Loading...
2008 01-17MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING _ ~ ;; REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tom O'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 January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field »: ~.~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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, s,~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~~ _ :. Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District. No. 2 - southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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. ~~ ~`°~~ .,: h, ~-. E IDIAN--- ~~~H~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshal David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: ~~ ~::::~: . ~' ~3 t'ti ~. ~: .~, .. '~ j C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage ~ unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district - - that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on ~i the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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. ; w ,,,, ~ ~~ ~ 4: , ~~ ~x tt ~ w t~ ,: n ~~ F ~ • ~~ ~klt :. 'Tr r ~ 1 ,N ~ S ~ j = -. .. 4 2,,t ~~ ~ ,. 7 ~"+! t ~ :,, ~3~ 1 L- .r '~ ~ iy 3 F ~sV,~=~ ;. $ ,., t l ,3, ~ r - ~r~~, yid .lf. ~ ~ ,~ ~ F {~3Rrf s : ~~,. r.~~ a ~ c f ~. {~ 1 le 4 *"Y "'~ y F l~h."^~ r 1 d~~.u ss i j ~ it hq C~ ~'~ 4i¢ Sid ~ 4 3 yy.yN r:~ ~t ~J ~4 f~ 5~ ~ ', ~ ~' ~ "', ~ 2~ ~_ r i ~~~ ' ~ r~Y'i .:? w~f~gl -.. h x + ~ ~, - + ^..- r r; ~ ~ ;. s ~ ,c f i t~ ~, ~!,1`` t~ ~, ~ ' qh4 YX~F}".1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ y~y rt~ }~'. J 4, r.•~ .- ti J 4:Y ~~ rrlh 4~ ~1 1~ :i•c' err 1 - ,... `~k ~c }:~! Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - ~~' ~~~- southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: ~: <-` ` "„ kti 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones ''t`" for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - _.., Y5 southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: ""~"`' 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Da Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: Y 8. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with ~_'"" 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: ;~ ' ,1 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 ~`~•`§ multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 .-:~, , ~' _~" acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: -~ ,. ,- ;I~;;. ~, ;~: s;~ :. ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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. / tx: F2~ ti y fi~ y;' q~•1;= "r' ~ rY ~ ~'~'~ 7'Y "'t y 1i r'~ ~ ~Yf? r nL,1~; P .f E ~ S i ~~ Zs ~ fl V t ~ 1~ lµ ~" L , 4 2 ~ '`X r 4 ~F 9/ ~.~~~` ~ ~ f` `4 ~r R : ,T:; r Jr,~ f, ~; y. 4.3`.' f r . yG ~ -, t I1{ f . ~z 4 ~ J+!%' r~ ~ ,., Yr,x 7' ,. ~~ F f 4 .Fl~ ~ ~ ne Y ! ~ * .•,P ,5. ~-t { °:y; y. ~ i , ~. F t r r ~ , ~:`C ~ i4+¢ifl~ - i ~ t~: i ~; r r ~ '`'~t ~~, {., kx!1. ~ r ~ 1 ~ ~ y1-. ~„~ y"fr'i 1 ~ ~._ . y~t~ ~ u i, Y r ~~tii ~T N' , '`~ Broadcast Report '~ ~ ' ; ~ Date/Time ?~:~ :`' Local ID 1 °'~ LocaIID2 ;,~~ ~, ,~~I~ I :,: `': j +~~ '4: ~~ `'. ~. :.: `"; ~:~ ~:,':`' 01-14-2008 2088884218 a ~'' F _,.' Total Pages Scanned : 2 .. __ 05:13:15 p.m. Transmit HeaderText Cltyof Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5"x19 " ~1~~e ~rs.~+ --F~~' ~.hl.r c ~Jv ~-i C,e. - i~~ I ~~i1-'t E IDIAN*~- MERIL?tAN PLANNING AND ZONING t rs A s•t o REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Edaho Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "AJrhough the Cfty of A9ertdian no Jo~nger requ6ias sworn r®sdmony, elf prssantations before the Meyorand City Ca,+nc!! tyre expected ro be truthful end honest b asst of the av,7/try of the presenter. t. Rpl!-call Attendanc®: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Micheal Rohm Jos Marshal David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Corusent Agsrula: A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 20118 Planning and Zoning Commtssian Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conduslons of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Condkional Use Permit for adriv~-thru window in as C-G zone wkhin 300 feet of a residsntlai dit3trict for Starbuck's Drive-thru t>}r Pamefa Hail - Loi 3, 8locic ! of Gardr~r-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1; C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Condkianal Uae Permit to expand the storage unk faci~ly located at 35b North Ten Mile Road br Storit Addktart by Avert L[mked Partnership -355 North Ten MRe Road: 4. Continued Public Hearing tram January S, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional se Permk for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that dces not meet the aiterfa of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eyes Care by Dr. Dan Thlame - 125 West Cherry Lane: 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07.021 Request for a Rezone of 27.$8 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.76 acres) and L-O (25.94 acres) for the property lotdted on the southeast corner of North Lacus4 Grove Road and Fast Leigh Fleld lean PletWng end Zoning CommfesfOn bleating Agenda- J~+uaty 47.2008 Page Z cf 2 AO ~tertela pn~errted et pubUc meatlnga sh®A baoorno pngrercy of the Cfly dt t+}&r{di9n. Arryane e+xonunoAedon for diseM'60es ieleted to doaumenfe andror hearing. please corttmci the Cl~ka OIAoe et 888.4433 et least 48 haute pdwia Oho pu6Na meeling. Total Paaes Confirmed : 32 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 637 3810160 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:02:09 Z/2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 637 8989559 04:46:00 p.m.07-14-2008 00:00:34 2J2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 637 2088848723 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:26 212 1 EC HS CP28800 004 637 8886854 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:25 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 637 2088985501 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:31 Z/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 637 8467366 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 Et HS CPZ8800 007 637 2088882682 04:46:OOp.m.01-14-2008 00:00:26 2!2 1 EC HS CP33600 ~;:... .F , ~p.. "•fA.x.~ 6'ev .f' .; ~>~'~..._ .i~~;_ of n.:3:F~:*'Y:.'r-"`.. r K t i¢'~ a r ,t t~ r ~ e ,s y.~. ~~i ~ti n µ ~ 4 ~ .n l ~, ~~~~ ~ ~c~ r* ,~ ~N ' ~ ... ~ 1 ~#'t.'' ;~' ~, lg y~~'. ' r . , f 4 1. ~ G F F1 '~1. ~ 1 ' vl ,.. ` ~~q 'T~ _ Y s ~r~ ~~fi ~'~ Y: ~ ~_ ~ °~ '~ t t r'~ 7-x4 . ~ ~..r ~ r ~ _ ) k .: ~, ~ ~ k ~' ~ ~3: ~ y WF ~:ry+. a ~ ~• _i ~~ ~ {lc,#~~ Ft T~ _ _ a( Y ? 1'9 ~A ,yk 37 f. N l uytp a ,fit ,F ~~fi .rL .~ ~5 #~ - • r: , _ t X(x~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i J . . s a ~y ~~ ~ ~ ~ f .f T P ! f{ ~~= ~ S'.F'^ a.~}. .~ . ~ : ~ . d ' i ~!`j ~ ~r~~Y i x ±. ~ i~~~ u l ' i` " ~ J~ n5~. ~t 14F1~ a~u ~~ q ~~ aa.k~`` ~~Ryy= f ~ ~St~f~~~n' ff f 1. ~` M x i k 'l 7 is I~ ~ ~ i ~~ A i 4: V$ n ': ": Date/Time ~~~~~'~~~~' Local ID 1 LocaIID 2 . ';, rF. ,, .'} ~ Broadcast Report ~ 01-14-2008 05:13:22 p.m. Transmit HeaderText Cltyof Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 637 2083876393 04:46:OOp.m.01-14-2008 00:00:52 2/2 1 EC HS CP94400 009 637 287 7909 04:46:00 p.m. 01-14-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 010 637 2088885052 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 011 637 8881983 04:46:OOp.m.01-14-2008 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP24000 012 637 2083776449 04:46:00p.m. 01-74-2008 00:00:51 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 013 637 8886700 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 014 637 8884022 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:01:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 015 637 3886924 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:52 2/Z 1 EC HS CP14400 016 637 8841159 04:46:00 p.m,01-14-2008 00:00:27 2i2 1 EC HS CP28800 017 637 8840744 04:46:00 p.m.01-14-2008 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 f:k,l Abbreviations: ~~r~~~' HS. HOSt Send HR: Host receive ;;: ~ . WS: Waiting send ,4; ~I .--"s" t, ~:; ;,~~~ye. ~: PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct s is ~ -" , ~. ~ .1t~ r 3f y ~ y ~,_ ( l ~_ to ~J~ i2. { 41k -, 2 ~~•+, fi: c l J , a ~~. '~ 74 ~ t fl._ ~ A ' y , ,'~' . r. r ~ v~ t ~a', ~. rr ~ f ~'m- a ;=d~ ~,' l~ *YE'~ r 1 ~ ~ 2 4.._ ~ A ~ F 1 l~ ~ ( f IS. ~. ~ ~~ .j ~. 1 R', ,~: Y ~ Ay... ~ ~, *~4 Yr .~ ~.~ hK ITS ~'~', ~ p~ ; xzY t~ , r''' tt i~,u ~ s ~~ ~ b r 2 w "~"' ~ , a t, . ~ ~~`_'x~~ y~J,~S ~ 3 ~a }'k {A pf ~ ~ 1 3 ~ T'. ~ ~. M Lc ~, v .Site ,. ~ ~ • ~; .g 4 ' .* _ t ., in S" n~ '~Y~9#'r.~3i E IDIAN~.--- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ,~-µ~ p A ~ ® REGULAR MEETING x;~~ AGENDA ~'' City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 17, 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: f ~j ~ Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshal ~~ David Moe -chairman ~~~ ~ .F " ~ ~ ., ~, 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~ ~'C~ ~~ (~ ~ ~}-m ~n~ , ;_ '" " '` 3. Consent Agenda: ~ '~~' 5' i~ `~`` A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning I ' i Commission Meeting: /~ ~ ~ ~,-~ ~ ,. ~' ~ , N ~::t~, B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP '~ ~' 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist ,,bpi Gateway Subdivision No. 1: ~ ~© ~~ ~ ~ ~,:t=~ "' C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP }` 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: ..~FPI~' ~c~~i./-~ ' 4. Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request -~~ for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district ~~ that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design ~~ Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry ~° ~~ <t ~ Lane: `~~l-~-i-/~(,~,~, ~f,E~ ~C ~~ Pte, r7~r °~ F-el ,~u~^c~ ~o ~~ ~ . ''E ° 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- ` ` ` '~ = 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on -,: the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field ., ,~2,v_ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Vic`; 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 ~~ . ' - ~~: ' ~. '. L ,e i R'i{ ~'~vfH S~; .A.it '~~~ H.. ~ "'t . . . : r ~~ 7~ ' - ~ E f y,~4 K r L~4 ,rY ~ • , t r '„ t ~ -~ , r ,~ ~ ~' 1 S' ~:}: it ~'..Y ~~~~~~ YifW :., ~ ~~ ~ ~ t s. 2 ; ~ p ~4N V~ FI: ~ 1 .~ GVY N.w~K.~# ~ ;']'M v ~ T~ f Dk N., 7 ~k' 3 '.. -1 4'~i"' P ~S - r~ 3 h ` - ~ ~ M ~ Y~ F~~h ~ X k, rF ,' ~~''~ ,,-r C _~ ~a m s } E' v sr ;ht{a 1 ~ 1 ~ .~ ^M i-.j vX ~ F ~ ~` 1 -yy~ ~.L ~ ~g61 rM~Ye~~ ~- - f ;. 'i" 1 r Yt::,~:. ,;:a }q te NTH ~ Y 1 f Y" ~rJ Y.SU.Y i f' r"t. 1 2`1 ^ i H F 1 ~~ ~ t Y y try ~ ti E F?µc x~ S ~~~ ~ }! ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ * r+'+' v+~ ` ~ ~ { [ ~ 1 `~~. ~ ~ ~ r L ~ I ~ ~ k f1 s ~ e~l?'3 ^ y ~ z°~' i ~~ ~' ~ r~ i< ~.. '~ . ~~ `~. r4 ;I .:: .. ,{ y ':, Sji .. *., r,, , i _, w' .... `.:p • Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: t~Xi'f.-~ {'1°1 CV L `~~. ~ p~D i~l~,Q, --~ ~ ~ Cpc~~e~ ~ ~ -~. 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saintsn- 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: ~s 8. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21. 1 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC - NWCnnof E. Ustick R/oad and N. Locust Grove Road: ~ 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Prellminary Plat approva~with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Ro d and N. Locust Grove Road: 7 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit f~` 12~ multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: ~~ ~' ~~~~ ~~~~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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. ' i?Y ~, ~': t 4C ',T. y'~ l',~Y ~ ~<~5 _ ~. ! 5 =~ ~ l~ ~~' ~~rt ' ~. r. ~o- d ~ ~' s'rT ~ .~ ~ lr^ ~ ~.. ~. ~2;~ .z ~~~' std;.. ~ Y", =; r ~ .V `fi L i x '~ k u,'"~ xK y j; ' ~y r ~, i. `'~ p t.. 4 ~ ~ ~a ~ ..w ~'~,~~t ~~~~ Siw L ~y + j ~ i~ c ~r~ li: ~ ~4rt ~ S ~~: ,it: :f+' ~ r' ~ µ ~~ ~ A F F i Yy T Y t1 ~ ~'~ ~p t •? ~ 1 i3 1 ~. 'f''. -~ F al y~. ~, F n ~vx.kt,~.,t ~a~. ~ } _ ~~~ N ~~ ~^,r(. y, k L Hw N.. et~ ~Cry~'v~;, 4ti~ i+%a ~'~~,' r alt.. ;~;~s ~~~w~M «~f.U~€^r ~~. ,~ 1], ~ _4~ {. ~: _~a ~ w' F ~.,r~;` ;~f *t ~, ^ ^ ,, -- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tom O'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 January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional se Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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. Hti ~~-:s~~~'- Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council ~' ' 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 ~, ~ }~ commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: `'`~ ~~.~~- Recommend Approval to City Council ~~ ,'- 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 i;ti~ 3. acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: Recommend ~~fi~ - - Approval to City Council 8. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian ' Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: : ~ Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 F :..: ~;~ ~^ ~ 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with ~~' ~' ` 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 ,~~~ 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 ~. ,~~ acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. `'~` ~ ~`~~ Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Continue Public Hearing to February 7, 2008 i~Yr }~ I ~.1t Lf~ w {~.x "sK ;'`` ~'s~~' *,~ .fir ~, - .,; Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - January 17, 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, ~? f '~'~.~ `;. ,> a- ti r: ,- Broadcast Report `~'~= `' Date/Time 01-18-2008 10:04:45 a.m. Transmit Header Text Cltyof Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 ~`" Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 - `~~' ~i This document :Failed .., •~ (reduced sample and details below} c ~~ Document size : 8.5 "x11 " Y:~: , ~~~'YI E IDIAN MERIAWN PLANNING AND ZONING 1 DA H ~ REGULAR M£ET1NG ?~?'~ AGENDA ~ City Council Chambers ;' ~;"~i 33 East Idaho Avanu®, M®r(dian, Idafw "~:%' ~ Thursday, January 17, 2008 a! 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Marldfan nn fa»gar requires sworn testl-nany, °~ ;,, a!! preserrtatlons befar® the Mayor and City Counct! are expected to be truthtuf ®nd honest to bast of the ab!!!ty et the presenter. ° 1. Roll-call Attendants: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton•Huckabay Michael Rohm Jae Marshal «''`: ,~Davki Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~}~~ P'CS Ve t',IS ~yn~nG~ ~ '' ` 9. Comment Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning and Zonp~g Commission Meeting: ~ ~ p ~D ~ - B. Flndirlgs of Feet and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-0211 Request far Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window ;~~?' a; In a C-G zone wftttin 300 feet of a residentlai district for Starbuck's Ali Drive~hru by Pamela Hall - Lat 3, Btodc 1 of Gardrrer-Ahiquist Getaway Sutxtlvision No. 1: ~ ~ ~ t"O ~L° C. Findinga of Fact and Conelusiorrs of Law for Approval: CUP ;'~:k' ,> O7-0Zi Request for a Conditional Use Permtt to expand the ston3ge unit facility located at 365 North Tan Mile Road hor Storit Addition by Avert Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Miie Raad: A~I~f~Y'ot1 G ~ 4. Continued Public Hearing Tram January H, 2008: CUP 07-0Z2 Request for a Gorrditlona! se Permit for a medical of0ai in tits O-T zoning district i that does rmt the f Meridian Dasl meet crrterfa o the Downtown gn - , l Guhlelines for AReridtan aye Caws by Dr. Dan Thlsme -125 Walt Cherry ~ R' f~ ',i Lane: Jd..,.,~~~ p_ ! 4c ~2Qf`i~ '~b t'~Ytd62.P7~. ?, ~8g Wr t (.~ Jr-'i 5. Public Hearing; Rx 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 ac~r~) acid L-O {26.14 acres) far the property located on _ the ~utt~ast comer of Nor#h Locust Gmva Road and East Leigh Fleid A9al~fan ~~9 ar~d Zwdng Comnds~on Meetlng agenda - J~uary 17, 2pD8 Page 1 of Z Ail rnatta~ia~ pf+~anted at pubAc meallngs aha0 becana property of t+~ Ciry or Merit. - Atrymre de8irin9 ~ for d~tt~ae related w doeumentti ertdfar imar6g, f please corded tl+e City Cierk'e Office at88B•4433 at feast AB hoots pAor to dfa ptdtUc m~9. ., °:a. Total Paces Scanned : 2 Total Paces Confirmed : 34 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 001 646 3810160 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:02:28 212 1 EC HS CP9600 002 646 8989551 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 646 2088848723 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:30 2f2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 646 8886854 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:28 2!2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 646 2088985501 Q9:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:34 Zf2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 646 8467366 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:29 2f2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 646 8950390 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:28 2f2 1 EC HS CP31200 , . y. ., _ ._ t ' ~7 7~ 4r ~ ~ ,~ 4Mk ~'~. 6 ~ '. .5.cl w`~'. rk, '~]~i~~V ..l - i .-... r a'- ~ ~~ '~ f - 1!l . .