm not going to quote what that is, but I know that there are trigger events that require them to ' upgrade that, because it's a Department of Transportation issue and it's governed no differently than a tanker taking gas down the road. So, I'm confident we can -- we can work it out with them and -- at � E } Rohm: And we can, too. I just want to know what that is. .r Moe: I guess the thing that I would be most concerned about is you haven't talked with them for a year. ry Ove Well -- and ry: part of that was, you know, we submitted our application in December of 2007. We met with them in June of '06 and had ongoing conversations and a lot of things have changed since '06, '07, '08 in the process and part of it was do we have something to talk about when we are going through this process to say we ^ have got a Comprehensive Plan change now, we have requested zoning and annexation to you now and once we have a more affirmative timeline -- I know that one of Mr. Hamilton's concerns is when is he going to budget for the upgrades. When does `. that need to happen and at one time we were talking at the 2009 project. Well, we are here and it's not going to be a 2009 project, it's -- you know, we still have some process t to go through with you and ITD and the City Council and it's not kicking off, so I know " that in the previous process we did get to a point where there was some engineering K r; work being done and some things along those lines. Part of that process was who pays for that work -- all those type of items to finalize, but, again, I -- I'm confident we can do that. Rohm: Do you think a continuance for two weeks is adequate or -- you tell us. s Overy: You know, I don't -- I don't know that answer. I mean I -- like I said, I'm not -- I'm k� not seasoned enough on the rules and regulations regarding what Mr. Hamilton has to Via. fi 55 s s +y r: S }"•m 'r";* 4 vPe .'yr4a"� , 14 T ;y 3n b t } � .. �� ➢` # �s .e". ?i'gg fid- :+ t > i r✓s 1 �YT�,a �,,"T. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 24 of 64 do with that pipeline to say can he come to an agreement with us to say in two weeks in his process. So, I can't speak for him. Rohm: My bet is that it would take more than two weeks. Overy: Right. Rohm: That would be my belief and I'm pretty sure of how I feel about the importance of this specific issue and I don't know if I'm speaking for everybody, but I think we need to continue this at leases two meetings and if -- hopefully you will be able to have resolved that issue by the time we reopen the hearing. Evans: Lance Evans again. I just -- I hear your concerns. I hear exactly what you're saying. There are safety issues. There are details to be worked out and that is why we are -- and this whole process gets a little bit ahead of itself. We had to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had to get over that hurdle first. Okay. So, the city's on board with that. Now, let's go on, do we want to be a part of the City of Meridian is the question tonight and what would the zoning on the property be. Those are the questions before us. The city takes the extra step and says, hey, we want to have a development agreement and see a concept plan. We don't want to just give you a general -- general commercial zoning, we want to see a development agreement and concept plan that nails you down a little bit more, so we at least have some idea of what we are getting and we are trying to provide that. But to continue to hold us off on moving this project forward, that's what the development agreement is for. It's so that these details, which will have to be worked out before we can move forward. Before we can build a building on that site, before we can pave over it, we have got to do it. But part of the problem and part of the reason we haven't discussed this is kind of -- as Jason alluded to, is because we have got to get this answer before we can go to this one and before we spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on engineering and site planning -- gosh, are we going to be part of the City of Meridian and are we going to be zoned? And that's the question before us tonight. And I just -- I think your concerns are legitimate, but I just want to say that we got to keep it moving forward, so that it functions for us. Rohm: What's the time frame between once it leaves here before heard by City Council? Is it usually 30 days or longer or -- Hill: Around 30 days. Evans: You know, I think we can make some significant progress in 30 days and when it comes before Council, they can look at it again. After that we have the development agreement, which the city has control over, that they can say, no, that is not an adequate coordination with the pipeline. But we need to keep moving forward to get those questions, you know, and the other issues on that site. So, it comes back to that's why you have the different applications. You have an application for one thing, is the comp planning right? Should it be annexed. Should it be rezoned? Design review. a�. .. -i E x � t k f� k a:i c a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 24 of 64 do with that pipeline to say can he come to an agreement with us to say in two weeks in his process. So, I can't speak for him. Rohm: My bet is that it would take more than two weeks. Overy: Right. Rohm: That would be my belief and I'm pretty sure of how I feel about the importance of this specific issue and I don't know if I'm speaking for everybody, but I think we need to continue this at leases two meetings and if -- hopefully you will be able to have resolved that issue by the time we reopen the hearing. Evans: Lance Evans again. I just -- I hear your concerns. I hear exactly what you're saying. There are safety issues. There are details to be worked out and that is why we are -- and this whole process gets a little bit ahead of itself. We had to get the Comprehensive Plan amendment. We had to get over that hurdle first. Okay. So, the city's on board with that. Now, let's go on, do we want to be a part of the City of Meridian is the question tonight and what would the zoning on the property be. Those are the questions before us. The city takes the extra step and says, hey, we want to have a development agreement and see a concept plan. We don't want to just give you a general -- general commercial zoning, we want to see a development agreement and concept plan that nails you down a little bit more, so we at least have some idea of what we are getting and we are trying to provide that. But to continue to hold us off on moving this project forward, that's what the development agreement is for. It's so that these details, which will have to be worked out before we can move forward. Before we can build a building on that site, before we can pave over it, we have got to do it. But part of the problem and part of the reason we haven't discussed this is kind of -- as Jason alluded to, is because we have got to get this answer before we can go to this one and before we spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on engineering and site planning -- gosh, are we going to be part of the City of Meridian and are we going to be zoned? And that's the question before us tonight. And I just -- I think your concerns are legitimate, but I just want to say that we got to keep it moving forward, so that it functions for us. Rohm: What's the time frame between once it leaves here before heard by City Council? Is it usually 30 days or longer or -- Hill: Around 30 days. Evans: You know, I think we can make some significant progress in 30 days and when it comes before Council, they can look at it again. After that we have the development agreement, which the city has control over, that they can say, no, that is not an adequate coordination with the pipeline. But we need to keep moving forward to get those questions, you know, and the other issues on that site. So, it comes back to that's why you have the different applications. You have an application for one thing, is the comp planning right? Should it be annexed. Should it be rezoned? Design review. 5t.4i, .. -i 3.:..i✓ x � t c a t i v t. 5t.4i, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 25 of 64 What's the building and the site going to look like. The development agreement adds a little more restriction to the zoning. So, I really feel that you're covered and I just -- we need to keep this project moving forward is our concern. Moe: Well, sir, I just might add to that. Item number 17, basically, in the DA in the applicant shall coordinate with the Northwest Pipeline Company prior to any construction on the southern portion of the development. That should be both the southern and northern, since the pipeline does go to the north, does it not? Rohm: It crosses both portions. Moe: It crosses both. Rohm: And as long as that's one of the provisions in the staff report, then, maybe we can -- I'll give them the allowance to get that resolved, but -- and it wouldn't necessarily change -- it wouldn't change the zoning, but it certainly affects it and when the development actually does occur. So, we still have some -- Moe: I have one more question I would like to talk about to the applicant as well, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I have a question, too. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you had a question? Newton-Huckabay: I just -- I don't have any problem moving this forward. I want to address some of these bullet points, because I'm not in agreement with the red line -- all the red lines from the developer, but -- but I'm recommending approval and the development agreement, which includes these concept plans that are before us -- I'll try to phrase this in a relatively intelligent question. In my mind there is a possibility that the concept could change significantly with coordination for the pipeline and how do we -- how do we -- how do we address that and that I don't want to imply that -- that we are approving this in -- or recommending approval the way it looks today, when it may significantly -- will it significantly have to change as it -- Moe: It very well could. Newton-Huckabay: In our motion -- I mean is there something we need to state in the motion or -- Moe: Well, I think that's something you can sure ask -- Newton-Huckabay: If it changes significantly, come back through the approval process Marshall: That's a subjective term. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 26 of 64 Rohm: I think the -- I think the answer to your question is the concept plan that's before us is just that and all we are acting on at this point in time is the zoning for the properties and at such time that they move forward with actual development of the -- after the zoning is obtained, is going to have to receive approval through the city as well. So, by granting the annexation and zoning doesn't preclude responding to your concerns as they become more apparent. Newton-Huckabay: But is not the concept plan part of the development agreement? Rohm: You know, concept plans -- they all change. I mean I don't know that I have seen one project that has developed exactly as the concept plan was presented in the zoning application and so I don't think that any of us are naive enough to believe that -- that it will develop exactly as the concept plays out right now, as none of them -- no projects ever do. Newton-Huckabay: Are you calling me naive? Rohm: Not ever. But, anyway, that's just my comments on that part. Moe: Okay. My tum. You know, the problem I'm having and one of the comments you got here, as far as within your phasing plan and whatnot, you do not -- you would, basically, be able to make sure all the improvements are done prior to final occupancy, in lieu of prior to building permit issuance. I'm kind of curious as to why you wouldn't have the improvements taken care of prior to building permit issuance, as opposed to final occupancy? Evans: So, I -- let me just restate the question, because I'm -- yeah. We are asking to -- let me do it this way. We are asking to be able to work on the site improvements, on the road, on the landscaping, you know, the civil engineering work for that site in accordance with the building construction and it comes back to, similarly, the reason for the reason for the phasing. If we can start tearing up the ground for -- do all the civil work and the green takes place, you can build the pad site first and those guys can move on -- and this is very generally, but those guys can, then, move on and start working on the road and start working on the landscaping, while we are under construction with the building. If we have to go through the whole civil engineering of the site, build the road and, then, build the landscaping and, then, we can come in and say now maybe we have a building permit, we have got another six or eight or -- these are big stores, maybe even longer -- months before that happens. So, that -- it, effectively, doubles the time, give or take. Moe: You answered my question. Evans: Okay. vi y ,06 F 4 � t FFY,i � fi K12 "Ar t {_ r, Z Y, r i w P �i 3 k .5 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 26 of 64 Rohm: I think the -- I think the answer to your question is the concept plan that's before us is just that and all we are acting on at this point in time is the zoning for the properties and at such time that they move forward with actual development of the -- after the zoning is obtained, is going to have to receive approval through the city as well. So, by granting the annexation and zoning doesn't preclude responding to your concerns as they become more apparent. Newton-Huckabay: But is not the concept plan part of the development agreement? Rohm: You know, concept plans -- they all change. I mean I don't know that I have seen one project that has developed exactly as the concept plan was presented in the zoning application and so I don't think that any of us are naive enough to believe that -- that it will develop exactly as the concept plays out right now, as none of them -- no projects ever do. Newton-Huckabay: Are you calling me naive? Rohm: Not ever. But, anyway, that's just my comments on that part. Moe: Okay. My tum. You know, the problem I'm having and one of the comments you got here, as far as within your phasing plan and whatnot, you do not -- you would, basically, be able to make sure all the improvements are done prior to final occupancy, in lieu of prior to building permit issuance. I'm kind of curious as to why you wouldn't have the improvements taken care of prior to building permit issuance, as opposed to final occupancy? Evans: So, I -- let me just restate the question, because I'm -- yeah. We are asking to -- let me do it this way. We are asking to be able to work on the site improvements, on the road, on the landscaping, you know, the civil engineering work for that site in accordance with the building construction and it comes back to, similarly, the reason for the reason for the phasing. If we can start tearing up the ground for -- do all the civil work and the green takes place, you can build the pad site first and those guys can move on -- and this is very generally, but those guys can, then, move on and start working on the road and start working on the landscaping, while we are under construction with the building. If we have to go through the whole civil engineering of the site, build the road and, then, build the landscaping and, then, we can come in and say now maybe we have a building permit, we have got another six or eight or -- these are big stores, maybe even longer -- months before that happens. So, that -- it, effectively, doubles the time, give or take. Moe: You answered my question. Evans: Okay. vi y ,06 4 � t FFY,i � fi t {_ 3 k .5 1 t § S Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 27 of 64 Moe: Yes, I did know that. I wanted to make sure that we all understood it. Any other questions of the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Baird. Baird: I might add -- with regard to your question about the conceptual site plan, item number nine in the DA does require general consistency and if there is a change, as determined by the planning director -- if, for some reason, the discussions with the pipeline company effect a change that the planning director thinks is significant, they would have to apply for an amendment to the DA to come back to you -- or come back to City Council under the DA to approve any changes. So, what -- if you do choose to approve this. with the concept plan as presented and for some reason the negotiations with the pipeline company didn't work out, it's likely the matter would be back before the City Council for resolution. Rohm: But that doesn't -- still doesn't change the zoning applications before us. Baird: That's correct. All I'm saying is it -- it does give you a measure of security that if things don't work out to allow the parking lot go over the pipeline, it's going to come back to City Council in the form of a DA modification. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Baird, does it imply that we -- I mean in my mind this is saying this is how I prefer it to develop as paving the over pipeline. Is imply the city prefers it to develop out that way or -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's not saying that you prefer it that way; it's just saying you're improving the application to do it that way. And they are moving forward with the full knowledge that there may be some requirements of the pipeline company they are gong to have to meet. There is an e-mail from the pipeline company in the packet that outlines some significant upgrades that may have to take place. It sounds like they are well aware of that and they are choosing to go forward with that knowledge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just don't want to inadvertently -- and the terminology -- give the upper hand, if you will, or a back door blessing to the developer to say, well, this is what we prefer and so -- against the pipeline company, so to speak, but if we are -- if we are not doing that, then -- and, then, I'm -- I guess that's the answer to my question. '� z ;� �.. .. J. ;' v .•.e i.. ren€;. �c� y:.a �v'?r ,.: p' :i .,. f� ri k s kPa J Y�tY Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 27 of 64 Moe: Yes, I did know that. I wanted to make sure that we all understood it. Any other questions of the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Baird. Baird: I might add -- with regard to your question about the conceptual site plan, item number nine in the DA does require general consistency and if there is a change, as determined by the planning director -- if, for some reason, the discussions with the pipeline company effect a change that the planning director thinks is significant, they would have to apply for an amendment to the DA to come back to you -- or come back to City Council under the DA to approve any changes. So, what -- if you do choose to approve this. with the concept plan as presented and for some reason the negotiations with the pipeline company didn't work out, it's likely the matter would be back before the City Council for resolution. Rohm: But that doesn't -- still doesn't change the zoning applications before us. Baird: That's correct. All I'm saying is it -- it does give you a measure of security that if things don't work out to allow the parking lot go over the pipeline, it's going to come back to City Council in the form of a DA modification. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Baird, does it imply that we -- I mean in my mind this is saying this is how I prefer it to develop as paving the over pipeline. Is imply the city prefers it to develop out that way or -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's not saying that you prefer it that way; it's just saying you're improving the application to do it that way. And they are moving forward with the full knowledge that there may be some requirements of the pipeline company they are gong to have to meet. There is an e-mail from the pipeline company in the packet that outlines some significant upgrades that may have to take place. It sounds like they are well aware of that and they are choosing to go forward with that knowledge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just don't want to inadvertently -- and the terminology -- give the upper hand, if you will, or a back door blessing to the developer to say, well, this is what we prefer and so -- against the pipeline company, so to speak, but if we are -- if we are not doing that, then -- and, then, I'm -- I guess that's the answer to my question. '� z ;� �.. .. J. ;' v .•.e i.. ren€;. �c� y:.a �v'?r ,.: p' :i .,. 5w, ri k s kPa Y�tY Z Y. x V ;,, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 27 of 64 Moe: Yes, I did know that. I wanted to make sure that we all understood it. Any other questions of the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Baird. Baird: I might add -- with regard to your question about the conceptual site plan, item number nine in the DA does require general consistency and if there is a change, as determined by the planning director -- if, for some reason, the discussions with the pipeline company effect a change that the planning director thinks is significant, they would have to apply for an amendment to the DA to come back to you -- or come back to City Council under the DA to approve any changes. So, what -- if you do choose to approve this. with the concept plan as presented and for some reason the negotiations with the pipeline company didn't work out, it's likely the matter would be back before the City Council for resolution. Rohm: But that doesn't -- still doesn't change the zoning applications before us. Baird: That's correct. All I'm saying is it -- it does give you a measure of security that if things don't work out to allow the parking lot go over the pipeline, it's going to come back to City Council in the form of a DA modification. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Baird, does it imply that we -- I mean in my mind this is saying this is how I prefer it to develop as paving the over pipeline. Is imply the city prefers it to develop out that way or -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's not saying that you prefer it that way; it's just saying you're improving the application to do it that way. And they are moving forward with the full knowledge that there may be some requirements of the pipeline company they are gong to have to meet. There is an e-mail from the pipeline company in the packet that outlines some significant upgrades that may have to take place. It sounds like they are well aware of that and they are choosing to go forward with that knowledge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just don't want to inadvertently -- and the terminology -- give the upper hand, if you will, or a back door blessing to the developer to say, well, this is what we prefer and so -- against the pipeline company, so to speak, but if we are -- if we are not doing that, then -- and, then, I'm -- I guess that's the answer to my question. '� z ;� �.. .. J. ;' v .•.e i.. ren€;. �c� y:.a �v'?r ,.: :i .,. 5w, s kPa Y�tY Z 1A10 1, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 27 of 64 Moe: Yes, I did know that. I wanted to make sure that we all understood it. Any other questions of the applicant? Baird: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Baird. Baird: I might add -- with regard to your question about the conceptual site plan, item number nine in the DA does require general consistency and if there is a change, as determined by the planning director -- if, for some reason, the discussions with the pipeline company effect a change that the planning director thinks is significant, they would have to apply for an amendment to the DA to come back to you -- or come back to City Council under the DA to approve any changes. So, what -- if you do choose to approve this. with the concept plan as presented and for some reason the negotiations with the pipeline company didn't work out, it's likely the matter would be back before the City Council for resolution. Rohm: But that doesn't -- still doesn't change the zoning applications before us. Baird: That's correct. All I'm saying is it -- it does give you a measure of security that if things don't work out to allow the parking lot go over the pipeline, it's going to come back to City Council in the form of a DA modification. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Baird, does it imply that we -- I mean in my mind this is saying this is how I prefer it to develop as paving the over pipeline. Is imply the city prefers it to develop out that way or -- Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, it's not saying that you prefer it that way; it's just saying you're improving the application to do it that way. And they are moving forward with the full knowledge that there may be some requirements of the pipeline company they are gong to have to meet. There is an e-mail from the pipeline company in the packet that outlines some significant upgrades that may have to take place. It sounds like they are well aware of that and they are choosing to go forward with that knowledge. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I just don't want to inadvertently -- and the terminology -- give the upper hand, if you will, or a back door blessing to the developer to say, well, this is what we prefer and so -- against the pipeline company, so to speak, but if we are -- if we are not doing that, then -- and, then, I'm -- I guess that's the answer to my question. '� z ;� �.. .. J. ;' v .•.e i.. ren€;. �c� y:.a �v'?r ,.: :i .,. 5w, s kPa 1A10 1, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 28 of 64 Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if it's your preference that this remain a natural open area, then, your option would be to deny the site plan as presented. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I don't -- I don't have a preference that it remain, necessarily, in a natural open area, I just don't want one person to have the upper hand, if you will, on the other one in negotiation process in equal rights to develop your property or maintain your property and I would -- that may or may not be the case, I just don't want to end up inadvertently -- this is the first time we have ever had a piece of property come through with a pipeline, so I just don't want to -- Baird: Members of the Commission, I think both parties are well aware of their respective rights. One person owns the property, the other person owns the very significant easement, so I think -- Newton-Huckabay: So, I'm good. Moe: Okay. Any other issues that -- Newton-Huckabay: I thought that developing along Meridian Road, in the totality of the development, but only the back -age road in whatever portion is being developed; I thought that was a reasonable -- reasonable compromise there. But there was an issue on landscaping along that back -age road and I wasn't really in favor of modifying the landscaping. I think that that -- I mean personally I'd like to see that remain in place. Rohm: If you have a back -age road and a landscape buffer, the width of that landscape road and the buffer itself -- it seems to me that's going to be like 60 feet if, in fact, you do the 20 feet, 40 foot, you're giving up 60 feet and I think what the developer's saying is we are already giving you a 40 foot road, maybe you can give us a little concession on the landscape, because by reducing that to ten, so that we are only giving you 50 feet, rather than the 60 feet. Is that correct? Maybe Bill could respond to that. Parsons: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I'll on that a little bit more, just to try to give you a bigger overall picture on this roadway. Basically, as you know, ACHD would classify what this road is going to be and that's going to be based on the trip generation. So, I would anticipate if access is denied along Meridian Road, this will become a collector road and our code requires a 20 foot landscape buffer along a collector roadway. If, in fact, they do get some access here, it will probably reduce the trips on that and in anticipation of that probably might not classified as a collector road and a ten foot buffer might be adequate. So, what we could do is in that DA provision we could modify that to say based on what it gets classified, we could either say it's a designated collector, they'd need to keep it 20 feet. If it's not designated a collector street, then, you -- or collector street, then, you can possibly have just -- you can provide a ten foot landscape buffer, if the applicant is willing to do that. �MIIWIL ; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 29 of 64 Marshall: My other issue -- Mr. Chair? My other issue there is the proximity of these large buildings to those single family residences right across that back -age road and that I would like to see that additional buffer there, because you're putting some very large buildings right next to single family residential. Typically I like to see office buildings, some other sort of material. I think as a site that's needed in that part of town, I think we need the commercial out here, I think it's an area that needs to be served. But at the same time I'm worried about the single family residential that's going to be backing right up to it. Evans: And if I can clarify a little bit on that? Would that be all right? Moe: Go ahead. Evans: In particular, this building here, where we are tight on landscaping is right down in here. We will have the roadway, then, the five foot sidewalk and, then, ten foot of landscaping. The code requires us to put in -- and maybe Bill can clarify for me -- would the sidewalk count as landscaping or do we need a five foot wide sidewalk and 20 feet of landscaping? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a detached sidewalk you can incorporate that as part of your landscaping. Evans: So, if we detach the sidewalk on this section, we are really only asking for five feet, because the five foot sidewalk would count. So, we could have -- we just need that five foot flexibility. It just helps us -- there is a property line going down the middle. It just makes it so we are able to stay on our property and not have to go into all the negotiations with the adjacent property owner to, you know, do more work there. And Jason wants to clarify that. Overy: I wanted to clarify one point on that. We have been working with Victoria Laidlaw and worked with all of our neighbors here to make sure we are working together. Part of the way we did design this -- and I -- we definitely understand the concern with the single family housing. There is a -- this is where that single family housing is proposed and our green space and our limited development is -- we try to -- you know, to bring those two together, so that we could reduce that impact, Commissioner Rohm -- I mean Marshall. And so we definitely were cognizant of that when we designed this and we understand that. What Lance also talked about is on the southern half -- you know, Mrs. Laidlaw has been very cooperative, but she's also said I just want to, you know, live here until I go meet my maker and if we end up building that road we are going to end up having to do half plus 12 and we are just trying to get that ten feet back to say, hey, if we have to build half the road, plus another 12 feet, it's pushing that road more onto our property, so we'd like to squeeze that ten out of the 20 foot landscaping. So, you know, once -- when and if that does develop and we can limit that flexibility to the southern half, if you -- if that is helpful or agreeable to the Commission, it gives us a little more flexibility there, knowing that we are going to end up having to mostly build half plus 12 and when we head north Mr. Johnson's been s �11140, y� t � X 5.. Lf S i est �vs.