- r ~' x 3 ~,.. f ~'i ) +~ h ~'_ IA 3'~i~l4 1 ~ '- I Ci ,- T tx ~ ~ ~ 1 JY '}.9~ S ~] "- ^ Date/Time `` Local ID 1 µ } Loca11D 2 ,r s~ ±.; ~'~r " •: t , :. . ~: '~ Broadcast Report ~ 01-18-2008 10:04:52 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Ttme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 646 2088882682 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 009 646 2083876393 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:58 212 1 EC HS CP14400 010 646 287 7909 09:40:45 a.m. 01-18-2008 00:00:32 2/2 9 EC HS CP31200 011 646 2088885052 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP31200 01 Z 646 8881983 09:40:45 a.m. 09 -18-2008 00:00:34 212 1 EC HS CP24000 013 646 2083776449 09:40:45a.m. 01-18-2008 00:00:58 2/2 1 EC HS CP74400 014 646 4679562 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP28800 015 646 8886700 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:00 012 1 -- HS FA 016 646 8884022 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:01:46 212 1 EC HS CP14400 017 646 3886924 09:40:45a.m.01-18-2008 00:00:58 212 1 EC HS CP14400 018 646 8841159 09:40:45a.m.01-98-2008 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP28800 Abbreviations: '~:{ HS: Host send "? HR: Host receive ;V~ WS: Waiting send ~"~y~~ r Y i.._ .'t .5'..z `. 1. y~ PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailboxsave FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct '/t:• 1 ~i1* K ~ ~1 ~~ t {~' a ~ ~ ~ 'f ~'a. ~~'~ in?s ~~~~~ ri~ C~,'~+ ~- r` rv ~ '~_S` c ~ K. ~r 1 u ~~ =i~ ru ' ~Y'~ > ~ r~~ l 3 I ~ x„N _ ~t F't r ~ ; i ' Yl L ~~~Y '~ix ~ ~ zw Yti "Y P} 1 ~ ~ ,x, "''.~ ;y ~ ~ , ~~~ ~k~~~ t ~ 4 `[Y i y_ i ~.5i S ;>"~+ to ~~ ~y]} G~ +,i~ ~ ~ S .;~k4~ Ytl4$f ~'i 'R ~ d ~ r tr ,w~4J ear d'~8 ~ ' - ~ J +'#~ '"~ Y f«~ y '. A r L ~ r'~ g~. r3 y: > ~ ~ P'tJ`thr~ty ~~~ ~ ~.;fit ~~ _. K ~ ~~~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ Zylt~ ~~}n ~ ~y a ~! }'.a...~ ~~~ L ate i' . EV J ! vl?~{• ~, s f R 4 ;1° i -1 T ~ #~ .3k V w r r I -~ u':. ~~. s ~' ti ~~s' ,; ,+, '~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 17, 2008 ~ Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 17, 2008, was tT T;~~ ~` called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Y' .~ ` Members Present: David Moe, Michael Rohm, Joe Marshall, Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Tom O'Brien. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, Scott Steckling and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Michael Rohm X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton Huckabay X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for January the 17th. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is one change this evening and that would be item No. -- No. 4. There is still some items that are being worked out within this, so that hearing is going -- which is CUP 07-022 for the Meridian Eye Care that will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th, 2008. We will continue that when it comes up in the agenda. Other than that the agenda will hold, so can I get a motion to accept the revised adoption of the agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: ^~ s ,~ ;~ ,~ } ,. F :~ M f's ~ h rr ~v f TM ~ .-.4 r3l = Y W ~ {{ ~IF t"r F~"-~ Yti ~ f j: ~ J "`Q v - ~ ~ , ~~ ~ T L~ ~ ~ ~.'y' f e s ~-, LK~ t~Y~ ~7 ' a ti , ~ ~ t ~~ a. ~ `. r~ _ ~ ~ f ~~ f` .. a i i ~ .~, ~ ~ r .~ ~ ti 3' -^ . - ~`~ 'a r 9ef ..;~' ...^ .,~ f :; ~~ ~~`5v ~ ~~~ ~i ~,.r: s~~ Y" : j } F y'h S ~;' , Y ;' , ~ ~ lk ,v `~.' ' v ~ ~,, ~ i E r- SFr yt ~~, ~ ^ t , 1P i?'~ ~.ai~; Y , # ~ y. y F~ ~~ ~ ~ + ! G r ~ r.4 sai % ~'-~` '~'':~~ eM 7~, ~ P `a ~ ~:a Y~ ~i ~ ., .I4~ S' 'Y; ,Y'p~r ., h ~ 2yI ~,i; is , +: ,; r`t 1', ~. ,~ ~: '; ~c,, ~ti Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 2 of 39 A. Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district for Starbuck's Drive-thru by Pamela Hall -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition by Avest Limited Partnership - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. There are three items on that Consent Agenda. Item number one would be the approval of the meeting minutes for the January the 3rd, 2008, Planning and Zoning meeting. B is the Findings -- the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval CUP 07-020 for Starbucks drive- thru. And C is also Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07- 021, which was the Stor-It Addition. Are there any comments to the Consent Agenda items? Rohm: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have any. Moe: Okay. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Rohm: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional use Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eye Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: ~~> ~~ - ~~ ~ x t~ ~~ .. .~ ~, t ~ ~ F~~ «~ ~i~ r ,~ ~ 4k t / _ ££ _ Yr "r f ~ ~ : h `C I ' 3 L ~ ' ~N F ~ .. R . . .~ v 1 ~ itiE ~ *~" ~-r i '~ ~ ;4 '. ~ ? '~ ~ ~` ~e~ y1 ~hSS v r ~ „ ~~ s ~x ~ ~ . ~ ~. z ri~ ~ i , r ~„ -~{ a~ F~ ae~ ~.Xt'O a.c _ y r~ ~ k~,< .Y~f?, r ~ ~,F., ~~ ~ ~%- T i !i - 357 t }~ t ~? ~ •j"Z - ~ i ~ n ! .' ~ t uF~ _ .+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Li^!} • ~ r f 3 t~ ,.r _ + '? a Y fw > _C--t~' y ~ ~~s ~ { ~~~ 'l _~t'(~ -~ YW'~~y f~ ~~ ~.~ F y yr ~~.a ~~ t 4, - - i~ ~. - ~ ~.it~ d: ,,~ ".,ab ~i~t~-.y~ - ~ ¢~y r f ~ -': Y .j _Ttl M #~ ~_~ ~~ ~ ~ Y4~. Y '~ s C~~ ,µ ~ ) '~ '`t ~ ~ ~ ~` r rl ~ ]z r r ~ i ~ ~ L - l ~ Y ~~ ~~~ :~;~j ~ ~ r ~~~~ x ~~~ ~'~ ~ t~~ z $ t ~" {rwc~7 Y~+; fib' 7'' ~h ~'a ,~ `F~ /j- ~~~' 1 z ~' n.'c~~<~ >' ~ - spy _ Sv ' ~'~ w 5t4~Y EW ~iY ~ h - €. 3 ~=~ ~ ^X ~ s ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~p. " ~. ~ ~ ~ R ~ 5 X~ _ i} Cj r ~ J . '1 ~~".t;, r, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 3 of 39 Moe: Next item on the agenda is Item No. 4, which is the CUP 07-022 for the Meridian ~' ~~~' Eye Care Center and we will continue the hearing for the sole purpose to, again, ~.~ ~:~~. continue it to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 7th, 2008. Could I get a ,.r~ motion to do so? Y - Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. ~s~ Newton-Huckabay: I move we continue CUP 07-022 to the regularly scheduled meeting ~~i. of February 7th, 2008. ., -, Rohm: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing for CUP 07-022 `° for the Meridian Eye Care Center to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the °~ 7th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: We are getting close to starting now, how is that? But before we do so, just a couple things. I don't know if there is anyone out here in the audience that this might be their -- their first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and whatnot. Just to kind of give you an overview of what will happen, I will open the Public Hearing and the ~~ staff will give an overview of the project. After that is done, then, the applicant will come ~_ t: ~ up and they will have five -- or, excuse me, ten minutes to review the project with the Commission, basically, to discuss anything that was in the staff report, whether they rF~~a approve or have other changes to that. At which time, then, we will allow the folks that - had signed up -- in the back of the room there are sign-up sheets and you would get three minutes to come explain your point of view. If, in fact, you do have comment and you have not signed up, once all the names have been read off the list, I will ask if there is anyone else that would like to speak and you also will get your time to speak. At °' ~~ which time after that is done and everyone has spoken here, we will ask the applicant to ~~"~ come back and rebut anything that's been said by the other folks that spoke, at which .,,, time, then, we will close the Public Hearing and vote on an action for that. Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R- 4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 ~~~ -southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: ~5~-::= o ~~: ,~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ s F '~ F+~! ,.'e~d~~ ~~~ - ~.,~;;- ~ Vii:. ~ =i ~ o-V 4,1+ k~ e +;y; ~ r `~,~ W ~t:~ ~ . .~ S 'Sp ~rP }"' _ ; qtr;- ~_ `~ . -:., ~.: , ,:;~ s~ • ~~4 L ~ Ln Sf `t ''~ ~ . ~. ~::~, Meridian Planning & Zoning ' January 17, 2008 s.~ i :-; -° Page 4 of 39 } `-- ^' ~7 Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 - ~~ `~I v Road and East Lei h Field Drive: southeast comer of North Locust Gro e g ~. ~'~= Moe: So, having said that, I would now like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 ,y for the Educational Campus Commercial and have the staff report, please. A ~ `'-: Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- excuse me. Could you also ~~ open up -- Moe: I will open also PP 07-025. Wafters: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Wafters: The applications before you are a rezone and preliminary plat request for Education Campus Commercial. The subject property consists of 25.87 acres and is currently zoned R-4, medium density -- excuse me -- medium low density residential. The property is located on the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive, approximately a half mile north of East Ustick Road. The property is bordered on the north by single family residences, zoned R-1 in Ada County. On the east by single family residences and Joint School District property zoned R-4. On the south by single family residential zoned R-4. And on the west by commercial property consisting of office commercial uses, zoned C-N and L-O. And a rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County. And there are two existing charter high schools and an alternative school on the southern portion of the site. You can see here on the aerial view. And an area leased by the fire department for use as a fire safety teaching facility on the eastern portion of the site. The rest of the property consists vacant land. This property was previously annexed by the Joint School District in 1999 with a development agreement. A provision of the development agreement restricts uses on the site to school education uses only. If commercial uses are proposed in the future, the applicant will need to apply for a modification to the development agreement to allow commercial uses on the site, along with education uses. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 25.14 acres from R-4 to L-O, limited office, and 2.75 acres from R-4 to C-N, neighborhood commercial. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is public/quasi-public. Staff believes that the proposed L-O and C-N zoning is appropriate and complies with the public/quasi-public use designation for the following reasons: One, a large portion of the site, 20 or so acres, is utilized by the school district and only a small portion, six or so acres, may be sold off and redeveloped commercially. The primary use of the properties is an education campus, complies with the public/quasi-public land use designation. Two, education institutions are a principal permitted use in the proposed L-O and C-N zoning districts. Three. The .ti': ,r +Fi ~" ~3s ~ ~%~, ~ ~" b, y. ', t k X ~ ~1+ ' ~ ~ ~ * SK ~~~ ~' . 2 ' µ .Y S~rdp 4 }'J. X v' n 1 a` 1 1 ( ! )~, ~ fy W F ~ L '~ ~ sl~aK ~ f ~~: 4 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ tt yy 1 ~y} ~ 0 f 3 ~ Y. ,S ~~+~h ~ai~' ~ r , a y ~~i tin '.,,, '~ f ~{''L';{?- ~ x l~ ~~; S.. ('t .i. ti 4 34' F ~ }t hi T, ~ ~ R >~ F ~ ~ +f+ a ;c~ • }. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~' January 17, 2008 ` Page 5 of 39 ~~', property is located on Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, at the half mile, which is, generally, a good location for commercial businesses. And, four, light office commercial ,. uses would be compatible with the existing education campus and commercial office f~,~ we t side of Locust Grove. A relimina lat is also the street on the s uses across N ry N requested for approval of one neighborhood commercial zoned building lot on the a corner of Locust Grove and Leigh Field here. And six office zoned building lots for the ~_~ - remainder of the property. The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Block .~: 1, of Education Campus Subdivision approved in 2002. The proposed plat complies ~`{~~ ,~~ with the dimensional standards of both the L-O and C-N zones. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan with this application. The landscaping shown on the plan was installed on the site with the previous plat. A 25 foot wide buffer is provided along ~~ ~~ ~ ~ Locust Grove and a ten foot wide buffer is provided along Leigh Field as acquired. ~'~ - Actually, it exceeds ten feet, but the ten feet is the minimum requirement. However, a ~ r. ~ ~ small portion of the buffer is missing along Leigh Field south of the fire department teaching facility in this area here, that the applicant has agreed to install. A 20 foot wide buffer between land uses is required and has been installed along the south and east .: f property boundaries. You can't see it on this plan here, but there is also an existing fence along the south and east property boundaries adjacent to the residences. No `='~ new fencing is proposed or required with this application. Access to the site is currently provided from a driveway connection to North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive public street. To enhance the safety of the development for addressing purposes, `~~`' staff is requesting that the current driveway to Locust Grove be converted to a private street, connecting to Leigh Field Drive in either its current or future location. The ~~ applicant should submit a private street application to the planning department for staff ~~ ~ level approval prior to or concurrent with the final plat application. The applicant ~. submitted a letter in response to the staff report requesting that Public Works condition of approval 2.3 and 2.6 in Exhibit B be stricken. Public Works staff is in agreement to this request if the Commission could, please, include that in their motion. Again, that's condition of approval 2.3 and 2.6 in Exhibit B. Staff recommends approval of the rezone and preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in Exhibit B, based on findings in Exhibit D of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may Y~ have at this time. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? O'Brien: What page is that 2.3, 2.6 on? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, it is on -- there is not a page number on it. It's in Exhibit B. Rohm: I think it's 18. Moe: Okay. Thank you. ,: k ~"" ~ ~iC ii' k ~1~~~ ~ '?'~~ a' '~ [~ ~~ ~'+2 .. f. 5 ;bpi J ~ y ~ 4 ~~~~ ' x S'rf -~ 'r~ ~ , . d 1 '< ~ 5 ~ l :f:'; 4 kJ{ ''rr it ~n ( S" > tit . ti .,. {; ~~ ~s.ks:~.. ~ ~ L~ ~ ~'~ '' ~ ~. =F r f 4 Spy 5~ 'R~Y. . ~ ~;;~ ~ ~~~ ~' .~, ~•` ~~ k~.: ~.C S t~ ¢~ _;~ ~ ._ { r!c 4 :' ~... " rp r ~:' 5 '- F ~`-9'"t i~ ~ C~ ~°`: fir, t .S 4F'4 ~K'~ F H. ~:5 >,~~ .:-~ -. ~; ',r~ :~ .. ~~,~'2 !~ T:,z,~:~ :~~~ k. `~ ~,i f= -, Sri ~.. ~. ~;, ~, k.. ' .:. ~~` ^.'• 3 ?,'i.": ~- . • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 6 of 39 Wafters: It's under item number two, Public Works Department. Moe: Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address, please. Stiles: Sheri Stiles, Engineering Solutions, 1029 East Rosario in -- or North Rosario in Meridian. Sonya did an excellent job outlining the project for you. I really don't have anything to add. Since this is surplus property for the school district, given these entitlements will allow them to sell it and get some more tax revenues for the city. So, I will stand for any questions that you have. Moe: Okay. Any questions? O'Brien: Excuse me. Do I understand, then, that the building lots that we are going to rezone are only limited to educational uses, so no light office or anything beyond there, is that -- Stiles: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Commissioner O'Brien, there will be a request for a development agreement modification, which will simply request a change of that wording that they be limited only to educational facilities to allow some other uses. We have not submitted that application yet, but that is forthcoming. O'Brien: Thank you. That's all I have. Moe: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you very much. Stiles: Thank you. Moe: We have one person signed up, John Courtwright. Would you like to come forward? You have to come up to the mike. State your name and address. Courtwright: John Courtwright. 1888 East Summer Ridge Drive, Meridian. Which is right on the south boundary. My back fence goes up against that. If I may -- Moe: You need to stay with the microphone, please. Courtwright: I need to stay with the microphone. Okay. Moe: There should be a pointer right there. ' C ~'" ~4 , ~y^c~1 r3~~ § y', ~ ~y ~~~ ~ _i ~ J.. ~ i:k~ (1 ~~ q_ P ~~~ } I "s $ S * 3 ~ ~ t y } i 1~ )~~. 1 ~ # by ~ ^~~~~1~ 1 r p ' ~~~ ~E~~rr ~ t 3 a~K,~ ~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~,9 . tes ail z ,f,-, ~ ,' ~ ~~ ff~~ y,N~~1~.erty f'T ~. ~ ~~~_:~ ~{sue ;-~ "',~ ~~,~`,' "~ ~~j's' r*:>~4 `-. t '"iF"' 1, y! ) 4 ti i ~ -b F ,v _~ 1„ ~ ~~ ,.~ fir. li ~ ,~/ +' 1 T[i 'y"3~i'~ ~S :. ? r~. y~ t ~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~~ ` 3 ~ ~; r d r J ~, ~~~ d~ t _ ' _ ,~,,,~' a'T~- ,F'~: y ~ ty ~ a { ~ x ~ ~. .' dJ • X44 ~> ,T ~ r. e Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning 11.' January 17, 2008 ~;,.:~ Page 7 of 39 Courtwright: Great. Okay. This photo does not show the altemative school that has f ; ~' been put in here with the temporaries -- the temporary buildings. It looks as though this does -- and I'm assuming that that new development there -- and I am asking mainly -~ :~., questions. Is the -- those are the temporary buildings that were put in for the altemative r- { school; is that correct? Right in there. I can't see the pointer. ,T"~' Y' Moe: I'm not sure exactly what -- ~,~~~J ~. Nary: Yeah. They will come back and answer it. You can go ahead and ask your r ~' = questions and, then, they will -- Courtwright: Okay. You probably know what I mean. Okay. Although it hasn't been I' ~~ specifically stated nor pointed out, I am assuming that the property in question is this ~1' that is east and north of the alternative school that was put in two years ago or , ~tfi1~~ whatever. Meaning here and here, because -- Nary: You have to be on the mike, sir. .~I; Courtwright: -- this is the altemative school. Nary: We have to have it on record. ', ~ ~~I Courtwright: Okay. So, there is the altemative school and I'm assuming it looks like a sumin that that, It doesn t look like that from where I live, which nght there. But I m s g , Y'~ this is the area in question. And that's one thing that I want to clarify is where, in fact, is . this and will there be an extension or -- will Leigh Field continue like that. This is now a walkway, pathway, bikeway, whatever you want to call it. Will that be extended. And ``' address the problem -- and I don't know if this is the forum for it or if the school district is, but since this was developed, landscaped, the school's sprinkling system has ruined our wood fence along there, because it continually saturates it and it's warped. I am ?~'~ probably going to have to replace that and I don't know if this is a city matter, a school p-: matter, or a matter for the new development. I'm done. : .,, Moe: Thank you very much. Again, there is no one else signed up. Is there anyone j else that would like to speak to this, come up now. Okay. There is no one, so would -- the applicant like to come backup. i Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wendell Bigham, 911 -- 911 -- 1303 East Central ~ Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Representing Joint School District No. 2. To try to briefly answer the questions that the patron brought up, the parcel of land here in question will remain under school district ownership. This is probably the location -- okay. Up here in the comer -- where a new building would be constructed. The portable campus here, which we believe will remain successful, will be replaced at a future date with a permanent structure. The best point of reference I could give you would be Crossroads i rc ~Y: A' ~ ~., ~ t y ~~Il~o.w.,'~4 p~ ~. A ~' !`<f ~ .'ltd - µ`.», h sF ' a* ~q' ~. ~ '~~~ w z: d ~ ~CSr,r S 'x~ - d ~ , ^ ~ y , t:.< {~ , ~, r as k%r•`st ~ } t ~ ~Y r ~r ~^~`' ~ ` n l ' 'i ,J { rr t ,r x ~'r., ~F ~ ~ ,; ~ ~C S f Y~ ~~ ~ ~ # ,;?~;~i ~ f h ~~~~: `~~ r Ps ?~° ~ Ly `. ~ r^ ;n ff. ~ {` 1 1: r ~y„jai i ~ T n V " a ` J A ~+Z~f , l 7" t !r V l-x ~ ~ ' ':t ~ r. 4 ' j.. a y S ~ ~ ~ ;t ~P~,.# ~1~Y y~~ ~ ~ 7 Z ~ t~ Y f ~ ~ ~ ' * r~ t j ~e,wF I .Y+ t ~ ~ r t r..'.C S* ~ d ~,~C i ~ z~Y s~ ~~ +r x rah ~ ~ s F ~;•.N ~ x r ~ N i ,_j~A ~ ~ 3. f ~i ~L xa,~~ F.':. , ~~, ;:, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 8 of 39 N ,~ Middle School that's on Nola Street, just south of Pine. Okay. That type of facility. Our ,; ~ intent would be that a new facility would be -- probably be constructed in this area. This ~ ~21~ street section, the private drive, would continue on up to this juncture here to provide a through street and that when these portables go away, that this will probably remain as ~~~`'~ open grass area to support the athletic needs, PE needs, of the three different schools. Assuming we can come up with the money, we will put a new building in that area. So, _ the lots in question sale is this lot here, this one, and this one. And I believe that one. So, this will remain under the district's ownership. In terms of the fencing, when I'm through here I will give the gentleman my card. I will have our grounds department ;s5z contact you. First I've heard of it. But something is definitely wrong if we are totally '~~`~' soaking your fence. So, we will deal with that. Did I answer the questions the `, ~ W gentleman had? f~~ Moe: That's what I have, yeah. `"`~'~ Bigham: Stand for any questions, should you have them. ~~:~ Moe: Do you have any questions? ' ~ ,. ~I Bigham: Thank you. ~_~ ~. Moe: Thank you very much. ~~` Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: There was a comment by Mr. Courtwright regarding whether the .. path would be extended or switched into a road. I don't see anything where the path will .. be anything but a path along the perimeter. Moe: Yeah. Over on the one side. Right. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: All right. Well, there has been testimony and the applicant's responded back, so can I get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025. r ,~ 5Y RNf ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 N~ ~ ~ S i V F~' 'Yt ~ ~: 4 ~ f jv ~ b t .y _~ ~ff ry z.} ~Sk~2~~r ~~* f ~ }s Y ~ . tea '77~~ ' ' '~ 1~FC y, .-js ,y .rt.F y:S-r~~,. ,~:~r~' ,, r , .} 4 .: ~s' tf ,'~#,f} ~~_~ t~ Iw,y .fir w 'rat ':' f~'''~~s~t ~" `, Y y ~~~ - [, M ~ n ' 1 .. ~ ~ ti, fr~~~,+fF '1 ~ - ~ ~6F 1t~ yyi .•f ? #''F 71YF~: ... - : - ~ h . t_ ~ . 1 Y ~ ~ - L Y 1N f` It r, ~.~ ~ t". ~t C ~^ }~~ ;~ FA 4~5., ~~~~ ; ~ k r, Ili ~, r,, ix,fktg,~eN 'StT'~i;~k'~ y~^.i ~, ~Y~~bla L~ _ t.. -._. ~ ~"S Y~I N, ~~~ ~ }t ~ ,1~, kn ~, f ~ x ~ ` ~Y ~ r t~ ,,+ h ~ y f - q~ ~ ~ _ i 7 ~ y~ ,~ h=. ~r' Xp.y, ~.~. f F+ i S ' r ' Y ' 11{{ x ~ 'k W!S.~ p.eC~ ~ h fN ~~~ ® • ` ~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ~^~'' January 17, 2008 Page 9 of 39 Rohm: I'll second that motion. '' ~` Moe: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public <~ ~ -~ Hearing on RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same ~~;~ sign? That motion carries. `' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. f: Newton-Huckabay: I'll go ahead and -- ~ ' T `'~ Moe: In discussion, whoever does make the motion, don't forget the other items within '..~~ ~ Public Works that were discussed. .,~f k ~L SY Newton-Huckabay: May we strike those in the motion just by number, without reading y .~ ' '" them? Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ~~ ~' recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17, 2008, with the following ~~~: modifications: That the following -- the Public Works comments in Exhibit B, 2.3 and - ~ 2.6, be removed from the staff report. End of motion. } ~~~ O'Brien: Second. ,, y ., Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve onto City Council RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. ;~ ° ~ Opposed same sign? That motion carries. v~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~, ~= ~ i Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove is a popular street on this evening s agenda. r~-,~~ '~' Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 ' I acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus ' ' . - ~ Christ of Latter Day Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: } F Moe: Okay. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019 and start L; r ,~~ with staff report, please. ~' Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application ` '~ ~ before you tonight is an annexation and zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT, Ada County, - to limited office. The site is located on the west side of Locust Grove, approximately half a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. The property is bordered on the north by =``~c: Madelynn Estates Subdivision. On the south by Tustin Subdivision. On the west is the ~~~ s Cardigan Bay Subdivision. And the east is Vienna Woods Subdivision, zoned R-4. All ~~~, _~ . ~, ~. M ~.4}G-) v`: y .~ ';r YCk .~ ~ se y~++ ~,' E 1 'F ~1K.r y< ~ .~ 1 Y c k ks~ ~ '.S ~~ 4r~ - A - _ ~ p:~ s S~. } s 1x ww ~i' ~ j~ ~{ tip.. ~} ~~.i ~' a }y r~ ~ 33N~~~ ~~ ~ 4"a' h r a~3 to Xa c ^T 'x.. 5.; aTf ~ '~ ~ n ~ ^ ~ ~_ .', ~',Y, ~ t~r'J,' ,:. k + - S ~ r:x '~w b~Y~,y1Rr t ~' ~ <[~ k;~ J , ~., . v„ 't Bi r5 5 c ~ s. ~ 1'3 k, ~µ v ~~ - - ~ y _.F ~' ~ ti .~ i t ~,. ~4d'3a~ i- ~ ~ . .: i ~ F. z .~. a ~ 'f~ ~' S . ~ i ~.-i: ~~ [gyp t} .,:~ ~ -erii'~~~~ .., .,. 5', ,_ ~, w.j~:: r..5 rt .f,.'~i~ e; t ;~; ,,.. ~.~ \,{ Meridian Planning & Zoning ir~~~~ January 17, 2008 Page 10 of 39 F i, ~'" of the subdivisions are zoned R-4. There is an existing church on the site that is to 7~~~ remain as part of this application. The applicant is requesting annexation to comply with - an agreement which allowed the church to connect to city services without being ~~~ t ~ ` annexed into the city until it was contiguous. The city limits now border this property on -,; all four sides. Staff suggested the applicant zone the site L-O, so the existing LDS 1 ; j church would comply with the underlining zoning district as a permitted use, rather than having the applicant submit for a Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, staff believes s ' ` \ the L-O zone is appropriate for the church site and any future development and/or ~~ subdivision on the site will require full compliance with the UDC standards. Therefore, ; r:~ ;. ~~'~~ staff is proposing a development agreement be required for this properly. Provisions of the DA are listed in Section 10 of the staff report. So, here is where the existing church . F' is located. There is some existing landscaping on the site. Some of it complies with code, some of it doesn't, but right now the church is just coming in -- again, they are not ~ ro osin an develo ment on the site. So staff hasn't ut an re uirements on them p P 9 Y p p Y q to bring that landscaping into compliance until they either expand the site or propose .;~ new development on the site. So, with that, that concludes my presentation and I stand ~~~:~~ for any questions the Commission may have. ~s °- Moe: Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? ;~ Cluff: Ladd Cluff with Elk Mountain Engineering. Address is 4286 East Amity, Suite ;. ~ 101, Nampa, Idaho. The applicant -- the only concern that the applicant has is Section •" 10, as was presented by staff, regarding the development agreement. The LDS church {~~, is not in the business of development and doesn't want to be and because of the ~~j~ concerns with the nonprofit status, the development agreement, they request that that l be waived. That's the only request we have at this time. t, Moe: Okay. Any questions? Rohm: I don't have any. __ Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up, other than the ~x~- .; applicant that was already here, so is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Boy, quiet crowd tonight. And I don't know that we need the applicant to ~; ~~ come back up again, so we pretty much have everything we need there. Mr. Rohm, you look like you have a question of staff. Rohm: I do. Could you respond to the applicant's request to have the development agreement waived? I'm -- I don't know if we have ever had a situation where we just 4u ~ waive a development agreement based upon the applicant's request. So, could you encalr +n that fnr i ie nlc~ec7 ,: Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, staff feels that there should be a development agreement on the site just for the fact that -- to give you a little bit of ~:~'~ ~~ ~~ f F ~ k ~ ~ ~ 4f ' ~ .l Y ~~ { ~~ . S G~~ ~" ~ ~" ~Fy~ V .ii V t"I~[t)SIr4~ % ~ ~~~y y~~. 9~4}~ Y' ~1T~~Y t !- ; Yf t 'h r s- i ~ ~ t 'vi - ~ V j j~ .. ~, , 1 r ~xr-, f ~. ~~~. -- ~ '1 {i } ik a 3 ~-,i. f.+- ~.~ I 1 h. v~~f , ~ .n ~ - "c. y~ ~ 4 ~ f y Y Y,' ~} S1 ~1 r y, . '~ 4-f~.t, Y ~ A~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~'. ~ j ,7" ~ % a~ ~ X,, t ~~ E ~~ 1:: x ~tJ` . I, ~ r~ rcr ~~ -' ~ T ~.-~y r ti.'4 ~r ~ r t y ~ - '~~' H~ ;y~' a~e~ ` ' S -q . "~~'~~'~ 2 ~,; ~. ."4' Y ~1'k J ~ ~ I ~ ' • v 1 K 2t .. ., , Wf ~f +x '~a ,~ .~ ; "~ ~': ~tr. ::,~ r~ :. ;; F~~r r,. x ~I ;I ~~ .~ ,;:', i -~! ,~, ,~~ ~: ,t ~:: _ ;, ;~i >, <. ~`^ ., . i ® e Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 11 of 39 history or background on it, we have been working with the applicant for several months on the parcel, on the site, and they had originally proposed to do a preliminary/final plat on the site to subdivide that and have that lower five -- get the pointer out here. This lower five acres to be sold off in future development -- as a development. And at that time staff was putting some provisions that additional landscaping be put in here and possibly sharing of this access and the applicant didn't feel comfortable with those requirements, so they just wanted to go forward with the annexation. So, we felt, okay, we could live with that, provided that any future development -- we hold open to a DA on the site that any new development or expansion of the site, that they would be required to comply with our standards. And so, basically, we aren't really requiring the applicant to do any other additional requirements on the site, we are just -- we just want to put something in place that says when this -- if they sell this portion off, that any future development on that site will -- they will have to come back to the city and have those things comply with our standards. So, that's the intention of the development agreement. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm, did that give you the answer you were looking for? Rohm: Yes. But I believe Mr. Nary has some comments. Moe: Yes, sir. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant also stated in their testimony they were concerned about the status of the church or the fact that they are in the development business. That has nothing to do with the development agreement. The state statute only allows us to do it at this particular juncture or in a rezone situation. So, it doesn't really make any difference whether a future development may or may not occur. Secondarily, I know of no case law in the state of Idaho that says a development agreement would impact their non-profit status. The school district, the property that was prior to -- the applicant prior to you, they have a development agreement on their property. It's a fairly common practice. It is a statutory -- statutorily allowed. So, it doesn't have an impact on their status as a church, so -- Moe: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. ~. ,}, .~„ r t.. ,:r. ~, a r t ~C .~ ~i ~ ,4 b ° rr '~. ~ fit' ~ s ry ~ ~ > ~~ ~~~ee t css , r 4f ~ # ~ ~ ~ cf ~ f ~e~~ ~ ~t i. i~ t ~". ~ '- - ~r+-y z,~ - ~ i l y -f i '+r5~f'1`G r v ~~ TY 1 `~ y t • ~yy. y ~ V ~ ~4 •L -~i ~ µF M~~ j-: 1 y`. f ~ 1~j ~ b y u S ~~". k 1 R.-t h M.t f.', ..1,G ~' ( rey. i Y-l '4'AY L~~~S _~ ~ t t r s ! fr r~- ~ 1 ;~ ~~# ~r„',~ y ~1~:, r ~..y .. ~ wY.~r >2~ :~ Y~ \ ~ ~ '+~ y „ ~ ~ yFr '~-~~ ~YS ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~.. l ~ ; ~ ;.$' i ~ ~ ; `." .~:_ ' 4 ~ t ~N ~~ u,~ ,~ , 3 ,~~ r ~~ "k 1y 1 f ,L kT '~ r{, 4 r ~' 4 ~'"" ^.P ,2Y '~ 7~'~r<~~1. 3 ri 1. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ', January 17, 2008 Page 12 of 39 Rohm: I would just ask the -- like to have the applicant come back up and respond to { ,, h ~ ` the staffs comments and see if they have any altemative to offer up, because at this time it appears that the development agreement is necessary and if he has an '; altemative that I would listen to it, but -- _;; ,;, . :::~, Moe: Would the applicant like to come back up. `:'``~4` Cluff: The reason for the request -- the church policy -- their legal has informed us that they do not wish to enter into development agreements and that's the reason for that. ~. `3`` `' The other option is that the city will have the opportunity that in the event that they want to sell this property to the south, those areas staff had mentioned, that if that has to be ' ~4 developed, it's going to have -- or goes in to be sold, it will have to be -- go through a ~, subdivision and at that time the city will have every opportunity to place development I, -,1 agreements on a preliminary plat for that. '~ ' Newton-Huckabay: No. _~ ~:~ . Cluff: Or requirements for the development -- !, ,, <<'~ Nary: No. ~~ ~' Cluff: -- as conditions of approval. .,~ Nary: But the development agreement can only be done at this time. And it is a }~~ ~ condition when the services were provided by the city that they would have --they come in for annexation at that time and that is when the development agreement is appropriate. ~. Cluff: Okay. t~. Rohm: Thank you. K ,_' ~1° Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? ~. Moe: Mr. Rohm. . Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. ~~.'~i ~ li Newton-Huckabay: Second. :, :, z" '°a5 s ~. A>_ ~I 4r„ fix.:. a ,w; ~" ~ •-r~+ 2 z~~~}-~ ~-r~ Yii :F ~-txgsz~:f}' ~z .:~ r s i~t ~ ~` rM-+ t ~. ~ ~'~ tti riff ~' ~ fC,i.~; ~kw rr4~ ^~ ' r 3. !.u' .. -~~. r~ vii - ~t. ~ ~+ i ~ >.;- t-`: ~.; . ~ ~' - .t. S~_ F <- ~: ;,;. f ~~ <: ;~ . t ;r~~ a ~~'~I _' ~: ~ >_ . ~.~ ,~~ _, a "`~~ ~ ~~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 13 of 39 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: At this time I'd like to make a motion to move onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-019, to include the staff report as written. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve moving on to City Council approving AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023 and go with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of 21.8 acres from RUT, Ada County, to R-15, medium high density residential. A preliminary plat approval of three residential lots and one common lot, Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-level development consisting of 122 condo units and a clubhouse. A private street application for eight private streets within the proposed development and alternative 1_ , 4 ~:~ S, r _ ~r ~S' h l:. _ s fi~;?J' c~ L~`; ^. ;t) ~-. ~ ~~` ~ 'L'~'~ Vr ~~ ~.i ... ~ ~~ ~ i, )~~1E~ ~~~~~ ~.~ 1y _~ ~ N 7~' ,y; n of ~~vktX(~ ,~.fs.' ~ , . h ty ii ;y.. i15` 3 ~ "n t"' r A ~ ~, fif r-t i~~ ~~ ,. W -. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e Ti"'" F ~ ~ ~~ ir.~'a ~ ~ aW , h . ~! ~: W ~. y, ~~°;. `. ;~ ;~ 3; r~> ~~ ,,_ i Y.t ~~ r ._ x- Sy Y LJ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 14 of 39 compliance to allow the construction of a 36 foot street section to accommodate eight foot parking aisles along one side. The site is located on the northwest comer of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. The property is bordered on the north by Quenzer Commons Subdivision and an LDS church -Quenzer Commons and the LDS church site -- a different church site. To the south is Howell Track Subdivision and Wanda's Meadow, zoned R-8 and R-4. To the west is a single family residence in Wanda Meadows, zoned RUT, Ada County, and R-4. And to the east is the SummerField Subdivision, zoned R-4 and RUT, Ada County. The site currently contains an existing single family home with associated outbuildings. The submitted plans indicate all existing buildings are to be removed to make way for the proposed multi-family development. It's kind of hard to see, but there is an existing residential home on the site right here in the comer. The applicant is requesting approval of four lots consisting of three residential lots and one common lot. Primary access to the site will be via North Locust Grove Road to and from East Monet Street. It is important to note that the proposed alignment of said roadway is not adjacent to the roadway east of the site. Staff has received written comments from ACHD supporting the alignment of the proposed streets. Furthermore, there is an existing LDS church site directly to the north. This site has a full access driveway approximately 30 feet north of the proposed public street. If the church were to request annexation into the city, staff would probably condition that the church -- church's full access driveway be vacated. Therefore, staff is supportive of the applicant's proposal to construct East Monet Street along the north property line, this way the church can take access from Monet Street and not Locust Grove Road in the future. So, here is where they are proposing access onto Locust Grove. That existing public street is just a little bit northeast of it and, then, again, the existing church driveway stub is right about in there. So, sometime in the future we are expecting if this church site is to come in, that they would be able to stub somewhere within this public street. In addition, North Heritage View Avenue will be extended from the north to provide access and connectivity to the residential subdivision. North Heritage Avenue and North Jardin Avenue, both public roadways, will be stubbed to the southwest for future connectivity to adjacent properties. There is an existing eight foot wide strip between Wanda's Meadows and the subject site. The applicant has stubbed North Heritage View Avenue to the south in alignment with Yellow Peak Avenue, so the properties will be interconnected when the Widson property develops in the future. The applicant is proposing to construct anorth-south public street along the east side of the Widson property, so it can effectively develop in the future. So, again, here is where they are proposing to extend the public street into the Quenzer Commons Subdivision. However, this south end of the street will be stubbed. This is the Widson parcel and currently it goes -- it's a single family residence here. And, then, he also owns about an eight foot strip of land in between the two roadway sections, which doesn't allow that connection between that public street and North Yellow Peak Street here. Again, here is -- the applicant is proposing this public -- north-south public street here. That's Jardin. And that's going to be built as a forty 40 foot section and, then, that would allow this -- whenever this parcel comes in for development, to build out the remainder ten feet and, then, the applicant could possibly come in and develop that site and have lR ~_FJ ~ r ,'.~~ .Y yy~ YT` ~ ~~ ~ .. ~ f ti,.;~ t J . f } ~ W T Y ~ . ~ ~ r~' ~ + `- t ~ h v ~~ ~~ ~ iY '~ e~3 * a~` ~ ^` '{~ . ~a~ ~~ "~ ~ », ~ 0.a .YJ~s~j' ~. .~ ~s.,r ~ ~ nhyd(. i~ :.., ~ ~ i r ` ti ~s~ 3i S 5 `F k 'a-' ~ ~{r~~, [ s ,~- 4 { ~ _' r ~F k 9 ~t 's,3 ~" t. +~' tb `' ~,~. ~ i h ~ ~ y c z~ r. ~,~: .' i~'ri 1 ~' ! '~ ?1~ ! y~ 1 .r~_ .~h .! h 7 ~ l iK ?~F f-0f "n~":1~ c4 `~b `Nr r ;;i ~ d~t~''q'. ~ Vt ~ ,i 3' ~~~~' I ZS ~~ ~ j ~ 4~~ ~i ~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~ r A~ ~l~` jr r ~ ~~ ~`q{fi~F~ ,, .f J ~. ~t S a.. ~~., t r M1 j 4 ~ k f t : k' {; ~v ': .; ~ M1.. :~:~ t~ ~. w 'S °==~~"I `r~ ~ t' Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 15 of 39 access onto Locust Grove, rather than Ustick. In conjunction with the public streets, the applicant is proposing to construct eight private streets to the -- to provide access and circulation within this development. The proposed private streets are all intemal to the development and are not to -- are to be constructed as a 36 foot street section that includes a five foot wide sidewalk on one side, two foot rolled curbing, two ten foot wide travel lanes, and an eight foot parking area and one foot ribbon curb. So, the private streets are located here, here, here, east to west here. Located north, south, east, west along here, here, and there. Again, each of them will have the five foot sidewalk on one side and also eight foot of parking on the other and fire department has approved that street section. What staff is also recommending is -- it's hard to see on the site plan or the preliminary plat here, but there is a five foot sidewalk here. Staff would prefer that sidewalk be located on the other side of the roadway south of that and that way whenever this connectivity happens, this parcel comes in and this roadway is able to connect, there will be pedestrian connectivity along into that subdivision to the south. Which is Wanda's Meadows. Before I go any further, it's important to note that staff has not approved of this site plan. Or has not approved the site plan. Excuse me. The applicant is proposing several different structures on the site. The site is expected to develop with 40 buildings, including the clubhouse. The mix of buildings includes two single detached buildings, 14 bi-unit buildings, and 23 quad unit buildings, totaling 122 units. The two building footprints for the subject site include a large floor plan totaling 66 units and the other, the small floor plan, which totals 56 units. The site is expected to develop with the eight smaller bi-unit buildings and ten smaller quad unit buildings located primarily internal to the development. The larger unit buildings are located along the perimeter of the development and consist of two single unit buildings, six bi- unit buildings, and 13 quad unit buildings. All of the units have attached two car garages with a parking pad in front of each unit. So, the reddish units -- the reddish color units are the larger floor plans and, then, these yellow colored are the smaller floor plans, again, intemal to the development, primarily, except for these three and, again, this is along the perimeter. Staff is not supportive of the shared drive aisles and parking pads for the units located along the perimeter of the project and the one quad unit building located on Lot 1, Block 2. Staff believes that the parking pads in front of each -- in front of the garages should be 20 by 20 and provide a 20 foot drive aisle, 65 feet length total, to accommodate vehicular maneuverability or shorten the parking pad to five feet in length or less to discourage parking in front of the garages, 35 length total. If the pads are constructed as proposed, being they are 50 foot between garage fronts, then, cars will be tempted to park in front of the garages, thus, blocking the drive aisles. All of the intemal units comply with this parking and drive aisle back-up requirement. Staff realizes that all of the units may not be able to comply with and suggests that the applicant reconfigure the site plan to have at least 75 percent or 92 units comply with the single family parking requirements. The other additional parking for the 30 units, without parking pads, with the five feet in front of the garages, would be on the private streets as proposed. So, to kind of explain this a little more -- a little further, I have kind of created a diagram for you tonight. Here is a typical layout that we have. The applicant -- here is your 20 foot shared driveway. From garage face to garage face it is i } IN 4 4 ,~3~ t .~ p ... +~, ~ ,. y ~ t1 r7 i y ~ ~ f C b'F FW~.'s{ 4 ; y i ' ~p ~r~~ ~ .~ 5 l l Y .: ~ ~ - ~k _ ~., My ~ f ~~' ~ ~ 7 ti~i.:F rt !!ww },~~~~ 1 f.~, s~S.'.~N ~~ ~'' ~. _ >~ ~ > , ~ ~ s~'~ ~ - ~, G _ ~ A ~~ r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i 'i. { , ~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ f ~, y f~' C ~ t ~'~ 6 a~ F i~ s~, ~. ~ ~.. F L., t .. , nk '~ ~y 4 t s .M ~K i,1~C'' d:j 4y 3 -~' ~ 6. rt; Sri ~ ~,,~. ~ , g` ~,.c ~ 1 ~~w'k } t, v tip J ~ i ~ ' 2; 4~. yr~y,r ~ ii.rP ~ ~ ~!~ N e ) r ~i~ t~T Ni` P i ~ r :;~t r d, Y~ 77 ~-. 3 ' ~< P '~ P r .n.E J~~. ~ JG ~ ']r r~ycyei ~ Y . ~ ~ •I ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 ~':>`''' Page 16 of 39 50 feet. So, what I have done is kind of just scaled out -- there are -- I'd like to point out there are 20-by-20 pads in here. However, the total length here is 50 feet. So, if an `~,'~° -~ applicant -- if someone were to say park eight cars within that and they were -- that .;~_~ leaves -- and they are -- most of the average cars are 16 feet in length, that doesn't ~~; leave you much in between here -- or much radius to tum these vehicles -- get these vehicles out of here. So, that's why staff has kind of put that condition on the application ",°~ ~ to revise the site plan, because we feel that is a significant change to where it would '`'~ ~~' probably change the layout of their -- their site plan quite a bit and that's why we had requested them to bring a site plan --anew site plan before you this evening. So, again, if you will, with the 20-by-20 pad, that leaves you a ten foot drive aisle, essentially, between the four units there abutting each other. The landscaping buffer ~~~ ~ : F proposed with the development complies with the UDC. However, the submitted . ~ ~~ _r ~~`~'~ landscape plan does not show the foundation plantings, the five perimeter landscaping along shared driveways and the landscaping for the proposed pathway as required by Fri , the UDC. Staff has conditioned the above-mentioned items comply with the UDC landscaping requirements. The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multi- family development. The applicant provided amenities -- has provided amenities as .__ r ` '' follows: A 5,240 square foot community clubhouse with fitness facilities, stadium seating theater, a gathering area with commercial grade kitchen and swimming pool. ~I The entrance of the clubhouse will be accented with a courtyard and water feature. ~`~`L'~' Other amenities include a walking trail around the perimeter of the property, covered pavilion with barbecues, tennis courts, putting green, a community rose garden, a plaza ,r.`"~ = area, and open grassy areas and an oval track. Staff believes the applicant has done a great job providing amenities within the proposed development. So, if you look at the ~~ "`~~ submitted landscaping plan, this is where they have a walking path that goes with -- `' along the perimeter of the property as part of their amenities. Here is where the ~' ~~' clubhouse is going to be centrally located. Again, that's 5,240 square feet. The .~s ~M.~ swimmin ool is located in that area. The laza, the cou ard, and the water feature 9 P p rty to the entrance of the clubhouse is located here. This is another common area, a plaza area. I believe the community rose garden is located here. And, then, within here is the ~ `` ` tennis court and some other amenities. The oval track is located on --outside of that as well. And, again, there is some parking stalls here, a guest parking and guest parking there. And those two are -- meet code requirements also. The applicant has submitted building elevations for all of the proposed buildings, including the clubhouse. There are ;~w ~ four types of elevations proposed, two for each of the larger footprints and two for the _ r.~~ -~ smaller footprint buildings. Both product types are shown to be constructed of stucco with substantial stone accidents, architectural -- architectural roofing shingles, covered t :~ ° entrances, and tall entry doors. Some of the other accenting features include copper ''~' ` ~ metal roofing on the eaves of the proposed smaller units and the chimneys of both the larger and smaller units, arched windows, board and batten and shake single siding, accenting the front facades of the larger units. The clubhouse is proposed to be constructed of board and batten and shake siding with the accented stone front facade ~;-~:~ highlighted -- highlighted by an entryway rotunda. The majority of the windows are arched and accented with shutters. Staff likes the appearance of the proposed ~~r_: 3 ~ ~;,_ ~ ,> o- , t~ ~ y'~''S ~ ~x y '~ ~ ~" ~~ .~ <i t o, : ~ ~~~ ~~~ k~ R~~ ~ , ~'~ ~ it ~ ~4„ eL+~1. ~ ~~~': t ~' ~ 4 ~~~ s , ~ ~~tix ~` ~~R $t W .h H t '. fi~' _. h f 22 c ter,.. ~r 't ~, £ 71r - M~~~;~• o i~` :' x,. ~ ~ t. ~, ~ 3.4 'ti v~ t1 a ~ w M. .;,~ , - ~ _ r ~ ~~ ti 2. yc ~'.~i, q rF, 9 _.._, ~' w ~ x , ~~ ~~~; ~t ~ ~, ~ ~ ' a„ F S . ~' ~. ~ r __ i ti 1 F ~ .,,,,a i~n '1, f Z ~ 'h ~ a+ t ;~ Y i - ~ _ t ~ '~ 7 ~~, 3 ;~: r j ~ ~ j , i ~; <~ r r ~i7 , 4 ~, yy ~~ SD ' ~ F ~ I ~ ~ ~ K S~~!' rr w 1r ;i: ~SF~~~.T~' ~ . ._ ~-. - ~ .;, ~ ~:r~~~:, _ - ;r ~, _. ?` Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ~r. January 17, 2008 Page 17 of 39 ~ ~ buildings and any future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction r ~.. materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Furthermore, staff believes that no more than two buildings in a row should be -- should have the same elevation. -~ ~~~ So, here is the smaller units that they are proposing, the small footprints. It's hard to `` `~~ deviate, but these are two different -- this is the one elevation, the front and rear, and, ~~~ ~~"! again, here is the type that they are proposing for the smaller unit. You can see the little ' ~`' difference in the dormers located on each one of those. Again, these chimneys are to ;~~ have the copper accents. You can see the stone located on there. The arch or the <~~! covered entryway, the tall eight foot doors, and, again, that famous character in the `~~~ ~~'I larger units, this is the larger footprint. There is the board and batten. The shingle-type r~°~ " shake siding accents on there. And, then, the clubhouse -- again, there is the rotunda, ~''` "`' entry rotunda. Again, this is -- has the arched glass ways located here and here, the copper siding, metal roofing on the ends. And, then, again, accents here with the ~~~ shingles and, then, the rock that's carried along the front facade of that building. Staff `= ` ~ has also received a letter from John Widson requesting denial of the project and that ,~ j should be included in your packet as well. And staff also received comments from the ~'; applicant's representative regarding several conditions of approval for the proposed development and should be included in your packet as well. Staff -- again, staff is a T,"~ ;., recommending a revised site plan and continuance to review the new site plan prior to ' ``" ~ recommendation onto City Council. This concludes my presentation. I'll stand for any . questions Commission may have. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the `t~ -# ~, applicant like to come forward? ~,, ~.~ '~ s~ s;t' :. z` ~' ~~ ~~,~; ~~ _. r; X q Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you very much. My name is Darin Fluke, with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. We are representing the applicant in this matter. Bill did a fine job explaining the application by the numbers and I'm not going to go -- going to go back through those numbers. I think we are in large part in agreement with the staff and where we are not, I'd like to just touch on those things. First, though, Iwill -- I would like to just speak to sort of how we got to where we are today and I have just got a few slides to go through for you. We started this project back in June, meeting with staff. We met with staff no less than four times on this project formally and informally many times over the phone and, again, at the counter. We held two neighborhood meetings and we have gone through several iterations of the site plan and we think we have come up with a plan that really works well for the site and works well for my clients as well. What you see here on the first slide is a color rendering of the clubhouse. That is in excess of 5,000 square feet and does include those amenities as described by Bill. This is sort of a gathering point for the community and it has been located internally and I'll talk about that a little bit more in just a second. Do you have the next slide, Bill? You know where it's -- where we are located there, at the northwest comer of Ustick and Locust Grove. The previous application you saw was right here. It will be some nice amenities for this project, in addition to the commercial properties that are already in the neighborhood. This is the t i t] 1 $. ~ ~ n ~ f :t'. ~ . 