�Ki 'k" , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 29 of 64 Marshall: My other issue -- Mr. Chair? My other issue there is the proximity of these large buildings to those single family residences right across that back -age road and that I would like to see that additional buffer there, because you're putting some very large buildings right next to single family residential. Typically I like to see office buildings, some other sort of material. I think as a site that's needed in that part of town, I think we need the commercial out here, I think it's an area that needs to be served. But at the same time I'm worried about the single family residential that's going to be backing right up to it. Evans: And if I can clarify a little bit on that? Would that be all right? Moe: Go ahead. Evans: In particular, this building here, where we are tight on landscaping is right down in here. We will have the roadway, then, the five foot sidewalk and, then, ten foot of landscaping. The code requires us to put in -- and maybe Bill can clarify for me -- would the sidewalk count as landscaping or do we need a five foot wide sidewalk and 20 feet of landscaping? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a detached sidewalk you can incorporate that as part of your landscaping. Evans: So, if we detach the sidewalk on this section, we are really only asking for five feet, because the five foot sidewalk would count. So, we could have -- we just need that five foot flexibility. It just helps us -- there is a property line going down the middle. It just makes it so we are able to stay on our property and not have to go into all the negotiations with the adjacent property owner to, you know, do more work there. And Jason wants to clarify that. Overy: I wanted to clarify one point on that. We have been working with Victoria Laidlaw and worked with all of our neighbors here to make sure we are working together. Part of the way we did design this -- and I -- we definitely understand the concern with the single family housing. There is a -- this is where that single family housing is proposed and our green space and our limited development is -- we try to -- you know, to bring those two together, so that we could reduce that impact, Commissioner Rohm -- I mean Marshall. And so we definitely were cognizant of that when we designed this and we understand that. What Lance also talked about is on the southern half -- you know, Mrs. Laidlaw has been very cooperative, but she's also said I just want to, you know, live here until I go meet my maker and if we end up building that road we are going to end up having to do half plus 12 and we are just trying to get that ten feet back to say, hey, if we have to build half the road, plus another 12 feet, it's pushing that road more onto our property, so we'd like to squeeze that ten out of the 20 foot landscaping. So, you know, once -- when and if that does develop and we can limit that flexibility to the southern half, if you -- if that is helpful or agreeable to the Commission, it gives us a little more flexibility there, knowing that we are going to end up having to mostly build half plus 12 and when we head north Mr. Johnson's been �11140, � X 5.. Lf S i est �vs.�Ki " fi NO 5 i } t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 30 of 64 more than agreeable to allow it to come back to the property line and he'd build his half and we build our half and we are not looking -- wouldn't necessarily need that flexibility on that northern portion of it. It helps. And as shown it already has that 20 foot buffer on the northern portion of it. It's only the southern that we are looking for that flexibility. Hope that helps explain what -- Moe: Thank you. Mr. Marshall, you look like you have a comment. Marshall: So, when we are building the road -- so, when they are building that road, this landscape buffer is required on both sides of the road and that's what's pushing it to the west. Excuse me. The east. Is that correct? Overy: What's pushing -- when we come in, if Mrs. Laidlaw or someone else does not -- is not in a position or not ready to move forward -- staff can clarify this -- our understanding is we will have to build half, we end up shifting our road back to the east another 12 feet, so that we can provide adequate circulation for two lanes of traffic. Marshall: The whole road goes on your property, rather than half the road. Overy: Uh-huh. And so when they come in they have to complete the road, then, they will put in their landscape buffer. So, you know, you could have over a hundred some feet there, depending on how that develops between the back of our building and just to reiterate, you know, we did -- you know, we did agree that we would, you know, screen trash enclosures, screen the -- screen the loading docks. Do the -- you know, similar to what happened to the Kohl's where they -- nice building materials and broke those backs out, so that they aren't looking at that, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. t ' 00 �a Y 4 ' r �r x t r= t t J 2'4n r d Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 30 of 64 more than agreeable to allow it to come back to the property line and he'd build his half and we build our half and we are not looking -- wouldn't necessarily need that flexibility on that northern portion of it. It helps. And as shown it already has that 20 foot buffer on the northern portion of it. It's only the southern that we are looking for that flexibility. Hope that helps explain what -- Moe: Thank you. Mr. Marshall, you look like you have a comment. Marshall: So, when we are building the road -- so, when they are building that road, this landscape buffer is required on both sides of the road and that's what's pushing it to the west. Excuse me. The east. Is that correct? Overy: What's pushing -- when we come in, if Mrs. Laidlaw or someone else does not -- is not in a position or not ready to move forward -- staff can clarify this -- our understanding is we will have to build half, we end up shifting our road back to the east another 12 feet, so that we can provide adequate circulation for two lanes of traffic. Marshall: The whole road goes on your property, rather than half the road. Overy: Uh-huh. And so when they come in they have to complete the road, then, they will put in their landscape buffer. So, you know, you could have over a hundred some feet there, depending on how that develops between the back of our building and just to reiterate, you know, we did -- you know, we did agree that we would, you know, screen trash enclosures, screen the -- screen the loading docks. Do the -- you know, similar to what happened to the Kohl's where they -- nice building materials and broke those backs out, so that they aren't looking at that, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Y �a Y 4 ' "f x t r= t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 30 of 64 more than agreeable to allow it to come back to the property line and he'd build his half and we build our half and we are not looking -- wouldn't necessarily need that flexibility on that northern portion of it. It helps. And as shown it already has that 20 foot buffer on the northern portion of it. It's only the southern that we are looking for that flexibility. Hope that helps explain what -- Moe: Thank you. Mr. Marshall, you look like you have a comment. Marshall: So, when we are building the road -- so, when they are building that road, this landscape buffer is required on both sides of the road and that's what's pushing it to the west. Excuse me. The east. Is that correct? Overy: What's pushing -- when we come in, if Mrs. Laidlaw or someone else does not -- is not in a position or not ready to move forward -- staff can clarify this -- our understanding is we will have to build half, we end up shifting our road back to the east another 12 feet, so that we can provide adequate circulation for two lanes of traffic. Marshall: The whole road goes on your property, rather than half the road. Overy: Uh-huh. And so when they come in they have to complete the road, then, they will put in their landscape buffer. So, you know, you could have over a hundred some feet there, depending on how that develops between the back of our building and just to reiterate, you know, we did -- you know, we did agree that we would, you know, screen trash enclosures, screen the -- screen the loading docks. Do the -- you know, similar to what happened to the Kohl's where they -- nice building materials and broke those backs out, so that they aren't looking at that, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on AZ 08-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. � a "f W g 'i i J Y1n � i #Yt1f"rd`N?jv''� ,tx �m r r S '11,,6 E 4J �'� a gk r ns�,.xt.<".�.A y $ Y -41 r y Y J i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 31 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to ask staff if the comments added on bullet points three and four by the developer -- number three reading: Subject to any applicable reimbursement agreements. And number four: As depicted on the submitted concept plan, are -- those seem very minor to me. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission; we are in agreement with that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Those are the only two minor ones that -- Rohm: How do you feel about the -- the split on the -- the 20 feet on the north and the 20 feet on the south half? Is that acceptable to you? I don't know how you -- can that even be in a motion to change the landscape buffer on the north half to the south half? It can? Okay. Parsons: Yes. Rohm: And how do you feel about that? Because I think you're the one that's going to be making the motion. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to say it wasn't a deal breaker for me from the beginning. Given the information by the developer I would be -- I would be okay with that. I do want to see the development -- or the landscaping along Meridian Road all the way the entire length of the development. Rohm: And only one access off of -- Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think I would only support a right -in, right -out at approximately the quarter mile. So, that would be that -- bullet number 13 would be modified to say that access to Meridian Road is limited to one recommended -- limited to one right -in, right -out. Marshall: At approximately the quarter mile? Rohm: Right. Newton-Huckabay: Bullet number 11, construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road and a ten foot wide pathway prior to issuance of the first building permit -- okay. So, that bullet point would state exactly as stated in the staff report. No changes? Moe: They are requesting going to certificate of occupancy, in lieu of the building permit. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is okay with C of O. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 °• a Page 32 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, going from -- change that, then -- I have lost my place. ' Okay. So, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, rather than building permit. Moe: Yes. f s Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Bullet point number 12, a 25 foot wide buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road with five foot detached sidewalks. Construct a 20 foot wide landscape street buffer along Harris Street to the north and the collector backage road adjacent to the west property boundary. Okay. So, we are going to go with the -- we are going to accept the developer's request -- a 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road, with five foot detached sidewalk. 4 Construct a 20 foot wide landscape buffer along Harris Street to the north and a ten foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back-age road adjacent to the west property ra„ boundary. Buffer shall be designed in accordance with the standard listed in the UDC and shall be constructed in the phasing as outlined in the previous condition and shall be constructed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the respective phase if the plat has not been recorded. So, we all agree with that statement. r Moe: Mr. Rohm, you're requesting that the northern phasing be the 20 feet along the west property line and that the southern be ten foot on the west property line. Rohm: Well, I think the developer has just agreed that they would -- they could live with Y ' that and so if they will agree to that, let's put it in there. Newton-Huckabay: So, the -- okay. So-- o--Marshall: Marshall:I would prefer it. Moe: You wouldn't have to change anything. It's all there. Just come here and construct a 20 foot wide buffer along Harris Street -- Newton-Huckabay: To the north, which is north of the property. And a ten foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back-age road on the south -- '; Moe: Or on the west property line. x k r Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to call it the south phase and by that I mean the phase that -- the quarter mile down to Amity. _ Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Number 13. Already did that one. Sixteen. I was okay -- we all agree that the applicant shall construct its half of the collector back-age road from Amity Road or Harris Street to the center east-west drive aisle prior to the first certificate S .. ," ,9F .« .. Ai k F kyi k ;.: ! +•i• dt,r)R-4k >,vg,R - ,...T£ y ' ..C��1�>i T x } Y f3 �Fh "�.•�, :. . `.. .:. ., iJ.t m � i .sN,^3„T} � 5 . k A ,E# X 'a^S?��;n'2§°?� rx ' N vv 4, .fir rlhi4 a T ,+` .rx$d5t, < r l x r a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 33 of 64 of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as propose on the concept plan. That is -- we are all in agreement with that? Moe: Because we are getting full landscape -- Newton-Huckabay: Along Meridian Road. All right. This is going to be a very long motion, so everybody hold on. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number 08-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. Starting with development agreement, bullet point number three, add the word subject to any applicable reimbursement agreement. Bullet point number four, add the -- the words: As depicted on the submitted concept plan. Bullet number 11. Construct -- will be changed to read: Construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road and a ten foot wide pathway prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. This buffer shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7 and be placed along the entire eastern boundary of the subject site. Bullet point number 12 will be modified to read a 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road with five foot detached sidewalk. Construct a foot wide landscape street buffer along Hams Street to the northern and a ten foot wide landscape buffer on the southern property -- or the southern phase of the development along the collector back -age road adjacent to the west property boundary. These buffers shall be designed in accordance with the standard listed in the UDC and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the respective phase if the plat has not been recorded. Bullet point number 13 will be modified to read: One access to Meridian Road is recommended as a right -in, right -out at approximately the quarter mile mark of the property, finally, bullet number 16, the applicant shall construct its half of the collector back -age road from Amity Road or Harris Street to the center east -west drive aisle prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as proposed on the concept plan. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Marshall: I was going to ask you to add one thing with the 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back -age road adjacent to the west property on the north half of the property. Newton-Huckabay: I believe that was already in the staff report. We were only modifying the -- my intent was to only modify the ten foot on the southern phase of the property. Marshall: I understand. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Again second. t 2 A � ti �k h>. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 33 of 64 of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as propose on the concept plan. That is -- we are all in agreement with that? Moe: Because we are getting full landscape -- Newton-Huckabay: Along Meridian Road. All right. This is going to be a very long motion, so everybody hold on. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number 08-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. Starting with development agreement, bullet point number three, add the word subject to any applicable reimbursement agreement. Bullet point number four, add the -- the words: As depicted on the submitted concept plan. Bullet number 11. Construct -- will be changed to read: Construct a 35 foot wide landscape buffer along the entire length of Meridian Road and a ten foot wide pathway prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. This buffer shall be designed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7 and be placed along the entire eastern boundary of the subject site. Bullet point number 12 will be modified to read a 25 foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along West Amity Road with five foot detached sidewalk. Construct a foot wide landscape street buffer along Hams Street to the northern and a ten foot wide landscape buffer on the southern property -- or the southern phase of the development along the collector back -age road adjacent to the west property boundary. These buffers shall be designed in accordance with the standard listed in the UDC and shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the respective phase if the plat has not been recorded. Bullet point number 13 will be modified to read: One access to Meridian Road is recommended as a right -in, right -out at approximately the quarter mile mark of the property, finally, bullet number 16, the applicant shall construct its half of the collector back -age road from Amity Road or Harris Street to the center east -west drive aisle prior to the first certificate of occupancy of the first building in respective phase, as proposed on the concept plan. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Marshall: I was going to ask you to add one thing with the 20 foot wide landscape buffer along the collector back -age road adjacent to the west property on the north half of the property. Newton-Huckabay: I believe that was already in the staff report. We were only modifying the -- my intent was to only modify the ten foot on the southern phase of the property. Marshall: I understand. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Again second. 2 A � N h� z$ i z Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 34 of 64 Moe: It has been moved and seconded to move onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 08-005, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We normally take a break at 9:00 o'clock, so we will be back at 9:05. (Recess.) Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 08-025 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates by Marc Johnson —1332, 1402 & 1414 N. Meridian Road: Moe: I'd like to reopen the hearing this evening and open the public hearing for CUP 08-025 for Shaylee Estates and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit request for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district. Approval of a private street is also requested for access to the site from Meridian Road and for addressing purposes. The site is located on the east side of Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile south of Fairview Avenue on the rear portion of the properties located at 1332, 1402, and 1414 North Meridian Road. Surrounding uses. To the north are commercial property and a residential mobile home park, zoned C -C. To the south is a hair salon, zoned C -C. To the east are commercial properties, zoned C -C. And to the west right here is an office of Talon Construction. And a residence, zoned C -C. This is an aerial view of the property. There is an existing house that's used as a dwelling here on the north. The office for Talon Construction. And a vacant house and outbuilding here on the southern property. The house and shed here will be removed upon -- upon development of this property. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved that created the parcel for the subject development. This whole parcel here outlined in red. A little history on this site. Last year a rezone to Old Town, a preliminary plat for two office lots, six residential lots, and one common lot and a Conditional Use Permit to construct six townhomes in the Old Town district were approved for Shaylee Estates. However, the applicant has decided to develop the site in a different manner and the rezone, CUP, and preliminary plat are not needed now. The development agreement was never signed, so the property is still zoned C -C. This is a copy of the proposed site and landscape plan. The 9,500 square foot assisted living facility, with 15 beds, is proposed here at the rear of the property on this new parcel that was created through the property boundary adjustment. Access to the site is provided from Meridian Road via Kimberly Lane, a private street. Stub driveways are proposed to the north and to the south for future cross -access. At the south is a shared driveway. It's currently approximately 18 feet wide. Staff is recommending that it be widened to 20 feet wide. It is currently shared with the property owner to the south, who is operating a beauty salon there. And I just spoke Johnson: Good evening, Chairman Moe and Members of the Commission. My name is Mark Johnson. I live at 12389 West Bowmont Street in Boise, Idaho. 83713. First of all, I'd like to say I'm really glad I'm not sitting on townhomes. I'm recommending the approval of the CUP with the conditions of the staff report. I believe this facility is greatly needed and will be a valuable addition to the downtown and Old Town district of Meridian. As you can see it's a beautiful building. There is a lot of history here in Meridian and we feel we are providing a place for the people that made up this history of Meridian to stay in Meridian. That's all I have. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: We do have a couple of people that have signed up this evening. Darlene and Jerome. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission A° & 4 October 16, 2008 Page 35 of 64 with them prior to us coming back from our break, the property owners here to the south, and they were in agreement with widening that driveway to 20 feet in order to provide a two-way access to and from their site. Eight parking spaces are required on the site. Thirteen are provided. One bicycle parking space is also required to be 4 provided on the site. Parking lot landscaping is proposed per UDC requirement. Twenty-five foot wide buffer to residential uses is required here on the north boundary as proposed. There is a mobile home park right here at the northeast corner of the site. An elevated garden area and garden shed are depicted here at the south of the A building. A pathway proposed along the perimeter of the building here. A landscape *F. area is depicted on the north and east side of the building, with a covered patio area on �y the north here. A six foot tall cedar fence exists along the north and east property boundary and will be extended along the south property boundary. Wrought iron fencing is proposed along the west side of the building here adjacent to the common i area. These are the proposed building elevations for the assisted living facility. Building materials will consist of vertical siding and cedar shingles, with manufactured y 1� stone and timber accents. Roofing materials are proposed to consist of architectural r�wR asphalt shingles. Staff approves of the elevations and construction materials submitted x. with this application, as they represent high quality materials and design. Written testimony was received from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the w ; : staff report. The staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit requests per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission ,r may have at this time. r Moe: Any questions of staff? rF & Rohm: I have none. Moe: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Johnson: Good evening, Chairman Moe and Members of the Commission. My name is Mark Johnson. I live at 12389 West Bowmont Street in Boise, Idaho. 83713. First of all, I'd like to say I'm really glad I'm not sitting on townhomes. I'm recommending the approval of the CUP with the conditions of the staff report. I believe this facility is greatly needed and will be a valuable addition to the downtown and Old Town district of Meridian. As you can see it's a beautiful building. There is a lot of history here in Meridian and we feel we are providing a place for the people that made up this history of Meridian to stay in Meridian. That's all I have. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: We do have a couple of people that have signed up this evening. Darlene and Jerome. & 4 �t 4 *F. y 1� ?- r�wR h 11 . r rF & Y H�*rt{'MGA v u,* }rt�,y,","°#"end 3 .t:. -:✓ ,. x l 4. `S•.Y 2'+kS< t v .:r �M r. p 1 :S 'tiik "aFu, MW n� Y ax: � 1W Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 36 of 64 Johnson: Members of the Commission, those are my neighbors and he had to get up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning. They own the hair salon and they checked in favor and -- Moe: Yes, they did. Johnson: -- it was kind of them to come tonight. Moe: Thank you. Then, having said that, there is no one else signed up, then. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any comments? Motions? Newton-Huckabay: I think that I -- when I read the staff report that this is an innovative redevelopment in Old Town. I really like it and I think it's a great idea and I'm glad it's not townhomes, too, so -- I just think, you know, I mean it's close to walking distance to facilities. I think it's great. Moe: Nice looking facility. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Yeah. Beautiful buildings. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 08-025. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: I like the easy ones. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 08-025, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with no modification. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-025 for Shaylee Estates. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 08-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C and TN -R districts; to r. p 1 :S 'tiik "aFu, MW n� Y � ,. p 1 :S 'tiik "aFu, MW n� ,. ��.. c Z. �r h P q Y J!, ,? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 37 of 64 exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C and TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southridge by Eastern Washington/Idaho Synod of the ELCA — south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet west of Linder Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 08-027 for Beacon at Southridge and start with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit for an assisted living facility in TN -C and TN -R zoning districts to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C district and to exceed the maximum building footprint square footage allowed in the TN -C district. The property is located on the south side of West Overland Road, approximately a quarter mile west of South Linder Road, currently zoned TN -C and TN -R. Surrounding uses. To the north of Overland Road are rural residential, agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is agricultural land, zoned TN -R. To the east is agricultural land zoned TN -C and TN -R. To the west is rural residential agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. This is an aerial view of the property. It's current vacant agricultural land. This is a record of survey that was just approved this last week for a property boundary adjustment that created this subject parcel. A little history. Last year the property was annexed as part of the Southridge development, both TN -R and TN -C zoning. A preliminary plat was also approved with the annexation. A development agreement modification was just approved Tuesday night that amended the master conceptual plan for Southridge to include the proposed assisted living facility. This is a copy of the approved master plan. The assisted living facility is right up here in the northeast comer. Just a note. The master plan that was included in the staff report is not the one that was approved by Council. The only thing that was different was this area right here was not included as lots on that one. So, I will be inserting the correct one in the Findings document. This is the proposed site and landscape plan. The proposed building will consist of an 87,757 square foot assisted living facility, with 187 units. That isn't to be confused with beds. There may be several more beds than that in the facility. This is four story structure right here that will contain 139 assisted living units and these are two attached single story wings, each of which will contain 24 assisted living units, with a memory care emphasis. Memory care residents will have access to secure fenced garden with a gazebo for shade and outdoor activities. The site is designed to connect a future church to the east here to be constructed with phase two, which will provide access to church services and activities for the residents. With phase three, four brownstone structures, consisting of 16 units per building, for a total of 64 residential units, are proposed to be constructed south of the assisted living facility. Access is proposed from Southridge Drive, a public street, via Overland Road. An emergency access only is proposed to Overland Road here at the north boundary of the site. Ninety-four parking spaces are required. The 149 are provided. Ninety-seven of those are the surface parking stalls here shown. Fifty-two are underground parking stalls, shown here at this diagram of the site. They will be right here. Six bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided. Parking lot landscaping is provided on the �ag�tt�rri`� I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 38 of 64 site per UDC requirements. No street buffer landscaping is required if the TN -R zoned portion of the site is rezoned to TN -C. However, the applicant is proposing street buffer landscaping. Fencing is proposed around the garden area surrounding the memory care unit here. These are the proposed building elevations. This, obviously, is the four story unit. Exterior building materials are proposed to consist of cement board, horizontal lap siding, cement board shakes and cement board with batten, with manufactured accents and profile asphalt shingles. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations and construction materials, as they represent high quality design and materials. These are some perspective views of the site and the building. Because the proposed structures spans across the TN -C and TN -R districts, as shown here -- kind of hard to see, but there is a red line that goes across right here, that separates the TN -C and the TN -R district. The four-story building here is just right across that line. The TN- R district does not allow an increase in height above the maximum allowed of 40 feet, even with CUP approval, because the staff is recommending the TN -R portion be rezoned to TN -C. The applicant has submitted a rezone application accordingly, that is scheduled for the November 20th Commission hearing. No written testimony was received on this application. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit requests per the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any questions at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Hey, Sonya, how tall are the four stories above the 40 foot -- Watters: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, proposed building height is listed in the application at 56 feet, seven inches. I'm not sure if that's to the ridge or mid point. Ridge? To the ridge the applicant states. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Olson: Mr. Chair and Commissioner, I'm Pastor David D. Olson. Business address 526 Olive Avenue in Sandpoint, Idaho. 83864. I'm here representing the Eastern Washington -Idaho Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, just to say that we are delighted and excited on behalf of our church to bring to Meridian this senior housing facility and multiple use ministry campus, incorporating such things as a day care for 60 children on site with the senior housing that we are in conversation with the YMCA about managing on our behalf. Those are early stages, but that's -- part of the plan is to create a community that is both inter -generational and integrated with a broader community as well. It has been our goal to create a place where seniors want to live, not simply a place where they feel they have to live when they need the care. I'm involved in this because we have just recently completed -- or, actually, are completing a similar project next to my congregation in Sandpoint, Luther Park in �a q . .. .' 4 4� r �e s, ... .a ".. n..a a �ag�tt�rri`� I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 38 of 64 site per UDC requirements. No street buffer landscaping is required if the TN -R zoned portion of the site is rezoned to TN -C. However, the applicant is proposing street buffer landscaping. Fencing is proposed around the garden area surrounding the memory care unit here. These are the proposed building elevations. This, obviously, is the four story unit. Exterior building materials are proposed to consist of cement board, horizontal lap siding, cement board shakes and cement board with batten, with manufactured accents and profile asphalt shingles. Staff is supportive of the proposed elevations and construction materials, as they represent high quality design and materials. These are some perspective views of the site and the building. Because the proposed structures spans across the TN -C and TN -R districts, as shown here -- kind of hard to see, but there is a red line that goes across right here, that separates the TN -C and the TN -R district. The four-story building here is just right across that line. The TN- R district does not allow an increase in height above the maximum allowed of 40 feet, even with CUP approval, because the staff is recommending the TN -R portion be rezoned to TN -C. The applicant has submitted a rezone application accordingly, that is scheduled for the November 20th Commission hearing. No written testimony was received on this application. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit requests per the conditions in the staff report and staff will stand for any questions at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Hey, Sonya, how tall are the four stories above the 40 foot -- Watters: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, proposed building height is listed in the application at 56 feet, seven inches. I'm not sure if that's to the ridge or mid point. Ridge? To the ridge the applicant states. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Olson: Mr. Chair and Commissioner, I'm Pastor David D. Olson. Business address 526 Olive Avenue in Sandpoint, Idaho. 83864. I'm here representing the Eastern Washington -Idaho Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, just to say that we are delighted and excited on behalf of our church to bring to Meridian this senior housing facility and multiple use ministry campus, incorporating such things as a day care for 60 children on site with the senior housing that we are in conversation with the YMCA about managing on our behalf. Those are early stages, but that's -- part of the plan is to create a community that is both inter -generational and integrated with a broader community as well. It has been our goal to create a place where seniors want to live, not simply a place where they feel they have to live when they need the care. I'm involved in this because we have just recently completed -- or, actually, are completing a similar project next to my congregation in Sandpoint, Luther Park in . .. .' 4 4� r s, ... .a ".. n..a a s ^.r 4,4 , A'��•t't<.r�F�r�aA; 41 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 39 of 64 Sandpoint. In addition to that, just to introduce you, we have part of our church, a social ministry of our Lutheran Church in United States Ecumen. They are helping us develop this project. They are the fifth largest non-profit provider of senior housing in the country. One of many Lutheran organizations that specializes in care for our seniors. They have assisted us in Sandpoint. They are -- will be assisting us here and will be managing the facility when it's complete, providing some of the highest care and innovative services to seniors. I'll turn it over now to our architect Dan Nudiker with Pope Associates out of the Twin Cities. Nudiker: I do have -- my name is Dan Nudiker. I'm with Pope Associates. We are -- my address is 1255 Energy Parkway in St. Paul, Minnesota. 55108. And as Pastor Dave said, we are strategic partners for the Ecumen, who is a national nonprofit, one of the largest in the county, to develop projects just like this associated with the church in mind. I did bring along pamphlets for all of you, but I -- it looks like everything is on -- on the screen already, but if any of you need to see a copy or closer copies. We are -- .I guess one thing I wanted to say is that we are in agreement that -- with staffs conditions. There are a couple of items that I didn't have a chance to talk to the fire marshal about, 3.12 and 3.18. And I just want to get some clarification that I think the wording, in reference to those, could be acceptable to you, that we will work with the fire marshal to get -- to get a solution that he agrees to. I just haven't had a chance to call him and talk to him about a couple issues. I wasn't sure about the way his -- the way he has it worded as far as access ways and the requirements he had, but other than that I guess I'd like to open it up for any questions you have from us. And Van Elg is here from The Land Group as well and he might respond to some issues. Moe: Well, while you're up here, in regard to 312, all portions of the building located on the project must be within 150 feet of a paved surface, as measured at the perimeter of the building. I'm anticipating that, you know, they can go 150 feet, you know, with hose and I just want to make sure that we are on solid surface when -- Nudiker: Well, I think there is a couple of areas specifically that I'm not sure how we would do that and that's why I'd say if you look at the long area, the memory garden there, it's fenced off at the end to keep them in. I don't know how he could -- it's about 200 feet. So, I guess we need to talk about some of those things and see if -- if that is still acceptable with him. I know the fire code does allow him, since the building is fully sprinkled, it does allow him to consider that and -- as to whether or not he can protect it or not. If we can't, then, we have to deal with some things like that. But we are not asking for anything that he wouldn't be comfortable with. And the building height to the mid point -- is 56 to the rim, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Elg: Good evening. My name is Van Elg. I'm with The Land Group. 462 East Shore, number 100, Eagle, Idaho. Again, we have talked with Sonya throughout this entire process with your staff and there is a -- just to clarify the -- what's happening with the zoning lines -- Sonya, do you have that rezone -- that one right there. When Southridge Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 40 of 64 was originally laid out, this zoning line had significance with the existing project. With the sale of this property it no longer has any real significance and you can see that we have clipped a comer of that building right there and that's where our -- our problem is. So, we got the rezone, as Sonya mentioned, submitted and we have got to address that particular issue right there. I believe the rezone is probably going to include the entire site, as we talked with staff, rather than try to straighten it out and weave it through building or anything, it will just be easier in the long run. Dan mentioned a couple of your conditions that would ask you to just simply add some -- some language to. That was 3.12 and 3.18. Specifically, just a statement that -- or as otherwise approved by the Meridian fire department, just so we can address that and we don't have to come back for a CU mod or anything. As you mentioned, we are not trying to -- to get around anything that -- any of his rules, we want to make sure that we have the flexibility to understand what he's doing and he's not roped into something that he can't get out of either on that. Again, we just haven't had a chance to chat with him about that particular issue. The -- the other thing that I'd ask -- if you would perhaps add another condition to maybe above or below at the end of the ACHD section of comments. Sonya mentioned that it does day draft on there. There was some issues with ACHD getting their comments in. I talked to them and indicated that, basically, they gave us the Southridge staff report -- ACHD staff report that was approved with Southridge development with some tweaks to try to customize it for this, but you will see the initial picture of it -- of the staff report, includes all of Southridge. So, it's not just specific to this in every respect. There is a -- there is a couple of error and omissions in the statement. One of the -- one of the sentences is completely blank -- or I mean it just trailed off. It says connect to or something to the proposed -- and it just ends. There is not a sentence there. It doesn't finish the sentence. So, just a couple little tweaks. So, if you could just say something like -- add a statement that the development shall comply with the approved master plan, approved final plat of Southridge phase one and the final conditions of approval of ACHD or something to that effect, I think we can probably get through some of those errors. For example, there is one that says that our main street coming in off of Overland Road has to be 750 feet from Linder. Well, that would put it clear over on the other side of us. It's -- we can't live with that one and the final plat was already approved for phase one, so, it's, obviously, an error in the development -- or in their conditions. So, we will clean that up with them and get the correct report in there. There was some question about the -- some of the ponds here and we want you to -- some of the neighbors -- and I think we have satisfied some of their concerns about these ponds. These ponds are going to be designed to ACHD standards. There will be shelves -- I believe there is two shelves located within the pond. You don't have an overhead projector here, do you? I could show you that, but -- in fact, I will pass that down to you. There is a -- our engineer just put together a real quick sketch in case any of you had any questions about what those ponds might look like. There will be a permanent level of water in there with aeration to keep the water from going stagnant. Staffs conditioned that in there as well. We are comfortable with that. The systems will be tied together, so that this pond connects to this one, to this one, and back up to this ACHD drainage pond here. This one is -- we are not quite sure if that one is going to be there or not, but as you can see we have tried to design -- to design a pond and a landscaping for this site that's going to be beautiful and have a real amenity to -- to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 41 of 64 Southridge project in itself. And, again, these ponds serve the entire Southridge area here, so -- all right. As Sonya mentioned, we are over -parked and over -landscaped for the project. We have got more than ample of all of those and, of course, as the memory residential care facility, I don't anticipate that the parking is going to be a significant or serious tissue at the site anyway. I don't think I have got anything else. I think the others have answered most of the questions. Sonya's done a great job in the staff report. It's been good to work with her on this and if you have any questions I'd certainly be glad to answer at this time. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. We do have some folks signed up. Dan -- oh, that was. Tammy? From the audience she says she does not need to speak. Then, David Olson. Yeah. Well, that was it. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Thank you. Any comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have a few small comments. One of them is I had hoped that there would be more neighborhood here in this area who came out when the Southridge development was being approved, but I'm also understanding that there is not anybody within 300 feet, per se, of this development, I'm guessing. I think four stories is too tall for this -- that's not what I envisioned when Southridge came through with the Ten Mile plan. I just think it's too tall. I don't want to -- I just didn't envision that developing out that way. Your facility looks beautiful. Your grounds look beautiful. I just think it's too tall. I like the fact you did underground parking. Don't see a lot of that. It's a great idea in this area, but I just think that four stories in this part of town where the flavor is supposed to be more community -- you know, community residential feeling and I -- I just -- I'm not going to -- I don't think I -- so, I'm not really in favor of that height in that area. And to kick off, no less, I mean it's going to set the tone, which I think is going to be different than what we intended from the beginning in this area. And I have no other issues. I think that -- it's quite large -- it's a very large facility when it would be done, but the real deal breaker for me is the building height. Moe: Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: To be honest, I like the design. I can't say that the additional 16 foot to the ridge is a huge deal breaker for me. I see it as -- right now anybody that moves in -- anyone close to it is going to know it's there, if that area develops out. Instead it's pretty agricultural right now. It is -- Moe: Excuse me. Sonya, could you put the -- the overall plan up. The site plan. Newton-Huckabay: Just -- when we approved Southridge, one of the things that I really liked about the development is how it flowed down off the hill, down into that area of Linder and Overland into kind of a town center idea and I'm not getting that feel with this 4, j a� I I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 41 of 64 Southridge project in itself. And, again, these ponds serve the entire Southridge area here, so -- all right. As Sonya mentioned, we are over -parked and over -landscaped for the project. We have got more than ample of all of those and, of course, as the memory residential care facility, I don't anticipate that the parking is going to be a significant or serious tissue at the site anyway. I don't think I have got anything else. I think the others have answered most of the questions. Sonya's done a great job in the staff report. It's been good to work with her on this and if you have any questions I'd certainly be glad to answer at this time. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. We do have some folks signed up. Dan -- oh, that was. Tammy? From the audience she says she does not need to speak. Then, David Olson. Yeah. Well, that was it. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this? Okay. Thank you. Any comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have a few small comments. One of them is I had hoped that there would be more neighborhood here in this area who came out when the Southridge development was being approved, but I'm also understanding that there is not anybody within 300 feet, per se, of this development, I'm guessing. I think four stories is too tall for this -- that's not what I envisioned when Southridge came through with the Ten Mile plan. I just think it's too tall. I don't want to -- I just didn't envision that developing out that way. Your facility looks beautiful. Your grounds look beautiful. I just think it's too tall. I like the fact you did underground parking. Don't see a lot of that. It's a great idea in this area, but I just think that four stories in this part of town where the flavor is supposed to be more community -- you know, community residential feeling and I -- I just -- I'm not going to -- I don't think I -- so, I'm not really in favor of that height in that area. And to kick off, no less, I mean it's going to set the tone, which I think is going to be different than what we intended from the beginning in this area. And I have no other issues. I think that -- it's quite large -- it's a very large facility when it would be done, but the real deal breaker for me is the building height. Moe: Mr. Marshall, any comments? Marshall: To be honest, I like the design. I can't say that the additional 16 foot to the ridge is a huge deal breaker for me. I see it as -- right now anybody that moves in -- anyone close to it is going to know it's there, if that area develops out. Instead it's pretty agricultural right now. It is -- Moe: Excuse me. Sonya, could you put the -- the overall plan up. The site plan. Newton-Huckabay: Just -- when we approved Southridge, one of the things that I really liked about the development is how it flowed down off the hill, down into that area of Linder and Overland into kind of a town center idea and I'm not getting that feel with this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 42 of 64 development, because the topography out there -- it does drop off quite a bit and I could envision that and I really -- I really -- I thought that that would be -- I liked that -- I liked that vision and where that could go and for me this isn't -- it's a very large campus and tall campus and I just -- that wasn't the vision I wanted to see -- the way I wanted to see this develop. Moe: Do we have an overhead view of that site or just that -- as far as existing. Watters: Oh, the aerial. Moe: Yeah. Just the aerial is what I'm looking for. My concern is your higher elevations are a lot farther down to the south, but by the time you get four stories out there closer to Overland Road, you're blocking everything there. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's not so much that it's blocking it, but it was -- I was envisioning more of a neighborhoody kind of a feel that you'd get in maybe, you know, two story, three stories max, you know, that type of a mix -- more of a, you know, town center type of neighborhood, commercial kind of stuff and -- Moe: I assume the library is still there at the comer as well. The property is. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The property is. Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: And this just -- this seems more campusy to me, like you would -- I guess. But you guys are not -- you know, you don't have to agree with me, but you're not going to convince me. Rohm: Just going back to when the Southridge was initially developed, it seems to me that the significant objection in this specific portion of Southridge was that they were concerned that it was going to be, quote, unquote, tenement housing there was going to be an element of society represented that nobody wanted. Well, from my perspective, the fact that there is nobody in the audience here tonight from that vicinity out there, it appears as if this is a significant improvement to that which was perceived at the time that the Southridge was developed initially, so if, in fact -- it appears as if we are at least moving in the right direction. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, can you tell me how many notifications were sent out on this hearing, please? There is more than one page. i ;z r 3. k r CX — t � i¢ 1 4 .., a 7 t i rr 5.x,a.r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 42 of 64 development, because the topography out there -- it does drop off quite a bit and I could envision that and I really -- I really -- I thought that that would be -- I liked that -- I liked that vision and where that could go and for me this isn't -- it's a very large campus and tall campus and I just -- that wasn't the vision I wanted to see -- the way I wanted to see this develop. Moe: Do we have an overhead view of that site or just that -- as far as existing. Watters: Oh, the aerial. Moe: Yeah. Just the aerial is what I'm looking for. My concern is your higher elevations are a lot farther down to the south, but by the time you get four stories out there closer to Overland Road, you're blocking everything there. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's not so much that it's blocking it, but it was -- I was envisioning more of a neighborhoody kind of a feel that you'd get in maybe, you know, two story, three stories max, you know, that type of a mix -- more of a, you know, town center type of neighborhood, commercial kind of stuff and -- Moe: I assume the library is still there at the comer as well. The property is. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The property is. Moe: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: And this just -- this seems more campusy to me, like you would -- I guess. But you guys are not -- you know, you don't have to agree with me, but you're not going to convince me. Rohm: Just going back to when the Southridge was initially developed, it seems to me that the significant objection in this specific portion of Southridge was that they were concerned that it was going to be, quote, unquote, tenement housing there was going to be an element of society represented that nobody wanted. Well, from my perspective, the fact that there is nobody in the audience here tonight from that vicinity out there, it appears as if this is a significant improvement to that which was perceived at the time that the Southridge was developed initially, so if, in fact -- it appears as if we are at least moving in the right direction. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, can you tell me how many notifications were sent out on this hearing, please? There is more than one page. i 3. CX — t � ! 4 .., a 7 t i rr 5.x,a.r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 43 of 64 Watters: There is approximately 30 people. There is actually more property than that that were noticed, but it appears about 30 individuals were noticed. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb mentioned that he thinks that they went outside the required 300 feet notice on there also. Van could probably confirm that. Rohm: And due to the size of the property, the signage on the development itself is the larger of the required -- Watters: That is correct. The four foot by four sign. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Yes. If you have an answer to that question, you may come forward. Elg: Van Elg again. Just to help you understand where that list came from, the Southridge project is -- because the transfer of the land hasn't occurred yet, we had to notify -- there is one large piece of property -- if you could bring up that record of survey again, Sonya. We actually notified -- I believe we covered this entire piece right here -- these two pieces, because it -- it crossed over into this parcel and this existing parcel here, you can see those two -- that's the extent of the lot right there. So, because it crossed those boundaries we had to do a 300 foot radius notice of these two parcels, so it's way outside of the bounds there. You will notice that there was two or three people that were here -- three people that were here today talking about it, wondered what was going on. We chatted with them, they were here at our last hearing for the Southridge phase one and we explained to them what was happening here as well. They were here just because they had a couple of questions. They said, oh, I'm gone. I don't care about that part, so they left. I might point out that Jim Jewett is here as well and if there is any questions about the flow of Southridge and what was intended, I guess I need to point out that north of Overland Road the Comprehensive Plan allows for four and five story units, if I'm not mistaken, Sonya, up here. So, that will develop out with a higher -- you know, high structures there. The City Council approved a recent amendment to the TN -C, which allowed the 45 foot height to the mid point. We are at 56 foot height -- 56, whatever that was to the ridge. So, we are not -- we are not far over what was -- what's allowed, but we are allowed to have those -- I mean the city did approve that additional height allowance in the TN -C zone recently. That was an amendment just made. So, if you would like, Jim could stand up and address any of those questions that you might have, too. Rohm: That's fine. Elg: Okay. Moe: We're fine. Mr. Rohm, it looks like you're getting ready to do something and I'm just thinking that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 44 of 64 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 08-027. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-027. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I have a comment. I think it's a very nice development. I really hadn't even thought too much about the fourth floor, quite frankly, until you brought it up. I -- I don't really have a problem with it. I just -- the overall development and how it looks like it will develop through is -- I think it's going to be a -- very much an asset and I think a very good start for the development of that area. Rohm: I think if it was up on the top of the ridge I'd have more of a problem with the four stories than on the lower part, because it -- it would still be a visual opportunity for those properties that are above it. So, I do agree with you that it's initially, before that overall area is developed as a whole, it's going to look funny out there, a four story structure with open ground all around it, but I think once the property on the north side of Overland develops and the balance of the Southridge in that area -develops, it won't -- it won't look as out of place as it will initially. Marshall: To be honest, I like the project. I think it's a good looking project, it's -- actually, I'd rather see it here than a lot of other places. I don't think it's a bad place for it. I would agree that there are other locations that I would not want to see the four stories, but I don't have a problem with it here. Moe: I guess the only other thing I would note that whoever the maker of the motion is, that the issue is that the applicant would still like to be able to have discussion with the fire department on items number 3.12 and 3.18 -- Newton-Huckabay: And one one. Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: And 3.11. No. Moe: It was 12 and 18. There were the two items -- Newton-Huckabay: I had 3.12, 3.13 and 3.18. Mr. Van Elg says 12 and 18 and Mr. Olson 12 and 13, 1 believe. t 774 TP k �q Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 44 of 64 Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 08-027. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CUP 08-027. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I have a comment. I think it's a very nice development. I really hadn't even thought too much about the fourth floor, quite frankly, until you brought it up. I -- I don't really have a problem with it. I just -- the overall development and how it looks like it will develop through is -- I think it's going to be a -- very much an asset and I think a very good start for the development of that area. Rohm: I think if it was up on the top of the ridge I'd have more of a problem with the four stories than on the lower part, because it -- it would still be a visual opportunity for those properties that are above it. So, I do agree with you that it's initially, before that overall area is developed as a whole, it's going to look funny out there, a four story structure with open ground all around it, but I think once the property on the north side of Overland develops and the balance of the Southridge in that area -develops, it won't -- it won't look as out of place as it will initially. Marshall: To be honest, I like the project. I think it's a good looking project, it's -- actually, I'd rather see it here than a lot of other places. I don't think it's a bad place for it. I would agree that there are other locations that I would not want to see the four stories, but I don't have a problem with it here. Moe: I guess the only other thing I would note that whoever the maker of the motion is, that the issue is that the applicant would still like to be able to have discussion with the fire department on items number 3.12 and 3.18 -- Newton-Huckabay: And one one. Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: And 3.11. No. Moe: It was 12 and 18. There were the two items -- Newton-Huckabay: I had 3.12, 3.13 and 3.18. Mr. Van Elg says 12 and 18 and Mr. Olson 12 and 13, 1 believe. 