4 /4 ~i K=. T a ttt~11000 h " ~ J7ar ~':hY SAD Y ~.i.i 1 :15$.3'° SS.', ~{ I„li;' ~~..f ply ~.s .~ P ~'~ 7~~~C }~~ ~~ ~~ ~ x t~ L~ ~ - ti i + 1 ~ ~' ~ ~~ a 7 !' ° 3` ` A i r .x ~ ~ ~ ~~ c C y ~ ~' 4 ~ v.;~ .. ~ ~. L ~ ' .4, r ~~. Ys "'k3 t -~ s ;. kP r: r .; ~l r ~ ~ tqt ' ~~.rt r .~ ~1 i ' it k ~a L~'4 1 ~~'h t,,.l ~~~.:~ r CFA i'~. J ~ ~ ~ ~. 'YFib', ~.1.~ n ~ 3 } Wc+ d k 9' 1 ~~ kk ~'"' 7"~~~, ~'C N' 'i- 3i xra "' ~~. i ~ .A+ , '^' itnc `~?~'L .Yf,4 4 Y '3A ~ ~.. i 1 .. :~:;. ~ ~ ~ .. "5' i xY t': t k S 7s+Vj ,3ori i~ r ~z > rst n ry ~, ~ s f ~ > ; ~~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ x Z 4e X Ilvl ,{ i ~ ~ t ~_ f aT 4 ~:` i N ~?~~K ~1~ ~t ~l~ f t 2 "~, }, -.. `.`..k'I~ ._ ,1 ~~ ;_; .- ~, , t ;ail Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 18 of 39 plat. You have seen this before. I'll just talk about a couple of things on this, as far as the site design goes. Our initial layout had a connection to Ustick Road here and ran a road up much like you have seen here. In talking with staff there was some preference -- I should say at the neighborhood meeting there was a strong preference to not have our connection to Ustick Road be our primary connection in this location and so we changed it for that reason and that affected some other things in the layout and we ended up with a layout that didn't include a road fronting this -- this large -- well, it's a one acre parcel, more or less, here, with a single house and some out buildings right up here near the front. The initial reason that we laid it out that way was to provide access to this parcel for future development. We assume it will develop in the future and that was the best way to do it, given the really skinny nature of that lot. When the neighbors indicated a preference to not have us make the connection right there and rather make it over here, we ended up with a layout that didn't include the road there and staff didn't like that and so we went back and redesigned again for a third major redesign and this is what we came up with. So, we do accommodate this lot. This will make it really easy and convenient for this lot to develop in the future. All the utilities will be in that road. Basically, they will add curb, gutter, and sidewalk on their side and they will be good to go. The public road does connect here to Locust Grove. We worked extensively with ACHD on that. We could have brought it further to the south to increase the offset from this road to our east, but ACHD's preference was to get the connection as far away from the intersection as we could and so that's why we shoved it all the way up here, with the added benefit of providing access to the church site there at some future point, should they desire. I'll stress again that is a public road and so they will have easy access to the road if they want to redesign that site. The public road comes in and, then, extends up this way. There is an existing stub here in Heritage Commons or Quenzer Commons, I guess, is the name of that project. And, then, it will align with this stub street here. And as was pointed out by staff, there is an eight foot strip of land that is all the way along there and connected to that that we have no control over. So, at the point that this develops in the future, our assumption is that that will be made to connect, but we simply can't do a thing, that we don't own the land at this time. We like this layout for a number of reasons, but we -- in particular, we like the clubhouse centrally located here and, then, our open space amenity centrally located here. Those are located away from the property lines. Those are activity centers within the project and so located internally they will be buffered from adjoining land uses and from our neighbors that are internal to the project. One thing that staff didn't mention and that I want to mention for you is this is intended as what's called an active adult community. It's designed and will be marketed to empty nesters. Those people typically 55 years of age and older, and that's enforced not through codes, covenants, or laws, but just through the design of the project and the amenities within the project. The project is such that it will be an upscale place to live. It won't be cheap to buy into this project and, basically, it's not designed in a way that's conducive to having families or people who are young and don't intend to spend time in the dwellings and so it will be marketed that way, it will be built that way, and we intend to see this thing built in in a single phase. We will go through and do it -- we will plat it all at one time and, then, go y z _ a ;, -0` '~~~ risi ~ 't5 r ~ ~ rR ~~~ + N` ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w.t.i^"~ ~ at - Y mac'" ': t t H i 4. ~- ~~d r }i ~~ =;N ~ ~1 "aYti:"' ~ s c ~ y .r,KC;~v~+~s. ~ek cr ~~ r rf t CJ, Ui ~ '. FL a1 arT~, ~ ~ If f ~,.,~;y~ ~ , h'E t l f ~ i"v.i rF,a ~^~ _ , =. a~d,-~G, ~Y~~ rho i F y t YtS~1 :~, ~ ~ +~y ~ ~ t "9"" f _ ~ •~ 1` Q •: {;~ ~' ~ .: ~y~ 5 1 G r ~7 ` ~A/ ~~ti'•'~~ r f~f•y1 ~1e'~v ''~ F ~ 1~'F+TTtXak ~ _ F rr` - 3 'ti ~w Lr-li'iSI xz~ .i~p~y:~ ~ - is r.. 4 Y , 4 1 t 4 1 ~ pp ~ ~ ~~ ~ x LFS .fit t1 `~¢ ~t 1 ~{~ i. t ,' ,_ .~.~ , `` 1' nl Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 19 of 39 yc~ through and build it bit by bit all in one phase. Bill talked a lot about the amenities, so I'm not going to go back into those. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the }~`-~~'-' issues that were raised in the staff report. I'll call them issues, although they really just need a little clarification. With regard to fencing, there will be -- here is the landscape { plan. Let's go ahead and go through all the slides, Bill. This is, again, a color rendering ~r; ~~ of the large floor plan here, with the -- the garage unit and, then, the side unit there. ~'" ~~~ And, then, these are floor plans. This is for the smaller unit, which you can see has a _'-~`~" bedroom and a bit large master bath closet and, then, a study or den type area and the ~~~%~ ' kitchen here. This is the garage. And, then, this is the larger unit, which has two bedrooms, plus the den, in addition to a little work area in the garage there and you can `~; -- there would be the option to add a bonus in the -- sort of a loft unit in the second story of that building. They are single story buildings, but there is room to add a loft within there, if a client were so inclined. With regard to fencing if we could just see the site ~''~, plan, Bill, or the plat. While we are finding that, let me talk about one other thing, >.: 4~, because I think my clock's ticking here. I did notice in the staff report that there was a _~ requirement for centralized mailbox locations, as well as a directory map. Those do ~'" ~ come from standards relating to the multi-family developments. We do intend to have ,' centralized mail box locations within the project, probably in two locations somewhere in the front part here and probably over near the court -- clubhouse there. We would ask to not -- not have the map, though. That is intended typically for projects where -- that are more like apartments where you have unit numbers and you don't have street locations. All of these units will be addressed off of streets with distinct names and they will be just as easy to find your way around in there as any residential project. With ~F regard to fencing, we do intend to have a masonry block wall around the project in that location there and, then, along the church here. Again, that -- this will be public right of _- way and so to fence this here, we will -have a license agreement or an easement with °~s our neighbor to the north to do that and if they are inclined, that's the intent of my clients on that. With regard to -- there is only, really, two things that we don't agree with staff ~~~~ on. We are fine with the comments regarding landscaping. We do intend to landscape around all the buildings and we will do a better job of showing on the landscape plan, but that is all included. The two things we don't agree with -- I'll just take the minor one first and this is a very minor issue, is the issue of moving the sidewalk on Monet from right here down to here. We like the way we designed it, because the sidewalk benefits the project a little more that way. When this road does connect, there is sidewalk on both sides of the street and, then, the sidewalk here will connect with the sidewalk here and provide connectivity out his way or you can just simply cross the street and have ~`~ connectivity this way. And so we don't -- I mean it's not a huge issue for us, but we would ask that you allow us to just build that the way we had designed it. The bigger "~> issue for us is -- is the issue regarding parking. And, Bill, maybe we could see your kj~.~ diagram on that. I want to point out to the Commission that -- that this is amulti-family project and is subject to the requirements for multi-family projects within the City of ~` Meridian. We do comply with the parking standards for multi-family projects and I would just respectfully disagree with the staff that by condominiumizing this project that we would all of a sudden be a single family project. We would not, by definition, because 1 a - ~~ - ~~ ~ >" ~ I. ~ '„ ~ c y 2' L '~ y. ~gs~'~'`7z'-~a' ~h' ~ n Y:p ~~. k is - , .,t n :` d s'"f~, ,. ,. i .}. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- s fir, .5. ~ D F'~ ' c `r er _~r t ~ Ay.~. 4 fY ' %p t 1 M, + ~ x 4 .: S~ ~ f Y ~ ~j, , ~ t -a Ea ~, ~`0 ~ , ' ~ w r ~ ~~ ~Y ~~ 1 i 4;w. r ~ t ~ . Y ^ ~ ~ jje~t ~ A.:-w,t7y. n ~ v?. u.~ ,. ~. > c.~ d. _T,r i.,~ ~ ~~ b '~ ..µ ~~; M Y L ~f rte ,~ ~ ~ ~ ,; '4 ~ ~' :~ ~~ ~'~ {y ~F ~ .' '. . J ~; i;~' ~ P r , f~ iy. , ~ r i ~ ~ ~~ ` ~ ~ ~~3CT :~ +J ;. ~ ~ y ~ +~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ¢~i~ i '` °~ a. 1~~G~~ t X % { ~ .~ Y 4 'fti ~ ~":~ t.p' r ~._ _ :. f S ' ~~' r 1{ ~ Z L J a ~~ KKK^. ~ ~ ~ t , 4 h~xfnl S . ~~ i ~ 4 ~ t~l]~t E ` ' ~{ ~ 1~ M r Z ~ t1X' r ,a =' `r. ,.y Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning 3;`~` January 17, 2008 - Page 20 of 39 these buildings contain three or more units and are on a common piece of land, they are `''' ~' " amulti-family project, not a single family project. So, that's the first thing. We comply ='_ ~;! with the code as written. We comply with all the rules. The second thing is I just platted ~~ ~. '~` ~' a project very similar to this called Cedar Springs Townhomes just a mile or two to the shared driveways -- those are single family west where we did exactly the same thing ~_ ~~' , lots. Each one of those buildings sits on -- they share a common wall, but they all sit on ~~`? =` their own property and within that project we did exactly the same thing that we are _ = doing here, a 50 foot drive court, with a 20 foot shared drive throat, just like you see <;:;~,~ here. What staff has shown you is, basically, you know, the worst case scenario that you could ever expect, which would be 16 cars within that space, two in every garage and, then, two out in front. In Cedar Springs the fire department had asked us to sign ~~:w this as no parking out in the driveway and that's, really, the way it's intended to function. ~ That's how it will be written in the declaration is that this area is not intended to be for a~~~~' ' parking. It doesn't mean that you can't pull your car in there and wash it, but it does mean that you can't just store cars here, because this area is meant for the maneuvering of vehicles and in any scenario but the one that's been drawn here, these work perfectly well. And there are numerous locations in the City of Meridian where they have been approved and we would just respectfully ask the Commission to ~~ approve what we have designed here, simply because we don't have the right room to ~. go and add an additional 15 feet to even 75 percent of the buildings that are drawn. If we do that, by our calculation, we would lose at least four units and possibly more. We p ~~ didn't redesign the site, because we feel like we have been through enough iterations and we have come up with a plan and a concept that works really well for this site and really well for the target community that's going to be living here. I think that's all that I have for you. Again, we are in -- mostly in agreement with the staff report. I will just quickly point out the conditions where I would like consideration from the Commission if =~~+" you're so inclined. The first is 1.4.1, which is the condition that would require us to =`~ redesign and resubmit a site plan. I'd just simply ask that you strike that condition and approve the site plan as we have drawn it. :~ O'Brien: What page is that on, sir? Fluke: That page is on -- it's on Exhibit B and the page is not numbered. But it's in the conditions of approval Exhibit B. The last page that's numbered in front of that -- well, it's the elevations that are right in front of that. O'Brien: Okay. ;:: ^ Fluke: The exhibits aren't numbered, so I apologize. O'Brien: Thank you. Fluke: The next condition is 1.4.6, just one page later. That is the -- moving the five foot sidewalk along Monet. Again, we think that the layout that we have works just fine ~; ~.,, `f S ~~~ ~ n~ ~ ~3s ~~~~ _~. ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ,: y~ISJ'F ?. ~~' }~ ~.f.'' YG4r. s ~ ~'r. .. ~' 9~ __ ~',1 4 .. KS r 1 i. ,~" .. -~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~~r. n ~r ~ 1.'; F S `} ,! c ~ ~ l1 a s4~ro c~i`q`,~~ r ~. ~ ~ ,, r a ~, wi ~ a: ~ t ~ ~ ^ l7yr~ f y is y~y0 ~,~ ,.~~. .s ,2~r ~q~,-'^' ~ r} < Yr 3. ~,y ~ ~ 7 r-.+~~ 1 1iK w~l- J -j a v~ 1 „~i ~.- r , Nit :;lj j i~ IS. r? C Y 5~ S t t ~ ., J. ,~::,ys , s ~~.. ~ = e,, , `t'~ c, i ~~ ~ ~, f< ~~ ~ ~. tip rr't ~ ie-, i. ,.~ ~, It+.~n 'r~ t ;~', .u. :;r.>ati .. .. -~_ z r.<-° i ,. t.. r. , 1 ~~:.: .'~ ;_~ -:~ r Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 21 of 39 and we'd respectfully ask you to approve that the way that it's drawn. 1.4.16 would say that if we -- when we bring a condominium in that we have to comply with the parking standards that we just talked about. I would again ask you to just strike that condition. 1.4.17, asks for centralized mails box locations and a directory site map. I'd simply request that you strike the directory site map. We are fine with the mail boxes. That's all I had. I appreciate very much staff working with us on this. Again, we have been at this for half a year or more. They have been great to work with. We are in agreement with the conditions, with the exception of those that I pointed out and I think this is a project that Meridian will be very proud of once it gets built. With that I'd stand for any questions. Moe: Thank you very much. Any questions? Yes, Tom. O'Brien: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is there any separators between the garage or the areas - - the parking areas for excess parking? I see lines there, but is that a wall? Is there a sidewalk or a curb or -- ~~ Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that was simply for graphical purposes. There would not be any sort of divider in there. That's all intended and will function as r~ common area and be indicated as such within the condominium declarations. So, that area will be -- in fact, you know, what you see here outlined will be owned by the condominium association and maintained by the association, not by the individual homeowners. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Fluke, can you go back over your fencing one more time? Were you just anticipating you're doing block walls on just two locations? Fluke: You can anticipate it around here and we will submit to a condition to that effect. And, then, we intend to have it along here as well, but, of course, we need -- because this is public right of way here, don't want to end up with the same situation that we have here where there is a small strip of land preventing access to the public right of way. And so we will work with our neighbors to make it happen there. We intend to have it there, but we are really sort of at their mercy as far as that goes. Moe: Okay. What are you doing now, then, on the Locust Grove and -- Fluke: Those are -- would be landscape buffers along this area. There is a berm and dense plantings. Moe: Okay. And let's go back to the parking issue one more time. You discussed -- I am assuming you'd have no problem, then, putting up no parking signs and whatnot through there. In fact, that was what you needed done. ;, rbi,^ ~ 1.. 1 -.r ~~:L t S n~y~. {. ~ ~ ~~ ~f i ~~ . r.~w ~~' }~ a ,~r L F d ~' '7'f, , r. r ?~ ~ ~c'~2 '~7 Y ;'S'.S ~ . i ~ . L ati: a +: ~ -, r . A ,y~,,~ r ,r r p !. r~~ :,. S, 5 ~~~a b ..~ 6 s , + /v --'-5~. ~ s; e s ~xa err k , ;; ~ 3 `'a 4 ,~•~1' ,~ ~"I ~S 1 z P,r~s ,~. b;rryy ..~s'' .rk p`~4?`w'~Y ~: c~ ., J~ ~f i i ?~ ~ : i y 't ~ ~~1'..:. ,~.rz~ ~~,' ti ' - ~~'~ ~ L Y F ~! ` S-f~ ~~t~ (Z< ~ .C ri; ~. a ~ t~ Y 1w ~ lj ~y. t ~a6J ~~; ~ A ~ • !r' ~b ~ ~ ~;''i~ ~C~ ; ' a 7'. \ ! ..'<42 .. 1 } a~ i ~ ~ ~ Q~~ ~~. 2 {{ JT. E~ ; (~J ~. t "" g Meridian Planning &Zoning January 17, 2008 ~~ j 4, Page 22 of 39 Fluke: It's an esthetic concern for us, but if that made the Commission more x, ~` comfortable -- and, honestly, we anticipate that from the fire department anyway, so, no, ;; ~ we don't -- we wouldn't object to that. ~~~, "`" ~" Moe: Okay. Any other questions? " ''~~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Fluke, I'm curious about the -- is the block wall a result of your neighborhood meetings? It seems odd to put a block wall between residential backing up to residential y ~,~~{ Fluke: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, it's not. That's always been the intent of my ~ -~-~ clients. I think it's more of a buffering scenario where they are trying to sort of establish j a feel of exclusivity within the project. Newton-Huckabay: How tall of a block wall are we talking? :k Fluke: Mr. Chairman, six feet. {~, .~ `~~ Newton-Huckabay: Six foot. And what kind of a block wall? Is it like the cottage stones F~~~>`~!~ or -- ~~ ~' Fluke: It would be the CMU block with probably the corrugated face to it. You know, split faced CMU. And I apologize that we don't -- don't have a drawing of that for you. ~ i i f a berm also was t . -H kaba :Now that wall is not sittin on to 0 Newton uc y g p I Fluke: No, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no other questions right now. Rohm: I want to go back to that parking again. Could you put your slide back up, Bill? Do you have any additional pavement or pier so when this car backs out does it have something to back into there? Fluke: We can certainly add the pop outs and that was a discussion that we had with staff when we saw the condition of approval. I would point out that in all the meetings that we went through with staff we were informed that we had a 45 foot minimum garage to garage in there and so when we designed it 50 feet, we thought we were exceeding it and everybody would be happy. When we saw the condition we did offer to do pop outs here and staff wasn't receptive to that, but, again, I would make the offer to the Commission if you would feel more comfortable with the pop out there, we have designed one and, Mr. Chairman, if I -- maybe the Commission could just pass this out and, then, I'll leave it with staff, but this shows how it might work. .1 T .Y Y M -- i~ p Fr f ~ ~ 7ia=r'~U , ~ f .. ~ '~ ~' Y ~ :{ ~ 1 5 7 -~ ~ ~ v~ {,,,~ ~~ {~ k ~ ,.rh~g ee f ~ 'ru •~y F r ~ c4ff1~ {e~~h[ ~ 4 '. t h ~ix '7~~". '~ 'L Jm 4 .t yi t'~. ;9 _ f ~~4 ~_ A h (~ # '~ t 3 .~y~ ~~..~ tdi' ~~~F - 4 4 5 r _ i ~f ~ 7k}~ '. k1. 1 9 Y'S" r t, r j ..Ih' Y ~ 1 -'. v ~ 1 r ( Y :. t S a ~f37~: i "k f ~~~~~~~ ~ ' r_'' .lcfi ,iN. r ~ ¢ - r P ~ ~~ ~<< - ~ . ~r . ,j ~ - ~ l~t~' r , . 'l ~ fit"` rr r r~ x - .; S"~t`~'1 YLq~ 2r ~. i 7 L~ ~ ~-, J C ~~} .{~~ F ~~, ~ ~x, ~A~ § >. y F5 ~~T~ A~~ T4 'N ~ - a , lt" ~..,, 4,. ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J 4 ~ t\ ? C Z ~ ~ ~ ' fi ~~ ! f - j S i Z ~t.{ .1 } ~ ~ F .u .. 4 , }} ~y'y~~. h ' ~ x~`. ~? ~ .t 4~• e .,.f '~ .i, - 4+` Meridian Planning & Zoning .' ry~ January 17, 2008 ;,.;~; ~ Page 23 of 39 `'L Rohm: Yeah. My concern is if this person is backing out, only if this spot right here is not -- there is nothing there at the moment, because they are going to have to back up ~!' far enough that they can turn to head -- head out and Ijust -- I think that if you don't have that availability here, there could be some issues for that end unit being able to actual) back out and head back out to the main roadwa . Y Y err',. ~~°~ Fluke: Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond to that. I would agree with you if all we had -- if the scenario was what you see right here, but we can show you that there is room to l~~ come out and avoid that and come into anywhere within here, or even to back out if - need be. Having said that, we are fine adding the pop outs to those driveways. I mean 'i ~~ '`; our preference would be to limit, you know, pavement the best that we can within the `~`~'~ project and, again, our -- the target market is such that -- and it's reflected in our traffic v;~~ study as well, that this population just doesn't drive as much as a typical subdivision and ~~- ~ so I think the activity levels that we will see in this project are -- are not what you would ~K~~ ~~ see in a typical project, even next door to us. But, again, Mr. Chairman, we would be just fine with that pop out. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. ~i { Moe: Another question I have. I noted the staff, basically, that the two options were to either make it wider or bring them in and why did you guys not consider bringing them a y~. '`' little closer, basically, then, at that point discourage them even trying to do that, so -- j Fluke: Mr. Chairman, we -- because we don't -- we don't anticipate a parking problem within here and we would like to provide a little more maneuverability within the parking areas. Again, it provides a little more margin for cars that are maneuvering in those ~~ driveways to move around and we would just prefer to have it the way we have it designed. ', Moe: I guess that's where we can agree to disagree, then, simply because I would anticipate if you move a little closer you're still going to have the availability of that free movement, you're just -- you're just going to be, basically, one car less parking itself out there, you know. But that's okay. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Fluke: Thank you. Moe: Well, I'm not sure that you guys understood that there was asign-up sheet back there, but no one has signed up on the -- for this, so at this time if there is anyone that would like to speak to this, just raise your hand and I'll call you up at that point. Yes, sir. Come forward. W w I ~ e ~~ ~A 1'_ ~~ - ~ ~ 3v c~`R'~~y? s'rxx '~Cf .. ~ r ~ h - r~ ~ j~ r x ~ ~ , ~ r:i v.,Ny`= ~ie~ r ~ bx "~~ ~ a ~"~ J 1 f ~~ ~ t y] ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~'~ L~ ~. 1 Y y~ x 1 q~y ~^~~ ,C ~ y~ ,~ ~- '~~"~ ~.~' °4 x ~ L ~ kM r -r, Y ~ i . , i . +;t3 ~ ~, tip" w.1 J ; 7N ~. ~ ~ ~~ - ~t~ ~..:~ y . ~ yb;. ~a3~~, r. a s rtvt r .:~ ~,v B xz~ ?, ~ v ~'. ~r , ,. .~ t ~ d ~p 'M S1 ~ ~': t _~~` ( S .r ~'y 'r5 z ~ ~ f ~<3~., _ ~ ~'~ } Kt x ~ i J~ c a ., rsc ~~ o'-~ v H t ! - 1$ ~f+.''+~ 4. c - c ,, ~ s ~, t r r. t a l~~: tY ~ .,~- t f ~~,'~` l ~ y - ~' ri4i' - .i s e ;1 k" ~ Y ,yir" r Y,- ~~ I h 1~ ~ ~ .rY; "'..iY i ` ~ r ~ ~~ ~ o ~~ ~f f ~ - '~~ r t ~ f ~- ~: ~ J tinS4 ~ ~ ~ , i(: % ~~ asV ~~ ~ S rtrt ~,~f 4 4 ~7 L~f f 3 1 ..~,_ ~~ , . ~t~ Y. " 7y? Y ~ - a.~ w _7~ ~*~ a ~. ,. ::,; ~~_. ~,,,,," :~~: ,, _~ 4i r,l t.' ~• ~' T.,,,, -_. `~ 'N. ,, ~.~, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 24 of 39 • Larsen: Thank you. I'm Jeff Larsen. 7427 Miriam Way in Salt Lake City, Utah. Partner in this development. And just to -- if I may comment about that parking. Just -- you mentioned that there was --the staff suggested that we move them closer. Moe: Yes. Larsen: What their requirement was, the way I understood it, was that they said 70 percent -- I believe it was 70 percent they wanted to widen and, then, 30 percent they would allow to be narrower. So, it really isn't a situation where they want all of the parking narrower, they wanted 60 -- or 75 percent of the units at 65 feet and 30 -- or 25 percent at 35 feet. Does that make sense? Moe: I understand. And we are going to talk to staff here in a minute about that. Larsen: Okay. Great. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Bill, can you respond to that at the present time? Parsons: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. We had talked -- when we met with the applicant we had spoke to them going either/or scenario. Darin kind of spoke to it. We are in a conundrum here. We have amulti-family development, but once they condo it we are going to look at it -- we are applying single family standards, like we did with the Gramercy project. So, we tried to -- I tried to come up with -- staff tried to come up with a compromise as to what could we do to try to get the best of both worlds and they thought that the 75-25 was the fair way to go. Now, if you guys feel there is something else, wanted 50-50 or all of them meet that 35 feet in between garage to garage, staff would be -- I mean it's your ball. But that's kind of where I -- staff came up with that 75-25. Moe: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Okay. Mr. Rohm, you look like you have another question. Rohm: No. I just -- I keep looking at staffs drawing on the parking and, quite honestly, I appreciate the applicant's response to that. I think he's probably right that the -- all four of those locations are not going to have a car in them at all times. They are going to park in a garage and the -- that space is going to be open and even though it looks from the staffs drawing that it's going to be congested, the congestion would only occur if, in fact, all those 20 foot pads were occupied with a vehicle and I concur with the applicant that that's probably not going to happen often and -- other than I would say that I think that the applicant should extend that tip out for those units, so that they can back around and head out without having to cross over to the adjacent unit to get that turning radius. Rohm: Thank you very much. f "- 1 r r ` A ku t ;.~ k' . ~ '4~, : ~c~*~ ~d'US~~~ ~Z d w ~.. .. s2 '~';~s~' ki ~ I;.t- k vv s. > '~. n . ~~yy ~i ~ F..~3` ~ ,r Y y.'.. ~ 4(Er~~.. ~ f f ~TY~ ~F ~~, 1 , ! ~~ ~ ~{~k~~ij'I'.~~'~ ~. r ~-f y l S ~ } } 'L? ,~ . j s rat ~ }~'r:~~' ~ 1;. A Sr~ iI ~Y ]Y J_ L~_. P~ A , _ l O Y L ~ 4; t Cb ?j~~•+4 , < ~ ~ ~~ ' 1p5'kt~~n Yi'e ~~ t . *4,~"'7'p .9~.iJ t ~2 f~ . ' .%}{ u- ~ `, ~ l4 : rR~ ~. LS ~ fly j`~ ~ rk ~ u ~ Fh ~!~. ! Y ~^r'+' ~ ~ 5'r r ~ .t7.; 'fir z~. vr.e:o ~ a a ,, ~ ~~ -~ ksrt ~, 1 ~ r': ~ v r• ' ~ is 7 4f~ `,'. ~~ _t A~ ~...:1~ - ~ .~ ~a~t .. ~:~' ~~ ,~j~ { ~+l.i ', i.. II '' Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 ~; Page 25 of 39 ,. ~~ q:~~:~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: May I ask a question? Are these the one -- these are the one bedroom or the larger -- or the two bedroom units? _~~~ Moe: These are the large units. ~, Newton-Huckabay: Those are the two bedroom units? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, yeah, those -- that is the larger unit - there along that perimeter. So, those would be up to 2,000 square foot units. '''~ ` Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And it's just the ones -- oh, it's on the north. ~' . Parsons: I'd like to point out, too, that -- one thing I failed to mention, too, that they kind of redesigned this southeast comer as well and that's -- that's what it's supposed to look '~ -~ like. If -- if this goes forward, they are going to revise the site plan regardless for City Council, obviously, hopefully, to show that at least. But it was not depicted on this site _ plan either. But this is what it's going to look like in that comer with the units. Newton-Huckabay: You're -- Mr. Chairman, Bill, you're whipping that thing around there pretty fast. What are you circling there? Parsons: Okay. This -- fire didn't like this shared driveway here, how they came in and wrapped around to the rear of the building here. V~ Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Parsons: So, the applicant revised that southeast comer and now they are proposing $x~ this layout in the comer. So, that way you don't have that driveway coming up here and accesses those. Moe: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some thoughts? Y~ ~• O'Brien: Yeah. I don't know where we are going with this thing, but I don't know what the storage capacity inside the -- the buildings are and is there -- so, I guess the question would be is there any space in the garage to have some kind of storage? I know a lot of people they have storage units somewhere else, but the point is if they have adequate storage where it would not cause a vehicle to be parked outside the garage area and if there is -- has that been a problem in some of the other places -- projects in the past is that people were forced, so to speak, to park their vehicles a~~~. ~~ r. ~ ~'t~~,~ ~ f Y.. ~ F ~ r t n ~y ~ {f s r 15y i x ~~ y ~r`~ eh r 1 r ~,r y ~ ~`, _ t ~ 1 ~ _ ° ~~ a }fi "~', S~~ ~. R'~ r 1 d^ 1 ,41 ~ ~ i~ W ~''ly` ~ , u r. v1, , ' _' ~~~' " 4s ~,y ~~r¢ ~'t f Vii.,, T F S~ f* i~; L r J Y ~ 4 fwj~~ ; 'Y - x .#;~ T i a ' ~ ~, ~ . 4~ ~'+. Sr F ~ • t "+` 4.te ir f rt ~ ' .,t ~", ~' F a cb` t vs,. ~ ' ~~ ~ {m ~ S ~S ~ ~~ ~~ j y ' 4 i ~ d j - f . . ~ { if 't . S . S , ' ~ } M ~ ! A t `t` . v o.a ~ ~ ~ .,,.7 S t ~~s ~~ ~~~` 4' "4; L:' a ' , r § &~ ... F a ~ ~ ~ ~. ra. +C,t. 1 .~ 1~ ! 4 'St ~ i ~ ~ ''. ~ T ~ . F2 1+~ ~+r -A k S. , ic9 ~4y'- 4R , ~ 1~ 4 i d _ f ' y ~ n C~ Y ~.~y:n ~ r -r' ~ a' - ,;~, ~ * _ ~ ~ ~rt ~:ia : ~.~~~ 4~~7~ 1 . { ~' },~~ ~ 4 ~; -` ~, ;:~ ;N Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 26 of 39 i • outside the garage, because they didn't have adequate storage and didn't have another storage unit somewhere else for things. I know this is probably because my son and daughter-in-law -- or my daughter and son-in-law park one of their vehicles outside, because they don't have enough room. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner O'Brien, I would argue that's not a problem with storage, maybe, it's a problem of pack rats. ~`'~_ O'Brien: Yeah. I understand. Yeah. Well, you know, not everybody's clean and sheen _ and -- and I was just wondering I was just wondering if that's the question or if that's ;,, f; "~`~ r` been an issue with -- in projects where people would have to park. I know a certain ` percentage I'm sure do, but don't know what that might be. Anybody -- ,.,~ "`'"I Marshall: If they -- if they had made that a no parking area -- ~~ O'Brien: Yeah. That would be good. 7k ~~ , Marshall: Yeah. I think that's -- O'Brien: No permanent parking or whatever. Marshall: Yeah. If they displayed signs and made that apart -- a condition that -- that there would be no parking in that area. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Excuse me. You know, the ultimate situation for us would be the redesign, because I agree with the applicant that esthetically having signs on the garage doors or on the fascia or something saying no parking there is a little tacky. So, that's why we went with the redesign option. Certainly, I believe that's the next best option, however, though, because -- if you can go back, Bill. It certainly doesn't take all eight cars to be there. In fact if two cars are parked there you certainly create asituation -- if this car is here and this car is here and I'm backing out of my garage, it's nearly impossible for me to back up. I have to do about a 15 point tum to tum around and get out of there. So, it's certainly not all eight cars have to be there to have a problem, it can just be one across from you and trying to back up and get out of there. So, that's why staff brought this up and thought it was important enough to bring it up as an issue. I understand from the applicant that in their covenants they will prohibit them from storing things in their garages and that they have to have car parks. I also understanding it's a 55 and older community, but, you know, those people are still active, have friends, people come over, play cards, whatnot, and you are going to have guests and they -- particularly on the end units aren't going to want to park on the street over here in the middle of January to go over here. They are going to be tempted to park in the driveways and I do see that -- that situation occurring. And not to be stereotypical, but sometimes if it's dark at nighttime, you're getting in your car backing up, I'm guilty of it, I don't look behind me, I see -- now, they are not major ` s 4' n Yh 3~ Y '4 } ~ ~ +# ~ % ~~ "-f.l~yt al S f fY.~.,~ t•~~~ ~ ~t a yy1 ~ r/~ +~ ~~a,p T. . ~ i. ~ ~`~ *'A'~:~i '• 4 ~` i ~ ~ ~~~ s ,.. F L 'eSt'k~ ; ~~ ~E ~ ~ y{~~, g ~ ~ ?z ' C ? ' r~ IC ~ ~ s ~ ~' r ,, . ~,~ y tr a -Z f g -~ ~ La~ f - "i ~ ,~"~ ~ _ .. ~ +~ ~ i ~~S ref t;~~ ( ti , , ii ~ ~ ~ • ~~J'~ j .~. R. N ~,. J ST ~~~ , . 4 t ' r ~` .~ } t~ ~ x ia' ' " v . ~ i r~ ~ ~' ~ A4 f~ i n r :tY '~` 'f. ~t c~ W~ 3t~~;~ . F~ ~ ~ -:~c t ~~9 ~ 6~ ~ ~°.~., yf' t .~ ~lj~ ~~J d ~i 3r ~ ` ,5.. AR Y 'a r~ x R X "~ ~~ ~ '~Y~ .. l~ ~s+n4t1.~tj ~ r Y t ~ s~~ r .c ~ ~ ~~ r ' ~ # itf ~:4 ~ r s ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~` f't'~' . p ~ v ° ~111~. t `l ~ ....~ : ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ;; ~_ ~ ~ January 17, 2008 Page 27 of 39 ;::;' I accidents, but I see, you know, minor fender benders there, if you just don't look and . \~ that's really why they have brought that situation up as an outstanding issue. So, I hope d I answered your question. I know I went a little bit of an editorial spin there, too, but -- }~+t ~~ O'Brien: You did real well. >:::Y ,, '~ ~` Marshall: I have got another question. Has condition 1.4.3, with the different building elevations, have we come to some type of agreement there? It appears staff and the ;. 