774 TP �q } F Y ft t. kY 9 F N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 45 of 64 Moe: I think, basically, my concern is that -- that I think this should be given, you know, the time to at least discuss with the fire department and clarify those and get that done. Watters: Chairman Moe? Moe: For the simple fact they are going to have -- Watters: Excuse me. If you wish to move forward with it, you could just include a -- you know, as the applicant requests it or otherwise approved by the Meridian fire department in writing, if you would like to do that also as an option. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Back to page one here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 08-027 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: That item numbers 3.12 and 3.18 both include -- or as approved by the Meridian fire department in writing. So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-027 for Beacon at Southridge as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Moe: That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on MCU 08-002 for Fairview Lakes Retail and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit modification to amend the site and building t ,r p 4 r }4,1 e At € ' x k Y N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 45 of 64 Moe: I think, basically, my concern is that -- that I think this should be given, you know, the time to at least discuss with the fire department and clarify those and get that done. Watters: Chairman Moe? Moe: For the simple fact they are going to have -- Watters: Excuse me. If you wish to move forward with it, you could just include a -- you know, as the applicant requests it or otherwise approved by the Meridian fire department in writing, if you would like to do that also as an option. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Back to page one here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 08-027 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: That item numbers 3.12 and 3.18 both include -- or as approved by the Meridian fire department in writing. So moved. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 08-027 for Beacon at Southridge as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Moe: That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2008: MCU 08-002 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to Modify the previously approved site and building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail by Doug Tamura — 950 E. Fairview Avenue: Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on MCU 08-002 for Fairview Lakes Retail and start with the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit modification to amend the site and building r xs , W 9 a p e At € ' x r 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 46 of 64 layout of retail buildings one, two, three, four, 4-A, and five, approved with CUP 06-032 on the northeast portion of Lot 4, Block 3, for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. No modifications are proposed for the remainder of Lot 4 or Lot 3. The site is located on the north side of Fairview Avenue on the southeast comer of North Lakes Place and North Teare Avenue at 950 East Fairview Avenue. Surrounding uses. To the north is North Teare Avenue. It borders the site on the north. Offices and single family residences in Settler's Village Subdivision exist on the north side of Teare Avenue, zoned C -N. To the south is a bank and restaurant, zoned C -G. To the east are single family residential properties in Settler's Village Subdivision and a car wash, zoned R-8. To the west is a retail store, Hastings and Hardback Cafe and Department of Motor Vehicles, zoned C -G. This is an aerial view of the property. A little history. In 2006 a Conditional Use Permit modification was approved for a new development plan, site plan, and building elevations for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. A certificate of zoning compliance was approved in 2007 for retail building one, two on the subject property. Here are the three site plans. This just kind of tracks the previous approvals on this site. The first site plan here, the left-hand comer at the top, with the plan that was approved with the Conditional Use Permit in 2006, it depicts modulation in the building facades between retail buildings one and two right here. Only five parking stalls on the south side of retail building one and no parking in front of retail building two. The second site plan approved with the certificate of zoning compliance is shown here at the upper right-hand comer for retail building one and two, varied from what was approved with the previous Conditional Use Permit, but was deemed in substantial compliance and was approved. This structure combined retail buildings one and two and as you can see here that still showed modulation between the buildings, although not as much as in the CUP site plan. The third plan here at the bottom is a site plan that depicts what was actually built on the site for retail one, two. This portion right here. And what is proposed in future phases. Retail buildings one and two are combined and there is no modulation in the facade. Retail building two was pulled back to align with retail building one, creating an appearance of a strip mall. Parking exits along the entire south side of the building. The overall structure, retail buildings one and two, was reduced in size from 13,500 square feet to 11,700 square feet. These are the previously approved building elevations for retail buildings one and two. Construction materials that were approved depict a two coat stucco system on the walls of the structure with manufactured stone veneer accents. Upon visiting the site I found that the north and side elevations and the lower portion of the south elevation consist of painted block wall instead of stucco as proposed and approved. Stone veneer accents have been used on the building in compliance with the elevations approved with the previous conditional use and certificate of zoning compliance. Staff believes that the painted block wall construction does not represent high quality construction materials and is not consistent with the construction materials of existing buildings on the site. Further, staff believes that the appearance of the building from the offices and the residences across Teare Avenue from the north is not visually pleasing. Therefore, staff recommends that all wall surfaces, excluding the portion that will abut retail building three on the east elevation, consisting of painted block wall, be covered with stucco as originally proposed and approved. Windows were shown along the entire west end of the structure on the elevations approved with the certificate of zoning compliance. �rFl t P 'max r r �s r a a t �{ rl r �rFl t .. r a. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 47 of 64 Those are shown right there. The existing building only has windows along approximately half of the west elevation. Staff recommends that the windows be constructed along the entire west elevation as previously proposed and approved. The design of the entryway features constructed on the building facade has also changed significantly from what was approved with the CUP and CZC. However, staff does not object to the changes made. These are the elevations of the building that was actually built on the site. These are photos from the site that show the existing building. This is the south elevation facing Fairview. This is the west elevations. These are the -- this was the elevation that previously had windows shown all across here. And this is the rear elevation that is adjacent to Teare Avenue. Written testimony was received from the Ryan McDaniels on this application. You should have that in your packet. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Sonya, I guess not to belabor this, but I'm going to anyway. How did we end up getting to this -- this point without it being reviewed during construction that things weren't correct? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, to back up, staff approved a certificate of zoning compliance for this site with the plans that were shown there. The applicant applied for a building permit with the building department and, apparently, submitted the correct plans for what was actually built on the site and there was, apparently, a breakdown in the approval process and it was missed that they were actually different from what we approved. That allowed him to build what is there. I went out to the site to inspect it for release of occupancy and found that it was not developed per the approved plans. So, therefore, I spoke to Doug about it and told him that they would need to submit it for a Conditional Use Permit modification to reflect what was actually built on the site. Moe: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Tamura: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. I reside at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho, and I'm the developer of Fairview Lakes. You know, as everyone is aware, we are really in tough economic times right now. I think just in that kind of Eagle Road, Fairview area, where our project is located there is at least 250,000 square feet of vacant retail right now and so what our -- what I believed our nitch was going to be was -- was to go ahead and increase the quality of what we did, so that's why we changed our elevations to look at -- you know, Sonya, maybe put up what was approved prior to -- yeah. So, if you look at this bottom elevation, we thought we had a dollar store, so the dollar store was going to be on your right-hand side, you know, kind of CZC 07-027, that you can see what was a fairly modest, you know, stucco building, no overhangs, just some sign panels and, then, we would have some retail shops at the far end and in both -- in both submittals in '06 and '07 we just showed a plain blank wall in the rear of our project. What triggered this application was when Sonya went out to do our final inspection on our -- on our zoning compliance, we had too many parking spaces in the front, but the CZC that was attached to our building s l a. r a a t �{ rl r r r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 47 of 64 Those are shown right there. The existing building only has windows along approximately half of the west elevation. Staff recommends that the windows be constructed along the entire west elevation as previously proposed and approved. The design of the entryway features constructed on the building facade has also changed significantly from what was approved with the CUP and CZC. However, staff does not object to the changes made. These are the elevations of the building that was actually built on the site. These are photos from the site that show the existing building. This is the south elevation facing Fairview. This is the west elevations. These are the -- this was the elevation that previously had windows shown all across here. And this is the rear elevation that is adjacent to Teare Avenue. Written testimony was received from the Ryan McDaniels on this application. You should have that in your packet. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit request per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff? Sonya, I guess not to belabor this, but I'm going to anyway. How did we end up getting to this -- this point without it being reviewed during construction that things weren't correct? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, to back up, staff approved a certificate of zoning compliance for this site with the plans that were shown there. The applicant applied for a building permit with the building department and, apparently, submitted the correct plans for what was actually built on the site and there was, apparently, a breakdown in the approval process and it was missed that they were actually different from what we approved. That allowed him to build what is there. I went out to the site to inspect it for release of occupancy and found that it was not developed per the approved plans. So, therefore, I spoke to Doug about it and told him that they would need to submit it for a Conditional Use Permit modification to reflect what was actually built on the site. Moe: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Tamura: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura. I reside at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho, and I'm the developer of Fairview Lakes. You know, as everyone is aware, we are really in tough economic times right now. I think just in that kind of Eagle Road, Fairview area, where our project is located there is at least 250,000 square feet of vacant retail right now and so what our -- what I believed our nitch was going to be was -- was to go ahead and increase the quality of what we did, so that's why we changed our elevations to look at -- you know, Sonya, maybe put up what was approved prior to -- yeah. So, if you look at this bottom elevation, we thought we had a dollar store, so the dollar store was going to be on your right-hand side, you know, kind of CZC 07-027, that you can see what was a fairly modest, you know, stucco building, no overhangs, just some sign panels and, then, we would have some retail shops at the far end and in both -- in both submittals in '06 and '07 we just showed a plain blank wall in the rear of our project. What triggered this application was when Sonya went out to do our final inspection on our -- on our zoning compliance, we had too many parking spaces in the front, but the CZC that was attached to our building ..:. `. .Y' r i s'fd a. .�f..* a a t �{ rl r r r ..:. `. .Y' r i s'fd a. .�f..* a a t a. a a t �{ rl Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 48 of 64 permit didn't require any -- any landscape plan or any landscape planters, but it was tied to this CZC 07-027, but it was -- it was accepted as part of our building application. So, the other thing that happened is, you know, I guess my ignorance was when we developed the Hastings building, which is scale -wise about similar length, that all our services in front of the Hastings -- you know, whether it was either patios or parking spaces, because we have parking in front of the Hastings, we didn't have any required parking in front of that building, so it never occurred to me that we were going to be required parking, because it wasn't included on the CZC, we hadn't done it in front of the Hastings, and until Sonya said, hey, you need landscaping in front of this building, did I realize that we had made a fatal mistake. Well, at that point in time the building was built, sides are installed, you know, parking lot was asphalted and striped and, you know, everything was done. So, one of the things that I talked with staff about was submitting for an alternative compliance. They have a process where you can, you know, submit a staff level alternative compliance and so what I thought, well, what we could do is potentially break up the parking, which is hard surfaces, like we did at Hastings, and so our submittal was more or less what we submitted for this modification CU. So, we went ahead and -- oh, flip back to our building again. Watters: Which -- would you like the photo or the -- Tamura: So, we have a -- this is -- this is all handicap access, so there is a handicap ramp in the front here and, then, we have got parking from here down to here and, then, we have got parking from here down to here. So, to break up this stretch of parking, we went ahead and concreted and added a patio in front of this whole front entry. I think we took up an additional three spaces with concrete patios and stuff in here and, then, the other thing that we submitted, along with that, is -- is increasing the size of -- because one of the requirements that Planning and Zoning wanted us to do was create kind of a courtyard effect. You know, maybe show the site plan. What they wanted to do was -- you know, we had discussions when we got this approval last time we came through about this water amenity and landscaping and one of the things I realized from working on our project is that -- that the secondary access we have is off of Fairview Avenue and all of a sudden I realized that it created this kind of focal point at the end of that driveway and so I think the two concerns that staff had was building modulation and landscaping, so I thought, well, what is -- when you look at our building, that even though it's a strip shell, we went to special care on detailing the front of the elevations, so that we had modulation. So, in the original concept where we just had a flat building with just a couple of sign panels, we went ahead and covered the walkways, we increased the quality of our materials, the tile roofs, you know, cultured stone, and, then, our plan is that we would make this a nice courtyard that would be the highlight or focal point of this entrance. So, we submitted that as an alternative compliance and, then, staff came back and said, well, you need to modify the conditional use and I said, well, that's fine, we will go ahead and resubmit. But what I'd like to do is just resubmit just on the alternative compliance issue of the landscape island that was required to break up the parking in front of our building. Because at the time that was the only thing I was aware that we were in noncompliance of our project. She had also talked about this planter that was located here, but one is, you know, the city requires that it's a minimum Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 49 of 64 of five feet, you know, on the interior dimension and I think this one measures eight or ten feet. So, you know, again, I saw where it showed up in the -- in the conditions of approval, but I don't know what's wrong with the planter that we have got installed there. So, the only thing I knew was that there was a requirement or some kind of landscape planter here in the front of the building to break that up. So, then, I -- we went ahead -- we went ahead and resubmitted the modification, but, again, I told Sonya that I really only wanted to focus on one landscape issue, that one of the things that's happening right now is that we are in such difficult economic times that we have to kind of adjust to whatever is available out there. Right now there is absolutely nothing going on retail - wise. And so I told her -- I says for us to look in a crystal ball about what's going to happen here or what's going to happen on these outbuildings, I have been talking to potential tenant for this outbuilding here, but if that happens I'll have to come back and modify this. The other thing is I don't have a problem of being more specific and modifying our conditional use on every building that we add. The one thing that I can commit to is that one is -- you know, we will modulate this second phase of the building to create this larger courtyard. The second thing is, you know, we have already installed this patio area here and, that, you know, one is we will make this a nice focal point as far as this courtyard that we create on this second building here. You know, we showed this larger building here, you know, we are hoping that we can get some kind of, you know, smaller box, you know, that would kind of compliment our Hastings at the end of our development, but I mean this could be something that's maybe a freestanding building, you know, could even be a daycare. I mean, like I said, you know, for what's out there right now, we don't have a good idea. You know, the good thing about these buildings over here is this is the property line and there is a house that sits right in here on this side and, then, this is all kind of a neighborhood that fits in here, so there is, really, only one house that's impacted by the rear of these future buildings in here. We have got a large drainage pit that we had to put in for the Carol Street part and so that's all been installed, it's been landscaped, and one of the things that -- when I met with these people is I told them that we would go ahead and create the tree buffer along this back edge and so we went ahead and planted this with evergreens all the way across here, but, then, this section next to the house, we spaced those at 20 foot on center, because that when they mature this will just be a solid wall of evergreens in this section of it. In regards to the staff recommendations, let me kind of run down through that. So, on number A, she was talking about a planter island constructed at the north end of the parking on the west side, which I believe is that planter right there. We have got one installed there that meets the requirements of the city and I believe that the city requires the planter -- is it every ten spaces? Watters: Twelve. Tamura: Twelve. I think we only have six or seven spaces on that end of the building, so we have a planter here in the corner. We have another planter on that end. It says that evergreens six feet in height shall be installed within the street buffer along Teare. Well, Teare, actually, is this street here. This is Carol Street here. And I'm assuming that what she's addressing is the trees that we planted along here. But, again, the -- the CZC that was approved in -- well, yeah, the CZC that was approved in 07-027, we had Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 50 of 64 the same four trees shown on that site and that was approved in this CZ 07-027. So, all of our landscaping, except for this landscaping island, you know, that was missed in the front of the building, was all installed per the CZC approval. In regards to the trash enclosure, she's requesting that we put this trash enclosure in right now. Again, we have got an 11,700 square foot retail building that's vacant and it's been vacant for a full year right now and we don't have -- it doesn't look like -- we are not even talking any tenants right now, so it looks like we are going to be at least another six months of a vacant building. We have got an existing concrete block trash enclosure that's built and installed right here on this comer and so that was our thought, is, you know, there are vacant pads here and vacant pads here. That is a temporary situation that we'd have this until we had enough tenants in here that it was going to require an additional dumpster. So, our thought is that we were just going to use this existing one versus requiring that we had to put in another -- you know, having two trash dumpsters for an empty building. In regards to the building elevations, it's -- we're talking about on 8.6. Maybe put up the elevations again. These are photos of our elevations. And I don't know if you can tell, but what we did was -- and this is done -- you know, if you look at a lot of those, the retail shops that are around Boise Town Square -- and we actually patterned the concepts of what we did material -wise and stuff -- there is that real nice one -- again, it's vacant, but there is a real nice one that's on Emerald just south of the mail entrance, so as you look at where Dillard's is at and there is kind of an Italian style stucco -- what they did was real similar. They stuccoed -- you know, spent a lot of money on the front, you know, with the tile rows and things and, then, the rear of the building was all painted masonry. But what they did was -- theirs looks like painted masonry and so what we did was we went ahead and had our masonry contractor make sure that we did all flush joints on this, so it just looked like a flat wall, so that it -- you know, that when it was painted -- you know, and even our Hastings building is not stucco. All that is is a tex coat, so as to get the heavier paint, you know, that was applied to the concrete tilt up building. So, again, we didn't use stucco on the Hastings building and what we did was we painted this to compliment what we did on the front. But you can see that this elevation, compared to what was originally approved, we spent a substantial amount -- you now, between the modulation of the signage, the roof lines, and the cultured stone. The windows on this -- on this conditional side here in the comer, one of the things that we had problems with and, you know, even in our little Smoky Mountain Pizza that we have, is that this is a due west exposure that's here and so when we get in these retail buildings -- and that's one of the reasons that I went to these big overhangs, is that where we have got all this glass across this south facing side of our building, is that we have got overhangs that will protect all those windows from, you know, direct sunlight. And so on this west side we thought, well, gee, we can graft the same detailing of our tile rows and cultured stone and, then, we even added another cultured stone element here on the back to kind of compliment this. If you look at our site plan -- maybe put up our site plan. When we do this building right here, this comer -- you know, what we are talking about is this little comer right back here. This building right here will substantially hide whatever happens back here. You know, one is -- you know, we will have, actually, three buildings along this here. So, like I said, you know, we are working on a tenant here and, then, when you throw this building, you will barely notice what that -- end of that building looks like and so that's why we elected not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 51 of 64 to do that. But, again, we went on to compliance that we had an approved building permit set that had been approved by the City of Meridian with an attached CZC then. I'm assuming that this building department review that was, you know, different than what we had, but we just went with the city's compliance that, you know, we specifically called out materials, what was paint, what was stucco, what was stone, and, then, built what was -- was in our drawings and the only thing that we knew that we didn't comply with was missing a landscape island in front of our building. In regards to the last item, 1.4 -- and it says applicant shall be responsible to obtain a CZC from the planning department for the proposed changes. And, again, I'm assuming what we would be doing is applying for a CZC after the building has already been built and so I don't know if that sets some kind of precedent about the zoning staffs ability to require some things after the fact. I don't know where that goes. I have never been in this kind of situation. Because, again, you know, if I knew that we were going to get into the situation we are in, we would have cut the asphalt and put in the five foot landscape island, you know, because, you know, one is we had to re -notice a couple times, you know, we didn't have enough signs, so we redid that. So, I mean we have been working on this probably for three or four months just to try to get through this little five foot landscaping. In kind of summary, you know, one of the things that I would be willing to do as a concession to all these things is that, you know, where we have kind of the three main sign panels, so we have one here, we have one here in the center, and we have one here, we have already added a concrete patio here, we have got the handicap ramps located here, we are proposing to increase the size of this patio, modulate this building, and increase this landscaping in phase two. We would also be willing to go ahead an add a separate patio in front of this other sign panel here, so, again, it breaks up these parking spaces, so we only have five or six spaces in between each one of these islands. But, you know, I didn't have any intention of coming here and defending our project as far as the quality of what we are doing and design of the project, as I just assumed that was done, because it's built. You know, I'm hoping that I was just here to -- to meet the compliance of a five foot landscape island. So, if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to -- Moe: Doug, I guess I'm right back on my main focus earlier. When the CZC was approved -- Tamura: Uh-huh. Moe: -- how, then, did those plans get changed to something else that went into the building department to -- for permitting and, then, construction? Tamura: What we submitted for the CZC was this building right here and, again, we had a deeper bay in here, because we thought we had a Dollar Store that was going to take this space right here, but, then, when that fell through, you know, not -- in discussion with the realtors, I said, well, should we go ahead and fill those deeper bays and they said, well, we think you're all going to shoot yourself in the foot by having that extra depth that -- you know, that everyone wants more frontage than depth on square footage and they said just make everything a maximum 60 feet deep and so we said, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 52 of 64 okay, that's fine. So, we went ahead and submitted our plans with that CZC approval and, you know, no one came back and said that CZC is not going to work. You know, it was attached to our building permit plans and so what we do is we looked at what was required landscape -wise and, then, met those requirements that were -- you know, because, you know, typically on a CZC if there is things that needs to be added, you know, staff will circle it and say add tree here or add planter here. Well, again, we met the compliance of the CZC that was attached to our building permit and that's what we built and so, like I said, I was probably most surprised when I came back and said, hey, you know, you can't be approved and I thought, well, gee, I looked at our CZC and it didn't show any landscaping on front of our building, so -- so, then, I thought, well, I'll go through the process of the alternative compliance and, again, they said, well, that's not going to work, you know, come back in. I think what staff was trying to accomplish with doing the modification is they wanted to kind of cut down on our process, because you guys sold many times and -- but at the same time I don't have a problem of doing this, because I'd rather have it -- you know, because it is going to be really expensive for us and difficult financial times to go in there and remodel and change and stucco and all these things when we have got a fully completed building after the fact and, like I said, you know, if I knew it was only about a five foot planter I would have cut the asphalt, just put it in and done it, versus going through -- you know, we have got -- you know, we have been working on this process for three months just to get in front of you. You know, now we are starting to look at weather and all those other things. You know, I guess the bad news or the good news is we don't have tenants and so the certificate of occupancy hasn't been a big thing for us to push on, because we don't have anyone to occupy our building and with the way the economy is going it could be another year or two before, you know, anything is going to happen, so -- but, you know, I don't know if I'm kind of pleading to you about our case or what happened and I don't know how it fell through the cracks, you know, but that's where we are at. Now, with this landscape, I think the only thing that we have out there is their -- is this landscape island compliance issue that I know of, so we can get our final occupancy. But everything else is signed off. Fire department. Structural. Building. Electrical. Everyone. Everything else is done. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. We do have a couple signed up and, believe it or not, we have two more in the audience here. It must be these two names. Ryan McDaniel. McDaniel: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, for the record Ryan McDaniel, 1785 North Teare Avenue, Meridian. 83646. 1 just want to be clear that I support the developer in achieving occupancy of these buildings and the concessions that you make to get there are fine, I'm not going to comment on how you should do that. I'm also here tonight representing five of my neighbors, though do not ask for any 18 minutes of testimony, I'll just whip through it as fast as I possibly can. I will be succinct. Jack is my southern neighbor. Today we are now considering the 25th entitlement of Devon Park. Your staff is -- you're only as good as your staff and I think that there is only one person in the room which understands what the entitlement of the site are right now and she's sitting right there. Sonya. I certainly don't understand. We have seen Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 53 of 64 so many versions of entitlement that -- that the neighborhood can't keep track of what's going to happen there. The developer can't keep track of what's happened there. And I hope that you can keep track of this. My goal tonight is to ask that you restrict the further piecemeal development that we are seeing on this site. It's creating a great deal of problems for the community. It's creating a great deal of problems for the developer. It's creating a great deal of problems for your staff and for the building department and the various other entities that are responsible for implementing the plan. The developer is going to rebut these comments with a rehash of his economic development plan and business plan and that's okay, we just want to follow the community plan and the community plan and the developer's business plan are not disjunct from one another, they should compliment. So, we just want to support the developer in occupying these buildings and want to revisit the importance of following the long range community plan and for the second half, what I wanted to say tonight -- I think I'm being as succinct as possible. Did you receive the comments that I sent in written testimony? I believe they were structured in such a way as to bring to your attention the problems associated with the development and the grizzly snarl that is -- not just these parcels, which are being further subdivided -- I don't even know where the entitlement that is currently being requested begins and ends, but throughout the entire Devon Park. And so if you don't act on the whole Devon Park and seal the deal on how further we are going to get to glimpse behind the curtain, at least do it on these sites, which are next to my house. But if you have already read the reason behind why we want to restrict the piecemeal development and why it's detrimental to Meridian, the developer, and staff, the neighbors, if you really read why it's important to follow the plan, I can -- oh, thank you. If you have already read the evidence for increasing community involvement and meaningful community involvement, then, I won't continue to go through there and I will just ask you to state a specific condition of approval which restricts the further piecemeal development of the site, because you are the decision making body and we have nowhere else to go. You can giveth and taketh away occupancy from that conditional use. We are not asking for the site to be vacant and have any of the tenants kicked out. That's an extreme -- extreme thing. But we are calling attention to the problem. The developer seems to think that the site is completely constructed, but that's not completely constructed. That's another building that was put on the site and we support the staff in their recommendation to complete the quality building materials, which were originally mandated and, further, we have seen four counts from the developer on how the further piecemeal development is going to happen and cover up the problems, particularly on the west side of the building where the windows were not installed after they were required. And so we have seen multiple renditions of the truth. I don't even know what the future of this site is going to be. It's difficult to unravel what's already happened -- and I'm closing now. I guess we want to see -- and we have been asked by the developer to help him solve some code enforcement problems which he's having. I think they are rather serious, spray painting and dumping garbage and various other things. I'll let him talk about those. And now the neighborhood is being asked in community meetings to call the police, talk to kids, and this isn't our job, you know, this is what happens when the community does not have a stake in the success of the development. Can we go to the back of the -- It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 54 of 64 Moe: Sir, you need to finish up. McDaniel: Very well. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I need to ask Mr. McDaniel a couple questions. Moe: Okay. Commissioner, go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I read through your letter today. What -- what -- I couldn't discern exactly what has developed on this site that is wrong, so to speak. I'm not real sure what you're asking for, other than -- let me first say this -- this -- Fairview Lakes has never had a development agreement. It doesn't have a development agreement; right? Watters: It does not. Newton-Huckabay: And that's why we keep seeing it so many times. Watters: Part of the reason, yes. Newton-Huckabay: And which is what -- as the Planning and Zoning Commission, I would think we would want to see -- ideally it would have had a development agreement, for whatever reason it doesn't. Is there some part of the development, Mr. McDaniel, that hasn't developed to the expectations of the neighborhood or when you say piecemeal, is it because there is more buildings on the site than you thought there would be or is it just because repeatedly the -- the developer has to keep coming back to us for various approvals? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the neighbors' concerns, because this also -- all the times that Fairview Lakes has been back before us, the -- there have been very, very few comments from the neighbors. So, I was really -- I just want to make sure I understand -- truly understand your concern. Is it just that it seemed to you like there is a large amount of variety that you wouldn't expect, that the spirit of the development has changed over time? I'll let you talk now. McDaniel: That's wonderful. Excellent question for us to consider tonight. Originally the site was annexed and zoned without a development agreement and it has -- it has received so many modifications to the plan in terms of developing this site -- the conceptual site plan, that we have a special tracking sheet to monitor all of the conditional use permits. Now, I did write down in Meridian there is no limit on the number of modifications that can be made to a site, but this is the 25th modification to the Conditional Use Permit. There is also no restriction on the number that has to be allowed and so I think that it's time to revisit what it means to .follow a long range plan, instead of 25 applications over six -- no, a decade let's say. That's every six months. We are not having meaningful due process of community involvement. Sure, we are going through the hoops, but we are not having meaningful involvement in a ,=bF t �%mac ,. +gy3 4� f It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 54 of 64 Moe: Sir, you need to finish up. McDaniel: Very well. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I need to ask Mr. McDaniel a couple questions. Moe: Okay. Commissioner, go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I read through your letter today. What -- what -- I couldn't discern exactly what has developed on this site that is wrong, so to speak. I'm not real sure what you're asking for, other than -- let me first say this -- this -- Fairview Lakes has never had a development agreement. It doesn't have a development agreement; right? Watters: It does not. Newton-Huckabay: And that's why we keep seeing it so many times. Watters: Part of the reason, yes. Newton-Huckabay: And which is what -- as the Planning and Zoning Commission, I would think we would want to see -- ideally it would have had a development agreement, for whatever reason it doesn't. Is there some part of the development, Mr. McDaniel, that hasn't developed to the expectations of the neighborhood or when you say piecemeal, is it because there is more buildings on the site than you thought there would be or is it just because repeatedly the -- the developer has to keep coming back to us for various approvals? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the neighbors' concerns, because this also -- all the times that Fairview Lakes has been back before us, the -- there have been very, very few comments from the neighbors. So, I was really -- I just want to make sure I understand -- truly understand your concern. Is it just that it seemed to you like there is a large amount of variety that you wouldn't expect, that the spirit of the development has changed over time? I'll let you talk now. McDaniel: That's wonderful. Excellent question for us to consider tonight. Originally the site was annexed and zoned without a development agreement and it has -- it has received so many modifications to the plan in terms of developing this site -- the conceptual site plan, that we have a special tracking sheet to monitor all of the conditional use permits. Now, I did write down in Meridian there is no limit on the number of modifications that can be made to a site, but this is the 25th modification to the Conditional Use Permit. There is also no restriction on the number that has to be allowed and so I think that it's time to revisit what it means to .follow a long range plan, instead of 25 applications over six -- no, a decade let's say. That's every six months. We are not having meaningful due process of community involvement. Sure, we are going through the hoops, but we are not having meaningful involvement in a ,. . t It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 54 of 64 Moe: Sir, you need to finish up. McDaniel: Very well. I thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I need to ask Mr. McDaniel a couple questions. Moe: Okay. Commissioner, go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I read through your letter today. What -- what -- I couldn't discern exactly what has developed on this site that is wrong, so to speak. I'm not real sure what you're asking for, other than -- let me first say this -- this -- Fairview Lakes has never had a development agreement. It doesn't have a development agreement; right? Watters: It does not. Newton-Huckabay: And that's why we keep seeing it so many times. Watters: Part of the reason, yes. Newton-Huckabay: And which is what -- as the Planning and Zoning Commission, I would think we would want to see -- ideally it would have had a development agreement, for whatever reason it doesn't. Is there some part of the development, Mr. McDaniel, that hasn't developed to the expectations of the neighborhood or when you say piecemeal, is it because there is more buildings on the site than you thought there would be or is it just because repeatedly the -- the developer has to keep coming back to us for various approvals? I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the neighbors' concerns, because this also -- all the times that Fairview Lakes has been back before us, the -- there have been very, very few comments from the neighbors. So, I was really -- I just want to make sure I understand -- truly understand your concern. Is it just that it seemed to you like there is a large amount of variety that you wouldn't expect, that the spirit of the development has changed over time? I'll let you talk now. McDaniel: That's wonderful. Excellent question for us to consider tonight. Originally the site was annexed and zoned without a development agreement and it has -- it has received so many modifications to the plan in terms of developing this site -- the conceptual site plan, that we have a special tracking sheet to monitor all of the conditional use permits. Now, I did write down in Meridian there is no limit on the number of modifications that can be made to a site, but this is the 25th modification to the Conditional Use Permit. There is also no restriction on the number that has to be allowed and so I think that it's time to revisit what it means to .follow a long range plan, instead of 25 applications over six -- no, a decade let's say. That's every six months. We are not having meaningful due process of community involvement. Sure, we are going through the hoops, but we are not having meaningful involvement in a ,. ;t f a j i 5 � s3 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 55 of 64 development of this entire site and it began as a greenfield development and now we are talking about retrofitting it before it's even occupied. Those are the underlying principles that run deep through piecemeal development. Newton-Huckabay: So, what -- by piecemeal are you saying because he keeps modifying -- asking for modifications to the Conditional Use Permit? And so are you asking that the city push back and require a development agreement now? And so I guess my question would be can that happen? Watters: Excuse me. If I may interrupt, Chairman Commissioners. I misspoke. There was a development agreement originally with this project. It was done back in 2002 when the property was annexed and there was an addendum to that. I do not have a copy of that document here with me, but there was a development agreement on this property. The reason the applicant is having to come back so many times is because the master plans have changed for this property. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what provisions were in that development agreement. I don't have a copy with me, but the reason for having so many changes is because of the master plan changing. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Jack. From the audience -- from the audience he has nothing further to add. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Doug Tamura. I reside at 1124 Santa Maria. In regards to the Ryan's comments, the long range goal for this -- in the Comp Plan was designed for a mixed use process. What we have been going through -- and I kind of addressed kind of the economic situation that we are going through now, it is that real estate is not a finite thing that you can just say, hey, this is what the plan is and -- you now, and we can just build what it is. What we do is at the time that we develop something we go ahead and submit what we think is appropriate and, then, sometimes the economy changes and things happen. The original plan of this thing has always been residential and commercial. So, the whole rear portion of the property was originally zoned as a 200 unit, three story apartment complex that we had approved and, then, the whole front -- and, then, we had a small portion of neighborhood commercial of where the office was and, then, the whole front of it has always been a retail commercial location and one of the driving forces of that was because we were able to work with the highway district on getting that stop light installed at the half mile mark on Fairview Avenue that kind of created this thing. Well, one of the things is, you know, since our background is apartment development, is we knew that apartments are not a very favorable land use when you're working with existing neighborhoods and when we had the opportunity to go ahead and change that to a retirement center and I think the quality -- particularly it was interesting what you were saying about, you know, size and, you know, things of how it fits in the neighborhood and for us to go from a three story apartment complex to a single story apartment complex, I think that was really welcome. You know, I think the other thing Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 56 of 64 that's been a welcome change that we made was instead of having a 200 unit apartment complex, you know, a retirement center and apartments; we have converted all the apartments into single level office buildings. So, we have got office east completed, we are in for permits on two more office buildings on the west side. We have got that subdivision plat completed. The infrastructure, then -- we are starting the construction of our office buildings, so we are hoping that within this next week we can -- this next year we can kind of work our way through the office component. On your retail portion it is really, really difficult for everyone out there right now, just because of what's happened to Eagle Road, that everyone in this valley thinks they need to be on Eagle Road for -- and so we know that at some point in time, because of our location and because of the neighborhood that surrounds us, that we are going to have a need for what our retail is and I think that, you know, we are willing to be patient, you know, I think we have got a nice project, you know, we are not afraid to spend the money on putting in quality of what we are trying to do, but at the same time I need some support by the City of Meridian to help us continue and I think that what I did was I relied on our approval of what we had going permit -wise and what our plan said, and so I -- you know, like I said, for me to be in this position in front of you right now over a five foot landscape planter, you know -- you know, it's difficult for us right now and especially know that it's been sitting there vacant for a year. As far as what Ryan was saying about the overall plan, you know, I can't look in a crystal ball. One of the things that we did have that we had two fighting over it is someone wanted to put a tire store in next to Dirty Harry's. Well, we have got an auto related use of a car wash, you know, right there on the corner, and he wanted to put a tire store. Well, both Jack and Ryan came and said, hey, you know, you can't put a tire store there. Well, it's an allowed use in a commercial zone, you know. And talking about this development agreement, one of the things that was in the development agreement, besides the overall circulation and the landscape buffers and all of those things, was that we had to conditional use each commercial use that we submitted to the city and so that's why the requirement -- why it takes us so long to do everything, is the development agreement required us to conditional use everything that we do out here. So, then, later on -- a couple years ago when the CZC thing came up, staff said, well, gee, why don't we try to package it and, then, even if it's close we will go ahead and waive it on through, so you don't have to keep going through the process. And I think that's why that CZC ended up being where it's at, because staff, you know, was trying to give us more flexibility on what we were doing, instead of having to come through for every little thing that we were doing and so that's what's kind of created the problem that we are in right now. You know, if there is an answer, you know, for me, you know, I'd much rather come before you each time that we do something, so that it's -- it's clear of what we are agreeing to do, because now for us to go back after it's all been done and built, it's -- you know, like I said, especially knowing that we have got a vacant building that we are doing it to, it's very difficult, so -- I'd appreciate any kind of consideration you can help me out on, you know, and I'm here for any questions. Moe: Any questions? Thank you. Tamura: Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 57 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I have a -- sorry. On the -- the painted block wall, you mentioned earlier there was some other kind of alternative finish that was done on the Hastings building. Tamura: It's called a tex coat and a tex coat is just a textured paint. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And what -- is that -- would that be a reasonable compromise to -- I agree with you on the window issue, because I think that on that -- it's nice to have those westerly windows and I would be willing to say bag the windows, but I'm not real shiny on the idea of just painted concrete. Tamura: You know, I guess one of the things that we would be willing to do is -- I'd much rather go ahead and if we need to add more trees and, you know, even if you had to put evergreens in between the existing trees that we have, you know, where, you know, we had buffered more -- you know, because the one person that takes the brunt of it is Jack, because his half, again, is, you. know, sideways, you know, and we went ahead and put in a fence along his side, you know, and, then, we got trees in there, but if we need to put evergreens in between each one of those trees, you know, in the future when we get ready to do these future buildings, you know, we could -- you know, we could -- you know, I'd agree to tex coat the rear of those buildings. But, like I said, you know, the trim, the flashings, the -- everything is done, you know, so for us -- you know, I don't know what's involved in trying to do something after the fact, but I know it's not going to be cheap and, like I said, you know, where we have got a vacant building, it's hard for us to justify spending -- you know, it would be a substantial amount of money for us to do that. But, again, you know, that's what was approved from the submittal of the building permit and so -- yeah. You know, I mean, you know, I don't mind trying to think outside the box, but, you know, landscaping -wise I would be more than happy to do that, to help buffer that. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Quite frankly, I am very tom on this one, because, quite frankly, you know, how the plan from the CZC and the plan that was approved and that -- sorry? How those plans got confused or whatever, you know, concerns me quite a bit, i.e., to the point XN � T h y A, �r .. r .� n } e Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 57 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I have a -- sorry. On the -- the painted block wall, you mentioned earlier there was some other kind of alternative finish that was done on the Hastings building. Tamura: It's called a tex coat and a tex coat is just a textured paint. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And what -- is that -- would that be a reasonable compromise to -- I agree with you on the window issue, because I think that on that -- it's nice to have those westerly windows and I would be willing to say bag the windows, but I'm not real shiny on the idea of just painted concrete. Tamura: You know, I guess one of the things that we would be willing to do is -- I'd much rather go ahead and if we need to add more trees and, you know, even if you had to put evergreens in between the existing trees that we have, you know, where, you know, we had buffered more -- you know, because the one person that takes the brunt of it is Jack, because his half, again, is, you. know, sideways, you know, and we went ahead and put in a fence along his side, you know, and, then, we got trees in there, but if we need to put evergreens in between each one of those trees, you know, in the future when we get ready to do these future buildings, you know, we could -- you know, we could -- you know, I'd agree to tex coat the rear of those buildings. But, like I said, you know, the trim, the flashings, the -- everything is done, you know, so for us -- you know, I don't know what's involved in trying to do something after the fact, but I know it's not going to be cheap and, like I said, you know, where we have got a vacant building, it's hard for us to justify spending -- you know, it would be a substantial amount of money for us to do that. But, again, you know, that's what was approved from the submittal of the building permit and so -- yeah. You know, I mean, you know, I don't mind trying to think outside the box, but, you know, landscaping -wise I would be more than happy to do that, to help buffer that. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Quite frankly, I am very tom on this one, because, quite frankly, you know, how the plan from the CZC and the plan that was approved and that -- sorry? How those plans got confused or whatever, you know, concerns me quite a bit, i.e., to the point XN � T Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 57 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I have a -- sorry. On the -- the painted block wall, you mentioned earlier there was some other kind of alternative finish that was done on the Hastings building. Tamura: It's called a tex coat and a tex coat is just a textured paint. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And what -- is that -- would that be a reasonable compromise to -- I agree with you on the window issue, because I think that on that -- it's nice to have those westerly windows and I would be willing to say bag the windows, but I'm not real shiny on the idea of just painted concrete. Tamura: You know, I guess one of the things that we would be willing to do is -- I'd much rather go ahead and if we need to add more trees and, you know, even if you had to put evergreens in between the existing trees that we have, you know, where, you know, we had buffered more -- you know, because the one person that takes the brunt of it is Jack, because his half, again, is, you. know, sideways, you know, and we went ahead and put in a fence along his side, you know, and, then, we got trees in there, but if we need to put evergreens in between each one of those trees, you know, in the future when we get ready to do these future buildings, you know, we could -- you know, we could -- you know, I'd agree to tex coat the rear of those buildings. But, like I said, you know, the trim, the flashings, the -- everything is done, you know, so for us -- you know, I don't know what's involved in trying to do something after the fact, but I know it's not going to be cheap and, like I said, you know, where we have got a vacant building, it's hard for us to justify spending -- you know, it would be a substantial amount of money for us to do that. But, again, you know, that's what was approved from the submittal of the building permit and so -- yeah. You know, I mean, you know, I don't mind trying to think outside the box, but, you know, landscaping -wise I would be more than happy to do that, to help buffer that. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 08-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Quite frankly, I am very tom on this one, because, quite frankly, you know, how the plan from the CZC and the plan that was approved and that -- sorry? How those plans got confused or whatever, you know, concerns me quite a bit, i.e., to the point T .. r .� kx s } e c i $$w'ff.yyx��9�pp 'ky4'��"2j.F'^'fkh.`r. S ou ;.t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 58 of 64 where, you know, the city has some responsibility in this as well, not just the developer or the -- I mean somehow the plans were different. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't want to sound cold, but if you have a CZC for one building elevation and you go and you take a different one to the building department and -- I don't think that you -- you're not a rookie. Isn't a CZC for one building site the CZC you should take to the building department? And so -- I mean, yeah, I think there is some -- but I think that -- that Mr. Tamura or his company or -- needs to take some responsibility there, too. But somebody at the city should have been reviewing that, too, I suspect. Moe: Well, as the building is being constructed they have got inspections going on as well, you know. Newton-Huckabay: So, I guess what we have to solve -- the issue we have to solve -- or address is the -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- whether or not they need to -- we want them to put windows in the west side of the building. Whether they need to stucco or put some alternative finish on the building. And the planter. Moe: The planter, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is there just the three issues on the table? Marshall: I don't think there is much we can do about anything just brought up in the letter about agreements or things like that. Excuse me. I don't think there was much we could do about the development agreement or anything like that. We can't address that. All we can address is the issue that's before us right here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: To be honest, I'm extremely disappointed that this doesn't match what was approved. I'm very disappointed. And I'm -- you know, to be honest, that western wall, I'd have to agree that maybe you don't want windows over there, but that was what was approved, you know, and to go back after the fact and put them in -- that's very expensive and it's very difficult to do, especially when you don't have tenants in there or anything else, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Marshall: But, you know, if you didn't want windows in there, it shouldn't have been in the original proposal. I mean if you want to change that, you come back and get the approvals first. And I want to believe it's all an honest mistake, but at times I almost feel like a bate and switch. z 606 6 E� y,= x i 4 Yfi. 4 +$.4 5 diff �-r r Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 58 of 64 where, you know, the city has some responsibility in this as well, not just the developer or the -- I mean somehow the plans were different. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't want to sound cold, but if you have a CZC for one building elevation and you go and you take a different one to the building department and -- I don't think that you -- you're not a rookie. Isn't a CZC for one building site the CZC you should take to the building department? And so -- I mean, yeah, I think there is some -- but I think that -- that Mr. Tamura or his company or -- needs to take some responsibility there, too. But somebody at the city should have been reviewing that, too, I suspect. Moe: Well, as the building is being constructed they have got inspections going on as well, you know. Newton-Huckabay: So, I guess what we have to solve -- the issue we have to solve -- or address is the -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- whether or not they need to -- we want them to put windows in the west side of the building. Whether they need to stucco or put some alternative finish on the building. And the planter. Moe: The planter, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is there just the three issues on the table? Marshall: I don't think there is much we can do about anything just brought up in the letter about agreements or things like that. Excuse me. I don't think there was much we could do about the development agreement or anything like that. We can't address that. All we can address is the issue that's before us right here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: To be honest, I'm extremely disappointed that this doesn't match what was approved. I'm very disappointed. And I'm -- you know, to be honest, that western wall, I'd have to agree that maybe you don't want windows over there, but that was what was approved, you know, and to go back after the fact and put them in -- that's very expensive and it's very difficult to do, especially when you don't have tenants in there or anything else, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Marshall: But, you know, if you didn't want windows in there, it shouldn't have been in the original proposal. I mean if you want to change that, you come back and get the approvals first. And I want to believe it's all an honest mistake, but at times I almost feel like a bate and switch. z 606 6 E� y,= x i 4 Yfi. 4 +$.4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 58 of 64 where, you know, the city has some responsibility in this as well, not just the developer or the -- I mean somehow the plans were different. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't want to sound cold, but if you have a CZC for one building elevation and you go and you take a different one to the building department and -- I don't think that you -- you're not a rookie. Isn't a CZC for one building site the CZC you should take to the building department? And so -- I mean, yeah, I think there is some -- but I think that -- that Mr. Tamura or his company or -- needs to take some responsibility there, too. But somebody at the city should have been reviewing that, too, I suspect. Moe: Well, as the building is being constructed they have got inspections going on as well, you know. Newton-Huckabay: So, I guess what we have to solve -- the issue we have to solve -- or address is the -- and correct me if I'm wrong here -- whether or not they need to -- we want them to put windows in the west side of the building. Whether they need to stucco or put some alternative finish on the building. And the planter. Moe: The planter, yes. Newton-Huckabay: Is there just the three issues on the table? Marshall: I don't think there is much we can do about anything just brought up in the letter about agreements or things like that. Excuse me. I don't think there was much we could do about the development agreement or anything like that. We can't address that. All we can address is the issue that's before us right here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: To be honest, I'm extremely disappointed that this doesn't match what was approved. I'm very disappointed. And I'm -- you know, to be honest, that western wall, I'd have to agree that maybe you don't want windows over there, but that was what was approved, you know, and to go back after the fact and put them in -- that's very expensive and it's very difficult to do, especially when you don't have tenants in there or anything else, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Marshall: But, you know, if you didn't want windows in there, it shouldn't have been in the original proposal. I mean if you want to change that, you come back and get the approvals first. And I want to believe it's all an honest mistake, but at times I almost feel like a bate and switch. i 4 Yfi. 4 +$.4 5 5.n�p,N.5 Ny,,�y x ky x _7 4 1 :k r 1� k 4 ): d5n»�; E C3n1• •g3iSd #i 5 F.'k"32,'� �.�� i { 43,r, k I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 59 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. But at the end of the day, I mean -- and Mr. Tamara made this point -- the building that is there now is a heck of a lot nicer than the building that was supposed to be there. Marshall: The front of it is, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Marshall: I would say the western side and the northern side are not. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the northern side was approved as a -- the northern side was approved as a flat surface on the back all along. Marshall: Stucco. Stuccoed and painted -- Newton-Huckabay: With no modulation. Yeah. Marshall: Right. Right. But now it's cinder block. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: With paint. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: I would say stucco tends to be a higher quality than cinder block siding. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's my point is that the facade of the building is nicer than -- so, I mean I think he has a valid point there. Marshall: The front. I agree. Moe: Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: I don't have any comments. Newton-Huckabay: Speak in your mike, please. Rohm: I don't have any comments. Moe: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: I'm waiting for you to say something. Moe: Well, you know, again, I mean I -- quite frankly, I'd like to see if there was a happy medium to be had here, since I still do believe that both parties have a little bit to be -- 1 s "{ 5 Rr r' i✓ 2y�F't } 57 � N , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 59 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. But at the end of the day, I mean -- and Mr. Tamara made this point -- the building that is there now is a heck of a lot nicer than the building that was supposed to be there. Marshall: The front of it is, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Marshall: I would say the western side and the northern side are not. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the northern side was approved as a -- the northern side was approved as a flat surface on the back all along. Marshall: Stucco. Stuccoed and painted -- Newton-Huckabay: With no modulation. Yeah. Marshall: Right. Right. But now it's cinder block. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: With paint. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Marshall: I would say stucco tends to be a higher quality than cinder block siding. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's my point is that the facade of the building is nicer than -- so, I mean I think he has a valid point there. Marshall: The front. I agree. Moe: Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: I don't have any comments. Newton-Huckabay: Speak in your mike, please. Rohm: I don't have any comments. Moe: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: I'm waiting for you to say something. Moe: Well, you know, again, I mean I -- quite frankly, I'd like to see if there was a happy medium to be had here, since I still do believe that both parties have a little bit to be -- Rr r' i✓ 2y�F't 57 � N , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 60 of 64 Marshall: I agree with you. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. My -- Moe: So, my opinion is that, quite frankly, the comment in regards to the western elevation and not putting the windows in -- I don't have a problem putting in -- not putting in those windows, but I do want to see the stucco on the back. And the planter, that as well. So, I guess I could live with the stucco and planter and not worry about the windows. Newton-Huckabay: What about -- is this thing tied to the finish that's on the Hastings building, the texture paint and stuff? I mean --- Marshall: The text coat. Newton-Huckabay: The tex coat. Thank you. Rohm: I think that's a good compromise. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's -- I mean given that I -- in my opinion, the front facade of the building -- and I have thought this when I drive by it -- is closer to what we originally envisioned with the very first CUP, what we finally ended up with, and I think that it's a -- I think that it contributes to the Fairview Lakes development and looking a little more higher quality than it would have -- would have otherwise. I would think the tex coat would be a reasonable compromise and so -- Moe: On your -- the windows? Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend leaving that as is. Moe: And the planter? Newton-Huckabay: I think he should build the planter. Moe: Those are the issues. We need some type of a motion. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Rohm: I think you hit the nail on the head. Moe: I think any one of you three. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to say one thing to Mr. McDaniels and sorry, Jack -- I don't know your last name. That I read your letter and I thought it was very thoughtful and I believe I understand your concerns and I just want you to know that there is no fl AR d k v �� x� v t 4. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 60 of 64 Marshall: I agree with you. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. My -- Moe: So, my opinion is that, quite frankly, the comment in regards to the western elevation and not putting the windows in -- I don't have a problem putting in -- not putting in those windows, but I do want to see the stucco on the back. And the planter, that as well. So, I guess I could live with the stucco and planter and not worry about the windows. Newton-Huckabay: What about -- is this thing tied to the finish that's on the Hastings building, the texture paint and stuff? I mean --- Marshall: The text coat. Newton-Huckabay: The tex coat. Thank you. Rohm: I think that's a good compromise. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's -- I mean given that I -- in my opinion, the front facade of the building -- and I have thought this when I drive by it -- is closer to what we originally envisioned with the very first CUP, what we finally ended up with, and I think that it's a -- I think that it contributes to the Fairview Lakes development and looking a little more higher quality than it would have -- would have otherwise. I would think the tex coat would be a reasonable compromise and so -- Moe: On your -- the windows? Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend leaving that as is. Moe: And the planter? Newton-Huckabay: I think he should build the planter. Moe: Those are the issues. We need some type of a motion. Newton -H uckabay: Okay. Rohm: I think you hit the nail on the head. Moe: I think any one of you three. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to say one thing to Mr. McDaniels and sorry, Jack -- I don't know your last name. That I read your letter and I thought it was very thoughtful and I believe I understand your concerns and I just want you to know that there is no fl AR d k v �� d t y Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 to the P&Z meeting of November 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. 1, `JN,�,t a a• Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 61 of 64 specific action that we can take to change the right of the developer to come in with changes. So, we just hope that we make thoughtful consideration of those changes and that at the end of the day it will come together, so did want to let you know that appreciate you coming out and that we are not ignoring what you have to say. Does that comport with my cohorts here? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number MCU 08-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 16th, 2008, with the following modifications to the F� �' conditions of approval. Sonya, I'm not going to attach these to numbered conditions. gyp- , Will you be able to make the changes anyway? Okay. That the west end of the 1 k. building will not be required to put the -- any additional windows as was originally proposed in the CZC. That in lieu of the stucco on the -- on the perimeter of the building where what's required on the CZC, a tex coat will be applied. And that the planter island will be added to the front of the building. Rohm: Second. r,s Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 08-002 as modified. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Aye. The motion carnes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh L {t14 Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC — east of S. Meridian Road and Y south of E. Victory Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2008: 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 r district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Kastera Development, LLC — east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing for RZ 08-005 and PP 08- 010 for the sole purpose of continuing those to the regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z on November the 20th. Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to approve to continue RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 to the P&Z meeting of November 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. 1, r F� �' ..y M1.T gyp- , Y .M1•.if>' � .1. �?�; k. 1 ,�Ly"'y'i� i�y�P r,. L {t14 rl Vi3f;r �j;F� t 'e{ Of E Newton-Huckabay: That's good for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay to know. Hood: So, back to the -- the item at hand. We are requesting you approve some -- some changes to our checklist. A lot of them aren't really very substantive. There are a rr� Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 62 of 64 Item 11: Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: Moe: Next item is a request for Change to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by the Planning Department. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, that would be me, representing the planning department. We A have a few changes to the checklist that we are requesting. I do want to send out a s quick reminder. This is the last item on your last agenda here at City Hall at 33 East 00 1 k Idaho. So, in two weeks when you show up for hearing, don't show up here, go to Broadway in your new chambers. So, I am -- 3 Moe: When we leave here tonight do we pick up a memento on the way out the door? Hood: Yeah. Take bricks or a chair or whatever. Newton-Huckabay: I think I'll rip a chair out from the gallery. t t n- Hood: And before I jump into the details, which there aren't many, just by the way. I am "4 iz J15 still working on a quick -- maybe something next week, if you are all available, for a r quick walk through, just so you're kind of a little familiar with how things are set up over there, so I don't have anything solid yet from IT on a time when they can do 15 20 a or minute training or walk through City Hall. We are looking at next Thursday, the 3rd -- is } rc that next week? Two weeks. Two weeks. Sony. So, there is a fifth Thursday this month it must be, then. So, I'll send something out when I get a confirmed time, but if you're interested in, again, just getting a brief rundown, you're kind of familiar and see where your chair is and the way your laptop works -- will have new you computers and all -- everything is brand new, so just so you know. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have new microphones? Hood: I think you get new microphones. It's a whole new recording system. r d ' Moe: Are we still going to get yelled at, though? Hood: Maybe Dean can make the transition, too, so you may get yelled at occasionally. Although the audio visual system over there is -- it's pretty trick, so -- rl of Baird: You will probably have to watch what you say with the new microphones. It's going to pick up everything, from what I understand. So, you will find out. Sorry for the k interruption. E Newton-Huckabay: That's good for Commissioner Newton-Huckabay to know. Hood: So, back to the -- the item at hand. We are requesting you approve some -- some changes to our checklist. A lot of them aren't really very substantive. There are a ^Y x A Y } p "4 iz J15 51j r rl of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 63 of 64 couple, though, that I did want to call out, just so you know. On the final plat checklist we did add a requirement for a lot summary closer sheet. We are running into some issues on the final plat not being able to verify how big those lots were, so we are asking the development community to provide us with that as part of their final plat submittal and a request for another copy of their construction drawings, so that the Planning Department can have one, as well as the Public Works Department, so we can review things such as private streets and other things that Public Works is not looking for. The other ones are pretty minor in detail. Clean-up things for the most part, but they are detailed in the memo from Jenny Veatch dated today and I think that is it, unless you have any questions about the changes we are proposing. Newton-Huckabay: They all seem fairly straight forward to me. Moe: Are there any questions? Rohm: No questions. Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have no comment. Moe: Thank you. No questions. Hood: It's not a public hearing, but if I could get a motion to approve those changes, I would appreciate it. Moe: I was, actually, waiting for a motion to happen. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve those changes. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve those changes to the application checklist. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. �; i w a,. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 63 of 64 couple, though, that I did want to call out, just so you know. On the final plat checklist we did add a requirement for a lot summary closer sheet. We are running into some issues on the final plat not being able to verify how big those lots were, so we are asking the development community to provide us with that as part of their final plat submittal and a request for another copy of their construction drawings, so that the Planning Department can have one, as well as the Public Works Department, so we can review things such as private streets and other things that Public Works is not looking for. The other ones are pretty minor in detail. Clean-up things for the most part, but they are detailed in the memo from Jenny Veatch dated today and I think that is it, unless you have any questions about the changes we are proposing. Newton-Huckabay: They all seem fairly straight forward to me. Moe: Are there any questions? Rohm: No questions. Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have no comment. Moe: Thank you. No questions. Hood: It's not a public hearing, but if I could get a motion to approve those changes, I would appreciate it. Moe: I was, actually, waiting for a motion to happen. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve those changes. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve those changes to the application checklist. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. a,. .. y i 4V. ` �,.. 3 '. � s � .-,.� .4 Ej J �s�ri S^.• �, < .� ,,: .:` S�sYi� by kdt y"a`�'.s'�§�-`k�i a S i 3 h ryrt 7 #Ti =� r�Fr, a £ tai Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 64 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We adjourn at 10:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVa� l toI or DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYC L. HOLMAN, a r�� X" k aP k k d >ir f S k? 'S-.�+A`��^.' {f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 64 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We adjourn at 10:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVa� l toI or DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYC L. HOLMAN, a r�� X" k aP k +cam}i AR1� >ir f 'S-.�+A`��^.' {f t 7 �'r 3 4 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 16, 2008 Page 64 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: We adjourn at 10:50. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVa� l toI or DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYC L. HOLMAN, X" k aP S +cam}i AR1� >ir f 'S-.�+A`��^.' { } t 7 �'r .a 5¥ a a (( k 2 .1 ; 7 yf7$ k��s ,i�� "fl ice•+ t° k 4 :s ff t�,+yy .3y�' ? October 13, 2008 CUP 08-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 1A, 2008 APPLICANT W.H. Moore Company ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST FFCL for Approval - Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi -tenant retail buildings 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 & 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: See Affached Findings Pf provee— OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 'w v ## F of h: (' s, a J E s si d.^`a-x' psi.• lq r - ,t 4 uP 1 h CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ?. � , . -1 a EIDIAN=- IDAHO In the Matter of 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. Case No(s). CUP -08-023 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: October 2, 2008 (Findings on October 16, 2008) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 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 § 11-5A. 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 -08-023 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 Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 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 § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1- The applicant's Conditional User Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations attached in Exhibit A of the staff report dated October 2, 2008, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -08-023 Page 2 r� x < .. .. ., 3 a r ?5 i A -Shi "ER Slit? i 3 S K Y � �w i 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 Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 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 § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1- The applicant's Conditional User Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Elevations attached in Exhibit A of the staff report dated October 2, 2008, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -08-023 Page 2 ? r� 4 < .. .. ., 3 ? 4 k% t 4 < .. .. ., 3 Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -08-023 Page 3 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of Q�I , , 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED GL, (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED _J4�CA, COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED _AbWA;;t- COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED E Attest: rr 3 Tara Green, Deputy City rler CPy %% 'fid_ `�T ts� •, 40 �. Copy served upon Applicant D;p&t rent, Public Works Department and City Attorney. "r By: Dated: -1 l -7 o? ` City Clerk's Office . ��. w Frs NM CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP -08-023 Page 4 r IT � s � t � f rt TT r � s �r d CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 2, 2008 TO: Planning &Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Grandview West • CUP -08-023 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, by W. H. Moore Company. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W. H. Moore Company, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct two multi -tenant retail buildings (7,351 and 3,291 square foot buildings) on approximately 1.25 acres in an existing C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. Per the development agreement, construction on Lots 1 and 2 of the Dorado Subdivision is not to commence until a CUP is approved, because this site (lots) abut residential to the north. The subject site is located on the north side of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of S. Eagle Road. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff is recommending approval of CUP -08-023 for Grandview West, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 2. 2008. At the Public hearing the Commission voted to approve CUP -08-023 a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None V. Staff Presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on aPPlication: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Construction materials for the Proposed buildings c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP -08- 023 as presented during the hearing date of October 2, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on October 16, 2008. Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 1 AP?�: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 2, 2008 TO: Planning &Zoning Commission FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Grandview West • CUP -08-023 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, by W. H. Moore Company. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, W. H. Moore Company, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct two multi -tenant retail buildings (7,351 and 3,291 square foot buildings) on approximately 1.25 acres in an existing C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. Per the development agreement, construction on Lots 1 and 2 of the Dorado Subdivision is not to commence until a CUP is approved, because this site (lots) abut residential to the north. The subject site is located on the north side of E. Overland Road approximately 600 feet west of S. Eagle Road. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff is recommending approval of CUP -08-023 for Grandview West, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 2. 2008. At the Public hearing the Commission voted to approve CUP -08-023 a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jonathan Seel ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None V. Staff Presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on aPPlication: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Construction materials for the Proposed buildings c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP -08- 023 as presented during the hearing date of October 2, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on October 16, 2008. Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 1 b� i. q Y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -08-023 as presented during the hearing of October 2, 2008, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit and what the applicant may do to gain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on October 16, 2008. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -08- 023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address / Location: 2940 and 2976 E. Overland Road (Parcel #'s R1901110010 & R1901110022); Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision, in the SE % of Section 17, T.3N., R.IE. b. Owner: W. H. Moore Company/Kimball Properties, LLP P.O. Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: Same as above d. Representative: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company e. Present Zoning: C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) f. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use - Regional g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi -tenant buildings per the requirements of the Dorado Subdivision development agreement. 1. Date of Site Plan (See Exhibit A): August 7, 2008 2. Date of Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): August 28, 2008 3. Date of Building Elevations (See Exhibit A): August 7, 2008 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use per City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: September 15 and September 29, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 5, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 22, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site currently consists of two vacant commercially (C -G) zoned Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 2 y � i t'4�'` n..+ f j ? FMS rt d ,1 3 ,..;. -.: i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP -08-023 as presented during the hearing of October 2, 2008, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit and what the applicant may do to gain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on October 16, 2008. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP -08- 023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address / Location: 2940 and 2976 E. Overland Road (Parcel #'s R1901110010 & R1901110022); Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Dorado Subdivision, in the SE % of Section 17, T.3N., R.IE. b. Owner: W. H. Moore Company/Kimball Properties, LLP P.O. Box 8204 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: Same as above d. Representative: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company e. Present Zoning: C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) f. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Mixed Use - Regional g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct two multi -tenant buildings per the requirements of the Dorado Subdivision development agreement. 1. Date of Site Plan (See Exhibit A): August 7, 2008 2. Date of Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): August 28, 2008 3. Date of Building Elevations (See Exhibit A): August 7, 2008 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use per City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-5B-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: September 15 and September 29, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 5, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 22, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site currently consists of two vacant commercially (C -G) zoned Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 2 y � i t'4�'` n..+ f ? FMS rt d ,1 ,..;. -.: t k rd fii #r �x e 44 Xi{+'a`•-? vel S h 3 99 F CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 E parcels in the Dorado Subdivision. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is transitioning to a mix of commercial and office uses. To the north and west of this site is an Ada County residential subdivision. ' c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: a 1. North: Residential properties, zoned Rl (Ada County) 2. West: Residential properties, zoned RI (Ada County) 3. South: (Overland Road) Commercial business in El Dorado Subdivision, zoned C -G 4. East: Multi -tenant Building, Dorado Subdivision, zoned C -G v x . d. History of Previous Actions: In 2005, the subject property was annexed and zoned (AZ -05-019) with C -G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district; a Development Agreement was also approved with the annexation (Instrument No. 105127512). A preliminary plat consisting of 16 -lots (PP -05-024) and conditional use were approved for a Commercial Planned Development (CUP -05-031). The final plat (FP -05-057) for Dorado Subdivision was also approved in 2005. ,N Y e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: Sewer was planned with the Dorado Subdivision. - vr; Location of water: Water was planned with the Dorado Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: NA 3. Floodplain: FEMA Map Zone X 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property. 6. Size of Property: 1.25 acres consisting of two platted lots. 7. Description of Use: Proposal includes two multi -tenant buildings; each on separate lots. The western building totals 7,351 square feet and can accommodate up to five tenants. The eastern building totals 3,291 square feet and depicts three tenant spaces. f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: Two multi -tenant retail buildings: 1) 7,351 square feet and 2) 3,291 square feet. 2. Hours of Operation: No hours of operation were proposed with this application submittal. In addition, future tenants have not been identified for the proposed buildings and the large multi -tenant building is approximately 10 feet from the property/residential boundary to the north. Other uses in the development do not have limited hours of operation; however those buildings are farther away from the residential subdivision than the buildings proposed for ., this site. Staff believes it may be necessary to limit the hours of operation to ensure compatibility with the residential to north especially since the site was allowed to have a reduced landscape buffer, at least until those residences are removed and commercial development is realized there too. It is important to note the Comprehensive Plan envisions this residential area to re -develop as a mix of uses/commercial in the future. p, t, a Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 3 x 3 r v n OW M N s. .. .; r r , ..r a Y., :.k'''a,z e.,:_ ." n h 3•, x r !-P w # rl`' `S IW— 44 k k a' S r Oka � �« CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 g. Off -Street Parking: 1 per 500 square feet ofgross floor area 1. Parking spaces required: 22 2. Parking spaces provided: 54 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 h. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3), a 35 -foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to E. Overland Road, a classified arterial street and entryway corridor. The landscaping has been installed with the approval of the Dorado Subdivision and is to remain protected during construction on the site. In addition, the DA governing the site required a 2S foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Loder Street; west of this site. This landscaping should remain protected as well. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: Per City Code (UDC Table 11-2B-3) a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is required between C -G zoned properties and residential uses. There is residential that abuts this site at the northern boundary; however the DA allowed a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer with the installation of a 6 -foot vinyl fence with additional landscaping. 3. Other: Per UDC 11 -3B -8C, a 5—foot landscape buffer is required along all interior lot lines that are adjacent to parking, loading, and drive ways. i. Summary of Proposed Streets and / or Access: The applicant is not proposing any new access points to E. Overland Road and none are approved. A full access driveway was approved to the east of Lot 2 with the platting of the property. The subject site will connect to the access point/driveway via a 25 -foot wide drive aisle which will provide connectivity to the approved access point to E. Overland Road. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS On September 12, 2008 a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department and Meridian Police Department. 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 (MU -R)." Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use land use category contains five sub -categories. "Generally, the mixed-use designation will provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual site plan. The purpose of this 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 opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility." The MU -R category allows for residential densities of 3 to 40 units per acre. This category includes uses such as grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, professional offices, retail/gift shops, clothing stores, garden centers, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service stations, department stores, medical/dental clinics, schools, parks, churches, public uses, clubhouses, hardware stores, salons, daycares, entertainment uses, major employment centers, and clean industry. Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 4 s 5 a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 The subject site is currently zoned C -G, which complies with the MU -R land use designation. At this time tenants are not identified for the subject property; however with the diversity of uses allowed in a C -G zone, Staff believes future commercial uses will generally conform to the stated purpose, intent, and standards of the MU -R land use category within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 - "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." E. Overland Road is designated a principal arterial. Access points for the subject site were evaluated and approved with the Dorado Subdivision. No additional access points are proposed with this application. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4 - "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." Overland Road is classified as an arterial street and is designated as an entryway corridor to the City. By City Ordinance, a 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Overland Road. A 25 foot wide buffer is required adjacent to Loder Street. These landscape buffers are currently installed and will remain protected during the construction of the proposed building. In addition, the DA governing the site requires a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential to the north. On the submitted landscape plan the applicant is proposing a 10 foot wide landscape buffer and exceeds the minimum per the DA. • Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5 - "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." In addition to the required streetscape buffers, planter islands and 5 -foot landscape buffers are required adjacent to drive aisles and parking. On the submitted landscape plan the applicant generally complies with this requirement. See Landscaping in the Analysis section below. Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action - "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." City water and sewer are stubbed to the parcels. • Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B - "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." Although tenants have not been identified for the future buildings on the site, Staff believes that the current zoning district (C -G) permits a variety of uses and should compliment the mix of uses in the area which include: offices, restaurants, retail stores, coffee shops, hotels, personal service shops etc. Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the 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. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Commercial Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists uses that are principal permitted (P), Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 accessory (A), and conditional (C) or prohibited (-) uses within the proposed C -G zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone (UDC 11-2B-1): The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four (4) districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. c. Dimensional standards for the C -G zoning district, per UDC Table 11-2B-3: Dimensional Standards' C -N C -C C -G L -O M -E r -E Front setback (in feet) 0 Rear setback (in feet) 0 Interior side setback (in feet) 0 10/5276 r 0 Street landscape buffer (in feet): F—F-1 Local 10 Collector 20 Arterial 25 Entryway corridor 35 Interstate 50 Landscape buffer to residential uses (in feet)3 20 25 25 20/102 See note 4 Maximum building height (in feet) 35 F 50 F 65 F35 65 95 Maximum building size without design 7,500 60,000 200,000 10,000 See note 4 standard approval as set forth in section 11- 3A-19 of this title (in square feet) Parking requirements See chapter 3, article C, "Off Street Parking And Loading Requirements", of this title Landscaping requirements See chapter 3, article B, "Landscaping Requirements", of this title Notes: 1. All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right of way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. 2. Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. 3. Where the adjacent property is vacant, the director shall determine the adjacent property designation based on the comprehensive plan designation. 4. Subject to design guidelines in ten mile interchange specific area plan. 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 APPLICATION: The applicant is proposing to construct two multi -tenant retail buildings on the subject site. The larger of the buildings is 7,351 square feet and illustrates five future tenant spaces. The other building is 3,291 square feet and may accommodate up to three future Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 tenant spaces. Per the Dorado DA, construction on this site is not to commence until procurement of a CUP because the site abuts residential to the north. Further, the conceptual site plan approved with the PD in 2005 depicted two buildings on the subject site. Staff believes the applicant is proposing to develop the site generally consistent with previous approvals for the Dorado Subdivision. Design Review: The subject property is located adjacent to an entryway corridor (Overland Road) and is subject to the design review standards listed in UDC 11 -3A -19C. The applicant has not submitted a design review application concurrent with this CUP application. However, staff has provided a detailed review of the submitted site plan and building elevations to ensure compliance with the UDC design review standards. In addition, the applicant should submit for design review concurrently with the certificate of zoning compliance application and provide any revisions to the submitted elevations or site plan as discussed in this staff report or by the Commission during the public hearing. If the changes discussed at the hearing are significant, the Commission may continue the public hearing item to see the revised site plan or elevations. Note: Per UDC 11-5A-2, Design Review (DES) applications are approved at the administrative level by the Planning Director. 1. Architectural Character: 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 large multi -tenant building modulates 33% and the smaller building modulates 50% along E. Overland which complies with this standard. 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 entrances into both buildings are defined by a raised and projected facade on the east side of the larger building and north and west side of the smaller building. The front facade of larger building also incorporates arched stucco accents over three of the building entrances. The smaller building incorporates cloth awnings over the building entrances. These same architectural features are carried to the south elevations of both buildings adjacent to E. Overland Road and incorporate substantial glazing which exceeds the 30 percent required by the UDC. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) 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 planes and cornices. 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. Colored elevations were not submitted with this application, however building materials were called out on the submitted plans. The larger building is to be constructed of stucco with stone veneer accents. The smaller building is to be constructed of stucco and brick veneer accents. Both buildings comply with this design review standard. With CZC and DES submittal colored elevations should be provided 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. Mechanical Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 equipment is not depicted on the submitted elevations or on the submitted site plan. With CZC and DES submittal, said equipment should be depicted and screened from public view regardless of roof top or ground level location. In no case should the mechanical equipment front on E. Overland Road 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. The larger building is to be constructed of stucco with stone veneer accents. The smaller building is to be constructed of stucco and brick veneer accents. Both buildings comply with this design review standard. Colored elevations should be submitted with CZC and DES submittal. 3. Parking 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. 4. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. An 8 -foot wide walkway is proposed from the sidewalk along E. Overland Road to the sidewalk leading to the main entrance of both buildings, as required. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving 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 150 parking spaces or are greater than 200' away from the main building entrance on the site.) 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 smaller building complies with requirement and provides weather protection for the entrances of the three tenant spaces. However, the larger building only provides weather protection for two of the tenant spaces. The building footprint on the submitted site plan. suggests the arched stucco features above the some of the entrances do not appear to protrude from the building. Therefore the applicant should revise the front faVade of the building to ensure full compliance with this requirement, since five tenant spaces are depicted on the submitted site plan. Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for this site, prepared by Larson Architects, labeled as Sheet A-1 and A-2, dated August 7, 2008. The building materials proposed for the buildings include stucco, with stone and brick veneer accents, substantial storefront glazing, and arched stucco accents and fabric awnings that accent the entrances into the tenant spaces. Staff believes the proposed buildings will be constructed of high quality materials. After Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 reviewing the submitted elevations, the buildings appear to meet the design review standards of the UDC with the exception of the weather protection requirement. See the design review standards above for specific changes to the proposed elevations recommended by staff. Site Design: The applicant has submitted a site plan with this CUP application. Staff has reviewed the submitted site plan and is not proposing any changes. All parking and drive aisles comply with the UDC dimensional standards. Therefore, staff is supportive of the site design as proposed. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, one vehicle parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area is required in commercial districts. The two buildings total 10,642 square feet; thus, 22 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 54 parking spaces on the site which complies with this requirement. Also, per UDC 11-3C-6, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces. The applicant should provide a bike rack on the site to accommodate the 3 required bike parks. Staff is recommending the bike rack be centrally located on the site to accommodate bike parking for both of the proposed buildings or one should be provided near the entrances to both buildings. Access: The applicant is not proposing any new access points to E. Overland Road and none are approved with this application. The subject property is accessed (southeast corner) via a private access easement on the east side of the property that extends from E. Overland Road. The access to E. Overland Road was evaluated and approved with the Dorado Subdivision. Staff is supportive of the access point for the proposed development. Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan prepared on August 7, 2008 by The Land Group, labeled as Sheet L1.01. The street buffer landscaping along E. Overland Road and Loder Street were reviewed and approved with the final plat for Dorado Subdivision. Note: the DA only required the applicant provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping to the existing 20 feet landscaping adjacent to Loder Street Per City Code (UDC Table 11-213-3) a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer is required between C -G zoned properties and residential uses. There is residential that abuts this site at the northern boundary; however the DA that governs the site allows a 5 -foot wide landscape buffer with the installation of a 6 -foot vinyl fence. On the submitted landscape plan the applicant has provided a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer, 6 -foot solid vinyl fencing and landscaping that touches at 80 percent maturity. Staff believes the applicant has complied with the DA provision for the Dorado Subdivision. Staff has also reviewed the internal parking lot landscaping depicted on the landscape plan and found it generally complies with the landscaping requirements in UDC 11-3B-8. Therefore, staff is not proposing any changes to the landscape plan. Hours of Operation: Hours of operation were not proposed with this application submittal. In addition, future tenants have not been identified for the proposed buildings and the large multi - tenant building is approximately 10 feet from the property/residential boundary to the north. Other businesses/uses in the development do not have limited hours of operation; however those buildings are farther away from the residential subdivision than the buildings proposed with this application. Staff believes it may be necessary to limit the hours of operation to ensure compatibility with the residential to north especially since the site was allowed to have a reduced Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 landscape buffer. Staff has contacted the applicant to discuss the possibly of limiting the hours of operation for the subject site. Per conversations with the applicant, Staff is recommending the hours be limited from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. until the residential subdivision is redeveloped as a mixed use/commercial development in the future. Currently this residential subdivision is surrounded by commercially zoned property and may transition in the future. It is important note the Comprehensive Plan envisions this residential area to re -develop as a mix of uses/commercial in the future. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC and Design Review approval from the Planning Department prior to receiving a building permit. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of CUP -08-023 for Grandview West, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Plannine and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 2. 2008. At the public hearing. the Commission voted to approve CUP -08-023. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan (dated 8/07/08) 3. Landscape Plan (dated 8/28/08) 4. Building Elevations (dated 8/07/08) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District (Comments were not received as of the print date for this staff report.) C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 10 4 4 f h,sst, °' 3 � 5 w 4 r i t t a ,a u CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 landscape buffer. Staff has contacted the applicant to discuss the possibly of limiting the hours of operation for the subject site. Per conversations with the applicant, Staff is recommending the hours be limited from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. until the residential subdivision is redeveloped as a mixed use/commercial development in the future. Currently this residential subdivision is surrounded by commercially zoned property and may transition in the future. It is important note the Comprehensive Plan envisions this residential area to re -develop as a mix of uses/commercial in the future. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC and Design Review approval from the Planning Department prior to receiving a building permit. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of CUP -08-023 for Grandview West, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Plannine and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 2. 2008. At the public hearing. the Commission voted to approve CUP -08-023. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan (dated 8/07/08) 3. Landscape Plan (dated 8/28/08) 4. Building Elevations (dated 8/07/08) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District (Comments were not received as of the print date for this staff report.) C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 10 4 4 f h,sst, °' w 4 r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 landscape buffer. Staff has contacted the applicant to discuss the possibly of limiting the hours of operation for the subject site. Per conversations with the applicant, Staff is recommending the hours be limited from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. until the residential subdivision is redeveloped as a mixed use/commercial development in the future. Currently this residential subdivision is surrounded by commercially zoned property and may transition in the future. It is important note the Comprehensive Plan envisions this residential area to re -develop as a mix of uses/commercial in the future. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11 -5B -1A). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC and Design Review approval from the Planning Department prior to receiving a building permit. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of CUP -08-023 for Grandview West, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of October 2, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Plannine and Zoning Commission heard this item on October 2. 2008. At the public hearing. the Commission voted to approve CUP -08-023. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan (dated 8/07/08) 3. Landscape Plan (dated 8/28/08) 4. Building Elevations (dated 8/07/08) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District (Comments were not received as of the print date for this staff report.) C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Grandview West CUP -08-023 Page 10 4 f h,sst, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A _ I _ r, z. "Wit x r; , , S � j t. { CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 2. CUP Site Plan Exhibit A -2- LODER STREET 0 J1 c- z. "Wit CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 2. CUP Site Plan Exhibit A -2- LODER STREET 0 J1 c- "Wit r; , , S � j t. { R}ygn'�-,'r.'4Lz�'. t. x H �4iu 3 "Nd CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 2. CUP Site Plan Exhibit A -2- LODER STREET 0 J1 c- "Wit r; , , S � j t. R}ygn'�-,'r.'4Lz�'. t. x CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 3. Landscape Plan in 0 03m LOM s7TdMT aE t'j t 1 Y t. m r E CONDITIONAL III GRANDVIEW WEST USE PERLOT RETAIL BUILDING Exhibit A -3- LOM 3_ 1-1 Jit 787"MM-n a .m ."Mismis, mmmm ISO mm- in . 7 . ii 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 accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.11 The hours of operation for these sites shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. until the residential lot to the north is redeveloped with a non-residential use. 1.12 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the proposed use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is currently planned to this site from the previously approved Dorado Subdivision. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of 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 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 L. AR" �• _ ;. a 713 .ti B. Conditions of Approval 9w` b k� s � t 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS ° N. 1.1 The Site Plan, labeled Sheet SP -1, prepared by Larson Architects, dated August 7, 2008, included Y in Exhibit A, is approved, with no changes. 1.2 Building elevations for the proposed multi -tenant retail buildings shall comply with the elevations - shown in Exhibit A.4 to include the revision to the east elevation of the large multi -tenant building providing weather protection for the south, north and central tenant entrances. Building e, materials shall consist of stucco with stone or brick accents, substantial glazing, modulating " walls, highlighted main entrances and varying roof lines with cornices. ;- 1.3 The site/building elevations shall comply with all of the design review standards in accordance with UDC 11-3A-19. 1.4 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L1.01, prepared by The Land Group, dated August 28, 2008, is approved, as proposed. Vit :° 1.5 The applicant shall provide a bike rack centrally located on the site to accommodate the 3 required bike parks for both of the proposed buildings, or provide a bike rack near an entrance to i both buildings. 1.6 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.7 All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (UDC 11- t 3D). r z 1.8 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of approval of the Dorado _ development does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. The applicant shall comply with all prior conditions of approval for this site. ,f 1.9 To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP -08-023 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit and Design Review (DES) approval from the Planning Department prior to commencing construction of the proposed buildings. 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 accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.11 The hours of operation for these sites shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. until the residential lot to the north is redeveloped with a non-residential use. 1.12 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the proposed use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is currently planned to this site from the previously approved Dorado Subdivision. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of 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 Exhibit B L. AR" �• _ ;. a 713 .ti 9w` b k� s � t N. 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 accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.11 The hours of operation for these sites shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. until the residential lot to the north is redeveloped with a non-residential use. 1.12 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the proposed use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is currently planned to this site from the previously approved Dorado Subdivision. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of 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 Exhibit B L. .'..'b "4 _ ;. a 713 r. s � t s Y t 5 4 e, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 �a t City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service is currently planned to this site with the previously approved Dorado Subdivision. {m y The applicant shall be responsible to coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round i i x '�' �'4 � 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, a single -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 obtaining a certificate of occupancy. 2.4 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to obtaining certificates of CW occupancy. k 2.5 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or A,. 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 x`` , (ditch owners), with written approval or non -approval submitted to the Public Works Department. g. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and s approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. t 2.6 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per y 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 may be 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. 2.7 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. t ` 2.8 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 prior to " a applying for building permits. 2.9 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 obtaining a certificate of occupancy. x } 2.10 All 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. 2.11 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy. s 2.12 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. y 2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. -r ,.. 2.14 All grading of the site shall l 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. , Exhibit B t w 4 {m �%M�>;c a "Y'§ 5 ' "•�S n:",7 kl i i x '�' �'4 � 1 Y 4ij#r'r.W CW x`` , �,, t 3" e'*k ,r •ad �3�dr. a.=.;. g. s f. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 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 Public 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. 2.19 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 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 %2" 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 place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing 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. 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 a weight of 75,000 lbs. 3.5 Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 3.6 Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 3.7 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather 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. Exhibit B _ g _ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 3.9 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire -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 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 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 For all Fire Lanes provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 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 Comments were not received from the Parks Department on this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. :n 6.2 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. kiu 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1.1 No comments were received for the subject application. Exhibit B -4- 3 f� 1 �. j } i k is x x � t r � q p `F < tt A sr 111 �9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed buildings on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. b.. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Mixed Use - Regional." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC (see Section 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this project). c. 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the site; it should be compatible with other future and existing uses in the general neighborhood and the intended character of the area. The Commission should rely on Staff s analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site will be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C W y k�} j I �,ry,., 2x4,�r 3 � t 111 �9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The proposed buildings on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. b.. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Mixed Use - Regional." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC (see Section 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this project). c. 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. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the site; it should be compatible with other future and existing uses in the general neighborhood and the intended character of the area. The Commission should rely on Staff s analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site will be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C W §gy 416 I 2x4,�r 3 � t tj ` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 2, 2008 f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the w proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions . of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of two multi - tenant buildings at this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not 2_ -2- anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property ty or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems ' ! - associated with this use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission ,:+ finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. R !" � t Exhibit C 2_ -2- { R !" a d ^V F ft ft e pp � } S $ { G J%# ,— Hwsi z ¢ 7 4 . �g f. gg li f$Fi h2°& �`]'9i •ajP. F � 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: No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s.. e' 7'z 1 � f 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: No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 7'z 1 � f �l a .r.. ter r 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: No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 1 � f �l a .r.. October 13, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT Marc Johnson CUP 08-025 ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for a residential care facility in a C -C zoning district for Shaylee Estates - 1332, 1402 1414 N. Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Sign Posting / See Attached Revised Plats Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 5 R � } z r l � f4, µ; x. 3 t 'F S " r't" y"S�}dAi�i,S,i' 2 4..., 1xfr x%tnSPRu 'K`° x sig < w. October 13, 2008 CUP 08-027 F MERIDIAN PLANNING S< ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT Eastem Washinton/Idaho Synod of the ELCA ITEM NO. % REQUEST Public Hearing - CUP approval for an assisted living facility in the TN -C 8, TN -R districts; to exceed the maximum building height allowed in the TN -C & TN -R districts; and to exceed the maximum building footpri " square footage allowed in the TN -C district for Beacon at Southrid e - s/of Overland Rd, 800 feet w o Linder 9 / Rd A � � � � AGENCY COMMENTS jy- 4 » Y. CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ` CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ` CITY FIRE DEPT: 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: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: N .:Y .., n, IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting/ No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. �n 4 yy Al N k y M1Y i i ba +¢ is w C f WON,'fLEf " t z &"� k fr, � Y hY�.,x \ cLYk' f .,it U.S"'`',q .�.1'?dX.'� October 13, 2008 MCU 08-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 18, 2008 APPLICANT Doug Tamura ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Cont. Public Hearing from 9/18 - CUP approval to Modify the previously approved site & building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail - 950 E. Fairview Avenue 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting / Written Testimony by Ryan McDaniel / Respone by MPD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. S x- Y S N`' { i max - L ii T.� October 13, 2008 MCU 08-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 18, 2008 APPLICANT Doug Tamura ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Cont. Public Hearing from 9/18 - CUP approval to Modify the previously approved site & building layout for Lot 4, Block 3 of Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 to reflect that which was recently constructed for Fairview Lakes Retail - 950 E. Fairview Avenue 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting / Written Testimony by Ryan McDaniel / Respone by MPD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. S x- Y S i L ii T.� f. October 13, 2008 RZ 08-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/2 - Rezone of 26.58 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge - east of S. Meridian Road & south of E. Victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Request for Continuance oflfv�' �V41 /09 -10 Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. JAt�Y } { 'F v 6, 3,¢, � S Y 'I .371 SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. October 13, 2008 PP 08-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT Kastera Development, LLC ITEM NO. O ` REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 10/2 - Preliminary Plat approval for 255 residential building lots & 26 common area lots on 91.08 acres in an R-4 and proposed i R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge - east of S. Meridian Rd & south of E. Victory Rd AGENCY COMMENTS F ¢ �, CITY CLERK: See RZ Packet X x� b- fx. fi jt t 1 CITY ENGINEER: k CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ti w a CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: a �x , - CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: /09 ,wv° i 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: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. F ¢ X x� b- fx. fi jt t 1 k ti w a f a �x , M teS w dit. 5 October 13, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. _I 1 REQUEST Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r-: A 3 i vgv ryi k x 4 t �=y 6 t. Y4 t 1 October 13, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING October 16, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. _I 1 REQUEST Request for Changes to the Planning Application Checklist Requirements by Meridian Planning Department: 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. A vgv ryi k t 6 � h`$' M4 i. =r � Qpw t Planning Department - 660 E. Watertower Street, Suite 202, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 - Fax 208-888-6854 - www.meridiancity.org 4 x t i r 1 1 t i 1 f Ek 4yi"e""t� F SZ £�' fi �tXs i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jenny Veatch, Assistant Planner RE: Request for approval of revisions to Development Application Forms/Checklists DATE: On Commission Agenda October 16, 2008 x CC: City Clerk, Legal Department Per UDC 11-5A-3132, the Planning Department is requesting approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission to revise specific development application forms (checklists), as follows: On the Final Plat checklist, 1) added a requirement for a lot summary sheet . detailing frontage and size for building lots within the plat, 2) added a { requirement to submit 2 copies of the final plat attached to the required 2 sets of final engineering construction drawings for the Public Works Department, and 3) a added a note that the required 32 copies of the Final Plat does not include the 2 required copies above for construction drawings. • On the Vacation checklist, added a note that vacations that were not exempt per Idaho Code section 50-1306A(5) or a vacation of right-of-way, were subject to - . the additional requirements of property posting, pre -application meeting, and ` neighborhood meeting. • On the Property Boundary Adjustment checklist, added a requirement to provide 2 copies of each item listed in checklist (excluding fee). Planning Department - 660 E. Watertower Street, Suite 202, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 - Fax 208-888-6854 - www.meridiancity.org x r 1 t i 1 f Ek 4yi"e""t� F SZ £�' fi �tXs i C(yfr y�4 zt x r Fe F "TI`i+•h t k ; ' h t' f Ek 4yi"e""t� F SZ £�' i Page 2 • On the Certificate of Zoning Compliance checklist, deleted Lynsey Todd as contact for address verification letter. • On Development Agreement Modification checklist, added a requirement for pre - application meeting, neighborhood meeting and property posting. a On Sign Permit checklist, added note after Fee that additional fees may be assessed through the Building Department. • Added a revision date to all six of the above mentioned application checklists. a i �z ElkIDIAN7,- Planning Department VACATION ■ Application Checklist Project name: File #: Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain one copy of the following: Applicant Staff Description Completed and signed Commission & Council Review Application Narrative fully describing the proposed request including the following: ➢ Particular circumstances regarding the request to vacate ➢ Names of the persons affected by the proposed vacation Legal description of the platted area or property to be vacated Recorded warranty deed for the subject property Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation, submit a copy of the Articles of Inco tion or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent.) Relinquishment of easement letters from the applicable parties (e.g. public utilities --Qwest, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, Cable One, and applicable irrigation and/or drainage entity.) Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property Scaled site plan or plat showing the easement proposed to be vacated Electronic version of the site plan or plat showing the easement proposed to be vacated in df format submitted on a disk with the file named with project name & plan type (ie. vacation). Additional Requirements for Vacations (Not required for vacation of right-of-way, or vacations exempt per Idaho Code section 50-1306A(5).) Commitment of Property Posting form signed by the applicant/agent Pre -application meeting notes (All applications that require a public hearing are required to conduct a pre - application meeting with the Planning Department.) Neighborhood meeting sign -in sheet (Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting for all requests that require a public hearing to provide an opportunity for public review of the proposed project prior to the submittal of an a lication.) Fee Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A HEARING BE SEI) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 10/8/08) STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST (name) (address) (city) (state) being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. 3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s). Dated this day 20 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. (Notary Public for Idaho) Residing My Commission Expires: s .. i. .bY •d a4`iy. }s'ay4 STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST (name) (address) (city) (state) being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. 3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s). Dated this day 20 (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. (Notary Public for Idaho) Residing My Commission Expires: s i. .bY •d a4`iy. E IDIAN% Planning Department SIGN PERMIT ■ Application Checklist Project name: File #: Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain two copies of the following: Applicant p �,�) Description Staff Completed and signed Sign Permit application Drawing of the proposed sign(s), including the following: ➢ Complete text to appear on sign (business name, logo, sub -titles, etc.), including size & lettering style ➢ Overall sign dimensions (including base, wall area, background area) ➢ Construction materials ➢ Sign and lettering color(s) — include color samples or paint chips Building elevations, including wall dimensions & exact, scaled location of sign on building or wall si Site plan showing property lines & any adjacent sidewalks, rights of way from center of streets, landscaping, screening and exact, scaled location of sign on property or free-standing signs) Fee (Additional Fees may be assessed through the Building Department) THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 10/8/08) E IDIAN Planning Department PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT Application Checklist Project name: File #: Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted: Applicant Staff Description Please provide two (2) copies of each of the items listed below Completed & signed Administrative Review Application Narrative fully describing the requested property boundary adjustment Legal description (metes and bounds) of the new property boundaries and closure sheet Recorded warranty deed for the subject property Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation, submit a cAW of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent) Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property Existing recorded plat in which the subject property lies (8 %z" x 11") (if applicable) Existing Record of Surveys used and/or referenced (8 V2" x 11") Record of Survey (paper copy) Fee Property boundary adjustments are allowed for the adjustment of property lines between existing properties, and to allow for the reduction in the number of buildable lots. A property boundary adjustment does not vacate the platted lot lines or easements of a recorded subdivision (UDC 11-6B-8). APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 o Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 10/8108) `i C f ,- .. .. Wk x AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST I STATE OF IDAHO ) y :. ` �. �oA�' ';'.k `s..'s.,�.K`'#Si,•$. ..-1 '3•L ,3Y ,+kY-, tP COUNTY OF ADA ) .e s� =rt ,4 (name) (address) (city) (state) being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my a. z permission to: 3 (name) (address) • f b - to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property. t, 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained d herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. .. 3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s). } 7 y „ Dated this day of , 20 s (Signature) 3 V SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. (Notary Public for Idaho) Residing at: s My Commission Expires: r 10 C f ,- .. .. C ,- .. .. y :. ` �. �oA�' ';'.k `s..'s.,�.K`'#Si,•$. ..-1 '3•L ,3Y ,+kY-, tP ^" d .e s� =rt a. z • f b - t, ".xY E IDIAN-- 0A Planning Department FINAL PLAT ■ Application Checklist Project name: File #: Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain one copy of the following: Applicant 0 Description Staff ('�) Completed & signed Commission & Council Review Application Narrative fully describing the proposed project Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a recorded subdivision OR a metes and bounds legal description of the property if not in a subdivision.) Recorded warranty deed for the subject property Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation, submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent.) Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property (if this is a phased development, show this phase in relation to previously approvedphases.) Fee (Please call Planning Department to calculate correct fee. Applications with incorrect fees will not be accepted.) Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications Additional Requirements for Final Plat Applications: Applicant �.� Description Staff Include the following additional information in the project narrative: ➢ A statement of conformance with the approved preliminary plat and meeting all requirements or conditions thereof. If not in conformance, describe the proposed changes and why they are needed.* ➢ A statement of conformance with all requirements and provisions of the UDC ➢ A statement of conformance with acceptable engineering, architectural and surveying practices and local standards. ➢ Note the approved annexation/rezone ordinance number and development agreement recorded instrument number (if applicable) Copy of the approved preliminary plat (8 '/2" x 11" Co y of the 'final" Ada County Street Name Evaluation Letter Detail of any proposed amenities (tot lot play equipment, etc.) Submit lot closure sheet for pla Submit two (2) sets of final engineering construction drawings for streets, water, sewer, sidewalks, irrigation and other public iniProvements with two (2) copies of the final la lattacheO to Public Works Department for approval (208-898-5500). These drawings must be stamped and signed by a registered engineer/surveyor in the State of Idaho. Storm drainage calculations must be submitted for private drives and parking areas within subdivisions. Applicant's engineer is required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. Submit cross section (civil plan drawing) of private street to planning department (if applicable). 660 E. Watertower Street, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 . Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 . Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 1018/08) Final Plat -32 copies (not -in cluding copies for P.W. above!), dimensions of 18" x 27" per Idaho Code (folded to 8 ''/z" x 11" size) The following items must be included on the finalplat: • Approved plat name • Year of platting • Section location and county (situate statement) • North arrow • Scale of plat (not smaller than 1"=100') • Streets and alleys with widths and bearings • Street names • Consecutive numbering of all lots in each block, and each block numbered • Each and all lengths of the boundaries of each lot including curve and/or line table • Exterior boundaries shown by distance and bearing (heavier lines than streets and lots) including curve and/or line table • Description of survey monuments • Initial point and tie to at least two public land survey corners or, in lieu thereof, to two monuments recognized by the City Engineer or County Engineer or surveyor. • Common area lots and/or landscape easements • Existing and proposed easements (show gmphically on the plat) • Pertinent notes for easements, restrictions, dedications, etc. • Basis of bearings • Land Surveyor signed seal • Land Surveyor business name and address • Legend of symbols • Adjacent platted subdivision names Reduction of the final plat (8'/z" x 11") Signature sheet of the final plat (4 copies) Landscape plan – 3 copies (folded to 8 ''/_" x 11" size) NOTE: Internal (parking lot) landscaping will not be reviewed with the final plat for commercial developments unless a separate CZC application is submitted concurrently. Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 " = 50'(1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard drawing sheet, not to exceed 36"x 48" (24"x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets. The following items must be included on the landscapeplan: • Date, scale, north arrow, and project name • Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or firm preparing the plan • Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified nurseryman preparing the plan. • Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands, floodplain, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings. • Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree will be retained or removed. • A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected from damage during construction • Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls, fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks, pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made elements. • Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall be shown with one -foot contours. IM ;' �a • Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature U size. 4 y44 p �`e �. nF .AyF =if spacing, staking, and installation as appropriate). • Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all If the number of buildable lots has increased or there has been an overall reduction in the amount of open space, the final plat shall be determined not to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. If the Director determines that there is substantial difference in the final plat than that which was approved as a preliminary plat or conditions that have not been met, the Director may require that a new preliminary plat be submitted to the Commission (UDC 11-0-3C2b). APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED. r � t • Site Triangles as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance. • Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature size. 4 y44 • A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name, minimum planting size and container, tree class (I, II, or III), and comments (for spacing, staking, and installation as appropriate). • Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all required standards. • Location and drawing/detail of all proposed fencing • Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, including: ➢ Width of street buffers, lineal feet of street frontage, and number of street trees ➢ Residential subdivision trees ➢ Acreage dedicated for common open space ➢ Number of trees provided on common lot(s) ➢ Mitigation for removal of existing trees Reduction of the landscape plan (8 %z" x 11 ") Electronic version of the approved preliminary plat, final plat, & landscape plan in pdf format on a disk with the files named with project name & plan type (i.e. approved preliminary plat, final plat, landscape plan, amenities, etc.). We encourage you to submit at least one color version for presentation purposes. If the number of buildable lots has increased or there has been an overall reduction in the amount of open space, the final plat shall be determined not to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. If the Director determines that there is substantial difference in the final plat than that which was approved as a preliminary plat or conditions that have not been met, the Director may require that a new preliminary plat be submitted to the Commission (UDC 11-0-3C2b). APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED. r � t 4 y44 STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST (name) (address) (city) (state) r being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless r ` from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. µ � 3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s). s Dated this day of , 20 t (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. TI (Notary Public for Idaho) ., Residing at: My Commission Expires: E IDIAN-- Planning Department e q DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION Application Checklist Project name: File 4- Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain one copy of the following: Applicant Description Staff (�) Completed & signed Commission & Council Review Application Narrative fully describing the proposed request, including but not limited to the following: ➢ Explain your interest in the original Development Agreement ➢ Date of original approval of development agreement by City ➢ Recordation date of development agreement and instrument number ➢ Reason for development agreement modification (be specific and detailed) ➢ Sections of development agreement to be modified and proposed modifications ➢ Any other supporting information Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property Pre -application meeting notes (All applications that require a public hearing are required to conduct a pre - application meeting with the Planning Department.) Neighborhood meeting sign -in sheet (Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting to provide an opportunity for public review of the proposed project prior to the submittal of an a lication.) Commitment of Property Posting form signed by the applicant/agent Fee (see fee schedule for "Miscellaneous") APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE SUBMITTED. THIS APPLICATIONSHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE (NOR WILL A PUBLIC HEARING BE SEI) UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 . Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.mezidiancity.org (Rev. 10/8/08) COMNHTMENT OF PROPERTY POSTING Per Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -5A -5D, the applicant for all applications requiring a public hearing (except for a UDC text amendment, a Comprehensive Plan text amendment and/or vacations) shall post the subject property not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. The applicant shall post a copy of the public hearing notice of the application(s) on the property under consideration. The applicant shall submit proof of property posting in the form of a notarized statement and a photograph of the posting to the City no later than seven (7) days prior to the public hearing attesting to where and when the sign(s) were posted. Unless such Certificate is received by the required date, the hearing will be continued. The sign(s) shall be removed no later than three (3) days after the end of the public hearing for which the sign(s) had been posted. I am aware of the above requirements and will comply with the posting requirements as stated in UDC 11-5A-5. Applicant/agent signature Date (�VIERJDIAN/,� Planning Department CERTIFICATE OF ZONING COMPLIANCE Application Checklist Project name: File # Applicant/agent: All applications are required to contain one copy of the following unless otherwise noted: Applicant Description Staff (�) Completed & signed Administrative Review Application Narrative fully describing the proposed use of the property, including the following: ➢ Information on any previous approvals or requirements for the requested use i.e., applicable conditions of approval or Development Agreement) Recorded warranty deed for the subject property Affidavit of Legal Interest signed & notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation, submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorizedagent.) Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property Sanitary Service Company approval for trash enclosure & access drive (stamped site plan) A photometric test report for any light fixture(s) with a maximum output of 1,8001umens or more (see UDC 11-3A-11) Copy of the recorded plat that the property lies within (8 '/2" x 11 ") Address verification letter from Public Works (898-5500) Site Plan -4 copies (folded to 8 %2" x 11" size) The following items must be shown on the siteplan: • Date, scale, north arrow, and project name (scale not less than 1"=50') • Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or firm preparing the plan • Parking stalls and drive aisles • Trash enclosure(s) location • Detail of trash enclosure (must be screened on 3 sides) • Location and specifications for underground irrigation (Pressurized irrigation can only be waived if you prove no water rights exist to subject • Sidewalks or pathways (proposed and existing) • Location of proposed building on lot (include dimensions to property lines) • Fencing (proposed and existing) • Calculations table including the following: Number of parking stalls required & provided (specify handicap & compact stalls) ➢ Building size (sq. ft.) ➢ Lot size (sq. ft.) ➢ Setbacks ➢ Zoning district • Reduction of the site plan (8 %2" x 11 ") Landscape plan — 3 copies (folded to 8 %2" x 11" size) Plan must have a scale no smaller than I " = 50'(1 " = 20' is preferred) and be on a standard drawing sheet, not to exceed 36"x 48" (24"x 36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets. The following items must be included on the landscapeplan: • Date, scale, north arrow, and project name • Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or firm preparing the plan 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 . Website: www.metidiancity.org ACHD Acceptance: Applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements ofAChD as theypertain to this application. All impact fees, if any, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. If any changes must be made to the site plan to accommodate the ACHD requirements, a new site plan shall be submitted to the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Your building permit will not be issued until ACHD has approved your plans and all associated fees have been paid. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 . Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 10/8/08) • Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified nurseryman preparing the plan • Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands, floodplains, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings • Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree will be retained or removed • A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected from damage during construction • Existing structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls, fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks, pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made elements • Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall be shown with one -foot contours • Sight Triangles as defined in 11-3A-5 of this ordinance • Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and groundcovers (trees must not be planted in City water or sewer easements). Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature size • A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name, minimum planting size and container, tree class (I, 11, or III), and comments (for spacing, staking, and installation as appropriate) • Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all required standards • Design drawing(s) of all fencing proposed for screening purposes • Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, including: ➢ Number of street trees and lineal feet of street frontage ➢ Width of street buffers (exclusive of right-of-way) ➢ Width of parking lot perimeter landscape strip ➢ Buffer width between different land uses (if applicable) ➢ Number of parking stalls and percent of parking area with internal landscaping ➢ Total number of trees and tree species mix ➢ Mitigation for removal of existing trees, including number of caliper inches being removed Reduction of the landscape plan (8 %z" x 11") Building elevations showing construction materials If applying for approval of a public school, provide additional information as required by the Public School Facility supplemental checklist per §67-6519 Fee (If this project had prior approval on a site plan, reduced fees may apply) ACHD Acceptance: Applicant shall be responsible for meeting the requirements ofAChD as theypertain to this application. All impact fees, if any, shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. If any changes must be made to the site plan to accommodate the ACHD requirements, a new site plan shall be submitted to the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Department for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Your building permit will not be issued until ACHD has approved your plans and all associated fees have been paid. THIS APPLICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL STAFF HAS RECEIVED ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION. 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 . Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 10/8/08) STATE OF IDAHO ) COUNTY OF ADA ) I, AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST (tee) (address) (city) (state) being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: 1. That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my permission to: (name) (address) to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property. 2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. 3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s). Dated this day (Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written. (Notary Public for Idaho) Residing My Commission Expires: 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.org (Rev. 1018108) 20 t Y0. 4:.uS5� i3 J 1 a i S. x'P6'R"''af y f 5 c s - 2 14"T