'wl applicant are at loggerheads there. Newton-Huckabay: We haven't discussed it. ' Moe: There has been no discussion, but, staff, if I remember Bill going through that, ~~'' just wanted to make sure that the -- there was no more than two of the same next to ~''`' ' each other, other than that, that they were -- they were okay with -- with the elevations. ~~'; ~ Marshall: To clarify that, the purpose for having more than two buildings together with the same elevation is -- ~'~' Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, when -- again, when we got the letter > from the applicant they were going to propose something different tonight, but, however, ;,: ;. ~~~ A:, speaking with the applicant they are okay with no more than two units in a row. If I can go back to the site plan here. The reason being is these are going to be pretty large buildings. Typically, you don't want to have a monotonous theme going on within the ~ development. We want variation in there and that was the purpose of that condition. rst Marshall: So, the applicant has agreed to do no more than two in a row? Parsons: That is correct. Moe: Okay. Yeah. Sir, please come forward. Krupa: I have never done this before, so -- Moe: Name and address and, then, you can go for it. Krupa: Okay. Tim Krupa. I'm at 1662 East Summer Cove Court in Summerfield Subdivision, and I guess I have a couple questions. The gentleman here had discussion about neighborhood meetings and not being familiar with this, I don't know if it included the surrounding area or -- because I don't think anybody in SummerField that I know received any notification of any meetings. That was my first point, I guess, because, in fact, at SummerFeld and the exit there where the LDS church is going to be the main exit, I thought that would be a little bit pertinent to the subdivision there where ., ";~~i ~~ . ~: ~~~. ~` ~~ j~~. b ~~.. ~FY1~~~,~ W > ~yr r' s:;~tir$ Y ~ . k c ': i~ ~~ ~~ ; -~ r r ~ ~.~ J% ~~r~~. lF h k~;~ ~ {': ! lye„~A _. 1 ^1 y ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ,~, ~, ~~ { ~ ~ rt" t ~~ y'~ .~i~~. ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~7-, ~ i N , ~y~~~, ~ ,r; ~' i'v~~- x t.~z ~,;, F , :~: t~ ~:-.c, E ;,:ru' r;';" ,,:: ;~:; a;r ;: ~~ ~~ ~'1 r.,.< ~:~-:.~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 28 of 39 all the traffic is going to be coming out on Locust Grove there and might affect the subdivision a little bit. Moe: Well, the answer to your first question is, basically, public notice does go out to all neighbors within a 300 foot radius. Krupa: My neighbor across the street got one, so I must be 301 feet and beyond. Moe: Yes. That was my guess. Krupa: I thought that was correct. But I didn't know how that worked. Moe: But at least you know your neighbor had one. There you go. Krupa: That's exactly right, so -- Moe: Okay. ~~~ Krupa: And I didn't know if -- by the plat at the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick on the -- where that old farm house is, is that going to be realigned to be five lanes or four "_< lanes, to make the street align that way? Moe: I'd probably have to ask staff that, but I'm not sure that they'd even know that. That's more on ACHD. Krupa: Okay. Moe: Bill, do you have any idea on that? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, give me a moment, please, so I can -- Moe: I will. Parsons: -- get the draft staff report here. Krupa: And was there any concern with probably three-quarters of the residents there coming out on Locust Grove with their main entrance there, just having one entrance out there, rather than going through the subdivision where most of the traffic will come out on Locust Grove, was that a traffic concem? Newton-Huckabay: They opted for that, rather than Ustick. Krupa: Okay. ~ ~~ ~ ~ r~ ,~,,~~. `' u ` ' ~ r ~ ~ , ~: ~ 3~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~. ~ Y- ~~ ~ ~ - y ~* ~ tC l 5 ~ ~' + F ~ + ' Y, ~ ~ t ~ 15 Y r ~ i-~ _ f i ,~' ~ M : . ~ '~ . 3 i ~ ~ , .:~ ~. n -' Lr ~'W ~~u ~' i ~ x ~ w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ µ ~Z ff l f r ~ ~1 f}~5`j !l1 t ~ ~ k ~ R r~1.~ t ~ A .. `W N 'kf e ;' W AM~~ trU. '~+~- •.a k ~ jP} ~ 4 1 ~~.k ~ J + .. 47 x' - X 1 5 l ~ , ~ ~1 {. 1~. '" T .C ' t Y '~. ~`~ ~+ S kl. ~ ~ F ,r ~,~ir s ~;' "~y , <'IY ~r Sf~.. ~ J~f R F~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1 ~. 7y r~ A~` rF ~ ~y, `-: 'S i r f ~ r ,~ e`~ t vw ~ ~ , ~ti ~a-+~s... ~ ~ ~ v 3 T ~ ,-y ~ ~ /w4{~ ~ } t~ ~'4! ~ M -',' ` ~,; i ~~i -, ~+°. ti;: `. ~' _, ~= Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 29 of 39 Newton-Huckabay: Because Ustick is the more heavily traveled arterial. Krupa: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, that was the -- Krupa: Have you noticed the traffic since the overpass has been on, where everybody's getting off Eagle and going up Locust Grove now. That was -- I guess I have seen a lot of that since the overpass, people aren't using Eagle Road -- I mean they are pushing back to Locust Grove now and using that quite a bit. That's why with 122 units you got 240 cars multiple times coming in and out of there and I didn't know how much of a traffic issue that's going to be dumping out on Locust Grove just from that one intersection there by the church. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it certainly will increase your traffic. I think an adult community is going to be less traffic than a 122 multi-family would, you know, but -- Krupa: All right. Newton-Huckabay: -- it will increase traffic. ACHD didn't indicate that it would overload the intersection. Krupa: Okay. And I didn't know why they -- I mean they said they were trying to go down on Ustick, but that was nixed, I guess. I'm not sure why they didn't put another exit down there, just to have another entrance there, but -- okay. Moe: Okay. Parsons: Sony, Mr. Chairman. Speaking with the applicant, he's -and looking at the ACRD report, it looks like some of those projects are out six to ten years on Ustick and 11 to 20 years on Locust Grove. But there are some provisions to do some -- the right of way will be dedicated to ACHD for those future improvements. Hood: And just to follow that up, I understand there is -- due to the existing configuration I think they were going to patch in a little bit of that -- that comer there, so it's -- the barricades will come down and you would have the -- a free right, essentially, if you're heading west onto Ustick from Locust Grove. So, that will be cleaned up -- that side of the road will be cleaned up, but it won't be widened to its ultimate street section for -- as Bill mentioned, a longer time frame, six to ten years or 11 to 20 years on Locust Grove. Krupa: So, there is no plan for the developer to widen the whole section there, so that it's smooth like that? i= ' ~''~~ i ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~`_< r C. ,_ *=:R f }F 4 a x~~.> r ~ ~ h ~; ~' , , ~ r. a,~,,., . .,~. -.'i; Y,C~.r 4~~ ~ ~ ~f f , t ~ '~ ^' ~ ~ S .Y k4 u _. u ~`~~h. ~ ~ ~- a ;. ~ 4 ~ ~ F ~ j'~ ~, :. ~,~ tin ~ s, .., ~ „tf yyaij;.~~.; ;~~'"~";~ r ~,~ u f S S ~~,_p+~,,. YS , ~ Y ,. ~ x({~s.~t v y ~ ' kk -~ Y+U S~Gy~~ ~} ;n~, ':f ~, S' -, r^i „X~ 4;. L ~ t ~ ~ ': ~ ~4 { ~ i 1', rcik < . FJ, ;, t.;- ;: ~' ;~ ~, I ~:.,, . Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 30 of 39 Moe: No. Krupa: Okay. Is that -- I guess that's standard that they don't have to do that as part of the he development process, to make the road easier that way for the traffic? Moe: They didn't design it that way and they weren't requested to do it, so -- Krupa: Okay. Thanks. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 07-023. Rohm: Second. Hood: Mr. Chair? Before you do that you should probably let the applicant have the last word. Moe: I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, my mistake. Moe: Would the applicant like to come back up. Newton-Huckabay: Fire me. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke, again, representing the applicant. I don't have much to add, unless the Commission had questions. Just with regard to the road issue here on Locust Grove and Ustick there, I think probably everybody who lives out there recognizes the trouble with the intersection, just because the right of way -- ACRD was not able to obtain the right of way on -- on this comer right here, primarily because of where the house is right now. I mean they were going to have a road right in their bedroom if they did that and so that's why the road wasn't -- right of way wasn't dedicated. However, with this application we will be dedicating the additional 23 feet, which is going to give ACHD 96 feet of right of way on all legs and it's our understanding that, then, the highway district will improve the intersection, just as Caleb described, so -- so, that you don't have that choke point there right now, other than Locust Grove won't be widened out at this time, but you will get the tum lane here added to -- I mean x ~ ~:~. F ~.. r e~ -0~ d t J l N 5 ; ~'R~k i~.0 Rol 6 ~ e ~ ~ • ~ d d s ~ ] Si. ~ ~iq" 1~. J .~,. 2 s F ~ Y '~ ~9?~vXi`~ [ X ,mot t xp., 1f ~ ~ ~ £'k.~( ..~ ' ~ ~.., ~ ,: ~ . ~ , ~ .' .r s r ~ t ~ ~ r Y ~ i. _~ . - Sc _.4'F~.'.f~ L f7 ';. q Y ~f~ ~ l .L ~v r SLLF ~.(~~ . - i ~ ' ` . t ~1,~~~ i y ~ ~ ~ 1 6~ <j~ 'tE f S +' ~ ~' y ~ r q*y~, ~' ~- ~ ~~ r R e . , a ~ w ~ ? 4 a`._~.' ~* ~ J ~' ~ L f ~< ~ ..~~. 7 ' K;h a ~~ ~ ~. ~; ~ t 4 J _ ~ ,f r !y ~~ T « ~~ ~.1A~ V ~ ~~{~' ~~~`JJ,, } -v~ ~ ~`fw T T .x .,. '~ • '~ `~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ` ` January 17, 2008 `~{~ ` ~ Page 31 of 39 ~F~z :.~ Ustick won't be added, Locust Grove will have the tum lane added to it. So, unless the ~~:' `~I Commission had questions, I didn't really have anything else to add. Marshall: One last question. Fluke: Yes. .. ;., ~`'! Marshall: About your CMU fence along the -- on the southeast section on the north side <~~< ; of that, against the church, you say it's a six foot CMU. How far are you proposing to ~,~' run that out? If the intention is for -- when the church comes into the city, will that 9 ' '~ exclude access to the road there? `` `~ Fluke: Mr. Chairman -- and that's why we will have to work with them, because the Ly;~, fence would have to go on their property. The right of way will be platted right up to the <~ ~ property line and so we don't have any land left to put the fence on and if the fence gets ti,~y ' ~ ~~ built it will be on the church's property. And so it will be on their terms, if the fence is ~~--~' built along that section there. It's my client's intent to build it here, but, again, we have `'~, to have a license agreement or an easement from the church to do that and, then, we would still, obviously, have to comply with the fence regulations of the city. ~~ Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Want to do that again? r~ti;r;~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~,; i. "` Moe: Yes. r;a - -~~ 4~' Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- '~ 027, and CUP 07-023. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded twice to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Marshall, do you have any? Marshall: My first thought is that this is an appropriate place -- looking at the future land use map, is an appropriate place for amulti-family development. I wont' that CMU walls and even elevations tend to start to give an institutional look. I like the -- the elevations on the clubhouse and the like, but all other elevations appear to be somewhat even and across. I think it's an appropriate use of the land and the future tie in to Wanda's Place _ x ~~~:y ~. r- `~.. ~~;~; ., , ~ ~ ~. c tf r ~~S ~,, l ~F t "' fi , 7~ r ~k~ i . w. '~i'"F e i !yT ~'~' ~ ''F 12' ~~ ~ .~ r - S" f ~ ~ ~ y~1 ~ r~ ~ ~ k ,~ _ ~i f - -' k'q" ~ .t~3~~ a ~ , y I ,, ~z .~ ~ r ,, ~: ~ ~ °~ ~z~ `~'~ 1 ~ .~.~ w - N l R'. ~ r=a'. ~ 3 w~:~ ~~ r. - . 7 $~ ~y'd ~ ' t y:.: Y ,, 5 y, ~ 4n .~i ..,: ~' e~ C f y ~, k N q., '. ~ t~~' - ~ ~'~,ik t',f1'~T F k 'i. ~ v ',M1 iTT4Yd; Jam. (}t} ~K ITS ~~ i~, ~ ~i~.~ Pl~.'~t y.. .1..-L~• C ~ +,~~Y.~Z~4~~. ~ ~'~C tom.. ~~yl :iS 1 = ~~ ~ t Y l ~ x ,~ ~~ , k i hhr ~ 3 Y ~, r_ ., ` .- ~, ~~;. ;, t Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 32 of 39 providing an outlet to Ustick further down away from the intersection seems appropriate. I do wont' about the parking. I am concemed that -- that people will park in those locations, even -- even marked, because in January it does get cold and you don't want to walk across the street to get there and if the availability is there, it will be used and even if it's just one car for half an hour, your neighbor's going to get pretty dam mad when they can't get out of their garage, my first few thoughts. I guess that's all I have. Moe: All right. Any other comments? Rohm: Well, I think that before a motion is made we need to have some sort of consensus on whether or not we are going to go with the staff recommendation that they redesign it with the widen space between the units or if we are going to go with the applicant's scenario and accept it as it's currently designed and it's of little value to start a motion without having some feel for what the balance of the Commission feels on that specific issue and my personal opinion is I think the applicant did a good job responding to the staff report and I would be in support of leaving it as it's currently designed. That's -- and I do think that they should put the tip out, so that they can tum back out and have something to tum into if there is a parking -- if there is cars across the way, preventing them from just backing straight into the -- across the way. So, with that tip out I think that issue would be addressed for those end units. But that's my position on this and I'd like to get a feel for what the balance of the Commission's opinion is. Moe: I would agree there, Mr. Rohm. You guys have talked, so I'll talk a little bit and we will see what you guys think. I -- as far as the overall project and whatnot, you know, I do like the fact that there are some restrictions as far as how many units go side by side and whatnot. I like the look of the buildings and whatnot and I think it will be a nice facility. The block wall, I'm just not sure that that's really esthetically for the area out there. I think those will be about the only areas that you go block walls surrounding a facility out there, so that's going to be a little bit different look, but with split face block and depending upon how it's done, it will look good. As far as the sidewalk and whether or not we put it on one side or the other, I have no problem putting it -- changing that -- that comment from staff and leaving it in and putting it on the other side of the street. I don't know that they are gaining much either way on that. The directory and whatnot, I can understand that we get rid of that as well. I don't have a real problem with that. But I do have a problem with the parking area. I just got a -- I'm very concemed that that is - - that's a tight area and just logically speaking I think you're going to end up with cars in there all the time and I do believe it's going to be a problem. I think there was -- you know, some real effort with staff to -- you know, they kind of agreed on a few things on this project with the developer and whatnot and they have asked that that be revisited and they'd rather not do that and that is a problem to me, because I do see that it's going to be a problem and I am not sure I could move this thing forward based upon the parking layout. Mr. O'Brien. ~, ~~ ~ r h ATM' ~ ~~ r a - t ; r 1 ~'4 t* } }1a~ri fi ~^ ~ u h ~ ~ ~~ f a ~ ~i'M.l as' ~ ~ ~ i, x ~'" { - + c ~) 1N ~~ Xi _ ~ y. f ~1~5'S ~h;l~ 'l ~ ~ S'I N 2T y 'y F a ,t~~ f .jC ~y,~i/ i ~~ ~ ~~s' h4 , l L , ~ r {},~. ~~. , . ~ l TY..~ T r D 5 }~.~ K ~ h~..y ~` ?~ .l .~I ~ [ i ~`S ~tCa t~ ~ 3 ~, ,~ r ;. r9" ~ta ~` +- ~ , ~ 3r 4 ~ ~ F I~ l ~ ._ h ~l~,~. ''y ~ ,~ 1 ~ : ~~~ : r,~k 77 i i i ~ ~. y C 2 ~ ~°j ~ ! . . i ,t_ty; t, i ;~ ,. ~'- -; ~: lr._ ., ~, ,~ ~,~ ~` s~~. ,.-., ~` ~.> ~;: . Yr.`s. ..._ ,. ,t ': ~> - ~~,-: '~}' 4 -~.-: phi ...~ x ICI Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 33 of 39 O'Brien: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, so I -- I'll start off with the sidewalk. I don't have a problem with leaving it as designed from the applicant, since it is coordinated with the one across the road and keeps it in line with that. I think that would be okay. I do have a problem with the -- with the parking myself. I really think it should be increased for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier, but that's not the do all to end all, I just think there is going to be a time, like the Chairman -- Mr. Chairman said, there is going to be a conflict somehow and I just hate to see people have these fender benders and it causes dissension between neighbors if those things happen. The mailbox I don't have a problem with leaving that as designed by the applicant and it doesn't have to include maps as they point out. I thought he did a good job of that. That's, basically, all the issues that I have. The main one is the distance between the garages of 65 feet. I think needs to be -- needs to be there. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any other comments? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I was doing okay until I read the ACHD -- I'm almost -- the ACHD report. I cannot believe that they didn't put a requirement in there to finish the remainder of that intersection on Ustick. That seems absolutely ridiculous to me. And I -- I have just -- I mean I reamed through the report and they specifically say not to -- that they will purchase the right of way, but they are not going to require it to -- I would have hoped -- thought maybe the developer might have -- I don't know what the program is called, but try to get it moved into the five year work plan and move that up. That's just a really awkward corner right there and, you know, thanks to Mr. Krupa for bringing that up, I didn't catch that earlier, and Ijust -- I have a real issue how that's going to -- I mean is it going to be gravel, just -- is it going to be -- once they tear it down are we going to have a temporary roadway? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, my understanding -- and I haven't talked to ACHD, just from what the applicant told me here a few minutes ago -- is they will purchase the right of way from the applicant, but they already have some funds set aside to go ahead and patch that asphalt back in to make that lane -- finish out that improvement. What they don't have the money for is for the full widening to seven by seven intersection. It will still be, essentially, the same intersection, with this leg of it being cleaned up, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, they will put in a right tum lane onto Ustick from Locust Grove and, then, take the road up to Mr. Widson's property? Hood: Yeah. Again, I'm not sure now that taper is going to work there, because you do have an outparcel there that they don't have the right of way for -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. -~ ~ i : x,~~r. ~ b.~`q ~ ~ _ '~ ~ °~` - o ~ ~ M ~ :: ~ ~ ~ s i ~~+f ~~F p ~, ti ~ ~ ~ .fi K. ~ j- ~;.'~ f y ; ~ . ~~k I~ him~.j F~ - f 1 a h w7 -' ~~ +-.`~ ,. iy ~ > a a' ~ ~k ly ~f j A F ,~'. 1~~. ~ Fa t~~ j,"~ F "'~~ ,~~ t a ~ ~ ~ ~ t r ~;. ~3'( ~a . 4 ti Yi ~y( yy w l ~ 1 Y 'F.e ~' ter' ~ ~,` .~ t k~'r ~ ~ - ~ r. .[~y.-~ i Q ~y.. J n T -' .1` .P i 4 ,~ ,.,y ~ 4~... ~, ~" a ~~ t~ .ta ~~}: CS,~~ '~ ~~' I"^~ia~~': ~ ~ q,~ ~ is ~"' ~' ~k s #~'~ c ~_r ~ ~k yr; Ya °` ~~ ~ __ R "~ ~'Y{ tf it .# }5~: 2 H f - - rl ~j ~ ~ ~, ',«s w ~ ' s'c'( ~ ~,~ . . ~ 1 . ,~ ~ ~,r«, fryS. ~ ~~ ,} ''~ F. k ~ f ~ r,. { ,. f:, _"~' ";' s'.'I ;,1 ;, ,FI <; .-~ ;~= °I ,:i m ~:.: j_ -_I ~` r ,; ~~~` _.~~ ,. .._ n Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 34 of 39 Hood: -- but, yeah, essentially where the barricades are I understand they are going to -- because they have already got the money set aside, they are just waiting for the property to be given to them, so I don't know why they didn't require the applicant to do that. Maybe it's because they already had this money earmarked and so -- Newton-Huckabay: Because I'm not getting it -- from reading their staff report I didn't get that, that it was going to be improved to that extent even. Hood: Mr. Fluke, am I correct in that --okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Well, that's -- okay. That's -- I would be okay with that, then, because that makes a usable comer. Moe: All right. Newton-Huckabay: I have another question. The residential -- or not the residential -- the commercial office there behind the church and just north of the church in Quenzer Commons, does that have block wall running all along there as well already? I can't remember. Bill, do you -- Parsons: Yeah. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that is vinyl fencing. That's the Brockton Subdivision and I have done some site visits out there, so it is -- they are vinyl fencing abutting that residential and along that -- the perimeter of that commercial development -- office development. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. I don't see the need for a block wall. I think that that's going to make it look rather more institutional than the larger buildings were. But it's not a deal killer forme and -- Moe: Any comments in regard to parking? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I'm getting to that. Moe: Oh. Didn't mean to rush you. It just didn't look like you were getting there. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I have never been a big fan of the shared driveway in any development, so I -- I'll stand with the rest of the Commission on that. I'd like to see a redesign. I don't mind the 75/25 split on that. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: And I guess I'd also comment that if the block wall -- I mean not having been a -- neighbors may not have requested it, because it was offered and I _._._._ - ~~ ~fk 4~ ~4., ~# v~ ~~ ~~ ' ~~ .x L 1~ r t y x.243 kY :: x 4 ~ S ;1 ~! - ~ F f .f ~ j ~~` tic 1" r ( v~ .,, .. ~.<<'~` l~~ ~s ~ ~. ~'C •-" t T y ~ _ ~ „~ ~ ?~~= ~ ~ '* ~ F s x ~ ~-'; ~k F ~. ~ ~F 1ry '~~ Z ,~~,~ a'^ ~ 'rya ,~ tt ~~, ,,.,",ry!~~~ .,~~ { +.< ~ ~~ ~ 5 { s a z# e °tv ~~,y~ r t ,F n ti~ ~.`_ x ugh ~~ ~+'+"'+ 3'. z ».t51j _ ~ ~ ~ ~? Yr j -ri 'r G~ lk~'_v _ z t/ sty ~i -~;`~ 4 s ~ k '~k, `i~S . ~ ~ .i n`. 1~ ~ "!,'x ,a. ~k lY S 1 ?-~L ~ 1. ra 7 f t a ~ # ?s.h ~8 1st 4 ~. s .. r'... C~ J Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 35 of 39 ~J would hate to remove it if they wanted it, but -- you know what I'm saying? So, I'm not exactly sure how to address that, but -- Moe: Well, I guess you address it the fact that there was no public testimony from any of the neighbors not wanting it, so, therefore, you know, they are spending a lot more money putting in a block wall than they are putting in a vinyl or any other type of fencing and so, you know, I commend them for that and so, therefore, I don't have a problem with a block wall. •.~ Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, just the letter from Mr. Widson, I just want to make comment on that, that he was opposed, it appears, to the wall surrounding his property. -, But he also wanted it to be single family as well. I have no further comment. ~` '' Moe: Let's see. Commissioner Marshall, I believe you're the -- do you have any other comments? '~ - Marshall: Just clarify myself, I guess, a little. Again, the block wall, I'm not overly fond Y f>:~ of it, but I guess as has been said, it's not a deal breaker for me in any means. I'm not ',~ fond of the parking. I don't like the layout here. You know, I don't mind the sidewalk ,• going across the street the way they have that. I guess my one remaining issue is the "':~;I parking. ' ~~ 4i ''L11'\I ~~r~i Moe: Well, all Commissioners have spoke on that. In those discussions I'll just kind of ` -`~i summarize out what I heard, basically, is is that there is probably four Commissioners 4 ~;>~~ that would like to see something done with the parking and one Commissioner has no `~" a'~ problem with the parking. So, having said that, I don't know who is planning to make . ~ motions, but that's kind of where we at. _.~:'=a. ~' ~~ `` Rohm: Can I make one last comment? ~`~~~ Moe: Yes. ''~ *~.' I w`=`-rl Rohm: I think that if it's the consensus of the Commission as a whole that the parking f,.,: jai be addressed, I would like to, as opposed to forwarding this, I'd like to continue this, -~~~ :F because I want to see the layout with that parking being addressed, as opposed to just <a`~. ~, given a direction to it. If we are going to make that a requirement, I think it should come back to this body, rather than forwarding it on -- ~~~~', Moe: I agree and we, basically, need to find out from the developer whether or not they '_ ~' have an interest to do that before we worry about continuing anything. We have closed the Public Hearing, but if we can just get a nod or something. The intent -- do you have any -- if they'd be in favor of a continuance to review the site plan again? I am going to 'i need a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. ,. 4';_'.'~ ;.~~I wy;-_ ~~ ' E~ ~'.~3i 'ry ~Y 'A'( ~~ i i ~ ~ { W r ~a ~. ~k ~ .1 t~ ~ '~"1T ~ '~ 6 : ~ ~ ~w }.~ ~ a ~T t,Z, '~' ~r ,~ F T~ ~ vi .,~ ~. s ,~ i fi ~ Z ;4.F ~' N Z N L : ~ y.. iA ,~ ; y c*a ys r t ~ - r ~ t'~'x ~ D ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ a b '~ ~f;i`u a _ ` ' ' irC' ~~. '~S ~ ~,. ~ i. ~ a -, s ~ ~ - _ , ~~'~t 5~ ~ ~ ~~ a ,~ ~4 ~, F~,~ d '~ Y0 ~ Fir Sf ~ ".. ~. ~~~ c #, ; s~. 'S `] ful 4~i~' R '. ~ u? i~ ,~ J„ ~~7"{ 5YGG y ~ " 1_ jig;: 'Sc c n s Y7 ~ ~ " ti R ` ~ ~ ' i , p ~ z ~~ - ,~ H 2h, , f. L ~Y`~ , _i 4 t . . ~ ~t,:~ W1 3~ ~ •~:~~5 ~ ~v~"1~~ ~ . 4 ~ F ,rL e ~ ~~~~pp !x~` ,r . ';fi ~;~'~I fi'.': ~~ ,~ ';: >;I ;;;-, ~,;.: t l .r ~~~ ~~ .L >` :~_ ~~~Sr~l >:.~:~ ~.•' ~,;s,~ ~ ,. ~~ ~;~~r, p .:. ~'i~:., h ;~ :, . Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 36 of 39 Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: Mr. Chairman. Second. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I don't want to be accused of being indecisive and slow. Moe: Because I think I know what you wanted to do. It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke, JUB, again. If that's the way the Commission's going, our preference would be to have simply a condition placed on us to that effect and to send it on. I would say two things in defense of that. One is you're not going to see a large difference in the site plan. Basically it's going to eliminate units, is what it's going to do. We are not going to totally redesign the site to accommodate that condition. You know, if you look at this tier here, there is really nowhere else to go. There is nothing else to do but eliminate units if we have to do that. And I haven't sat down and played with the numbers yet to see -- you know, in the dimensions, but I can tell you that we are going to try to lay it out without losing units and squeeze it where we can, but there is really not many other options. And the second point on that would be I would ask the Commission to consider looking at 60 feet, instead of 65. I mean a typical drive aisle in a parking lot is 24 feet, so I'm not sure where the 25 came from, but certainly 20 feet ought to be adequate, so we would have two parks at 20 and a drive aisle at 20, which is the width of the driveway, 20 feet. And that would make it more palatable for us and easier to -- to do the redesign. Moe: Well, to answer your first -- your first point, in the past this Commission doesn't like to go ahead and move things forward without seeing the changes done, so that we can approve them prior to going to City Council. So, I will not speak for the Commission, other than the fact that in -- like I said, in past we do not like sending anything on until we have seen the changes. The second point I guess I would ask staff what is their comment in regards to the -- the point of going to the 60 in lieu of the 65? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason why we came up with the -- first of all, let me go back and answer where we came up with the 25 foot drive aisle. Typically, when we are looking at subdivisions or parking lot layout, we typically -- code requires a 25 foot drive aisle between adjacent -- you know, adjacent to two way parking stalls and so that's why we felt that 24 was appropriate, but I had spoke with Caleb on it and I think 20 could be sufficient there and we could go 60 feet, rather than the 65 feet. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think that's a fair compromise. ~ C. ~~ f./$ -~ N ~ 4 4~ ~ /Y-~~- ,~ A ~ r :i i ~ r ,jit~ > ~ ~l ~ n ~ ~~'~ ~ 1~ y YFi ~ ~r`~' • ~~~ ~ ~` t. ~: cJf- n... _ _ t .~ a M'# j ~x-ti~~.t 5^ ~ F~~~:~ ~ yt 't'Y i t ~ t U ~ ,p ~,~$'~~ 4a 4 y *~~t~ .~Cy ~ri ~ x ~ ~ ` f -~x-. - , 4 .. =` . s, ~ > ~ a ~ ~ v +? 1.j'SW ~.+' _ t# t ~, k~ i ~ y~,.~~ ~ '. 3 ~ ~jk ~'~~ ' _ } 4 ~ t ~~ f F~, w ~ ~~ft hh t ,~~ - .~:,1 y r Y~ is Y a ~yy N , ~~ ~~Y.k'~'~~G S 1t Y~Y ~ ~S._ .- I~3'w~ i w. ~t,~az °. y ra f,.r~.-s~ ~ r,~~,x ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 37 of 39 Moe: I happen to agree one hundred percent. :~R; Fluke: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, just to address your comment, I appreciate why ~~~ you don't send things on with conditions, because oftentimes they -- they will have a large impact. But, again, I would just reiterate in this case you're not going to see a °~ `till different layout. The lots are going to be tiered -- they are not lots, but the units are going to be tiered just the way you see them now. We are either going to find the land in there, you know, the dimensions to squeeze them out or we are not and if we don't, ~:~ all we do Is to off two nl n lex on the end rather than afour- u is a d end u with a du p P P plex, so that -- r,:; -R ~~~'~ ~~ Moe: Any other questions? Okay. ~:~ ': ~~._ ~::; ~:? .. ,,.I ,;e K-~ Fluke: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close all three of the public hearings, AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. Moe: Before there is -- well, before you have the motion, I guess the applicant -- Mr. Fluke, can I ask you one more question just real quick on the -- I'm just curious. I just want to get a time frame, number one. Understanding what you're speaking about, you want us to move this one, what kind of a time frame are you looking at to be able to make these changes? I mean -- Fluke: We will make the changes next week and have them to the staff by the end of the week, so that we can be on your next hearing, if that -- Moe: That's what I wanted to make sure I understood. Thank you. Rohm: Again, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-020, PP 07- 027, and CUP 02-023. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ;,~, 4 Moe: Basically, what I have heard, if we can go down to the 60 wide and we can get a ~'~ `` little bit more room in the parking, I think that's a great compromise and I could live with that. However, again, I just bring up that I don't like moving things forward until they are -. c ~+ ~- ~° ~' ,~ fl - ,~ ~,kr~t; ~~ ,; ~... 3 J~' t ~'~. ~. F _ ~ c~a~~xh ..7"~"`: ~ ,,.~,~. ~ ; ~ s =: r~~a:'~. <, f ~ 1;. ~r r' ~ r ~ ~ 1 k ?f ~" tf Y _- ~Y~~~~ t i` ' _.. ti.. F r:, i f1G~L'. .. 7~ t~e~ ~.';' ~' ~ ~~ x '~'kj c ~' 4 ~~ i. r ~ .~r~t ~? ii ,r..~... ``~ ~i+i '~ i ,. ~... ~,Z ~ .:` sky',`.,.. ~'k fr r~?kM.~~,_ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning -- January 17, 2008 Page 38 of 39 ;., done before they go to City Council and, basically, it's making sure that they are done, so -- t.< `"`~' Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman? t:~; Moe: Yes, sir. =~ Rohm: I move that we continue the public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP ~~ 07-023, to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. ~~ ~ ~~ _~ O'Brien: Second. . Newton-Huckabay: Second. Nary: Mr. Chairman. ~' ~.' ~~' Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 07 -- r Y~ Nary: I'll wait until you're done. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. ~~ Moe: To continue AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, to the regularly scheduled `= ' meeting of February the 7th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves to continue ~~~ , "' " Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Nary. ~~ ' Nary: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make it clear, both for the public and the applicant and the Commission that your continuance -- my assumption was was only to discuss those specific items you have moved for redesign at your next meeting. So, you won't ~~.. be taking other testimony on the remainder of the project, just on those. Did t;~ '` -' understand that correctly? k-{ Moe: Thank you very much. There would be one more motion. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Moe: I need a second now. Marshall: I'll second. Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? ~ t''x- _ Ce f~,3xj~ - r ~ z 7v ~ tx c - ~~~2 ~ " ~. ~ r vl r ~~: 7 e ~~ai - A, N ~F~ ~.~r ~ y r. i~:~ - 1 ~~ ~r a i~ 3 :~ 4 ~_if - -~ r i f~'~ ' ~ ~Y ~~~. Y ~ 3 y 4 t ; ~ Y~ ~;~ _ R' x .i ~s ~ Y~ ~ ~~ J ... YI ix x;77?2~~ r %r !V ~~ ,~ t c ~f~"~ ..~ ~f~ ~ ~. k"i~ ` 7 ~ d L ~, ~q.. r t r J ~ Y { : . F?• 41 ~'ti F7,~' ~` 7 y1 i. ~} L~", 4 S t "' k~ rs, ~', ~ ~'~ ~ .r,4f. ~k a ~,,,~:.~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ tu1K - Z~ _~~ :~, ~~~~ ,~;:~~` ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~~ x January 17, 2008 Page 39 of 39 . ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are done. ~'; MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) A_PPROV 5?x~;' DAVID MOE -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVEQ ~~' `~ ~ ATTESTED: - ~ ~~ (~ ~ e ~~~ f ~~~rtamoe ad~s~~o ,~ '~ N"'~_ { 'r 4 ':i. '~' t~.: ~. }_':ji ~. 1"-, i. G ~ ~ 2 t l'~f .d I~ ~ ~~ _ ~ K- i 1 3 ~~ ~ ~ wH ~""-?r e i *` ~ ~ J ~' ~ p~ } ~(D t Ry. ~~~~i ~~ # J ~ 't !~f ti ~' r t, ~3~ 3>'.t F t1 ~:. ~ t '. k r ~ . ~ 1 i ~ ~ - j ~ ~ ~ a r~" :, , ..: ~4 ~ Ir .. i ~ y } ~ 4 '~ A 3~ r ~ 1 ~ ~. ~ .I ~1'~-~: J' . ' C ` v !'- ' 4 r,''-:ir s t . ,~ '`rte*;~i' r': f ', [t ~~ ~ ~~ ' { s L'~~ ~ ~ . '~ 1 t r ~ d, x s ii i .k Y~ ~ .:~~,- „ t ~ ~ ~ }~ ~~~~ P ~, Ott ~m (`~ ~ / - " 7 n - f c ~ ,~ 3, ~ f. t ~fi i ~ . ~tx'•. U\ .4 ' jj ~ HI i~y~. s ~, ~ _f. ~ ~ t'b ~ 4t i °~' ~ ~'. h ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~y'~ ~ 'r. ~'' ~ A+ i a - '~~' ¢ y ~~9 r.~ a .Y ..: ~~ '.~, nl i,^!. ;-,Li Y, ® o January 14, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 ', APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of January 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 'I AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~/~~ ` CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~ ~° ;~~ ~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: _,~ ' CITY FIRE DEPT: '~ ~`~_'~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ?I~~ _ .,~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~`=~" ~'I CITY PARKS DEPT: "; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: <`. ;;~ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: `~"'~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: '''~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. „~, ~i.3 d L `o k ~f ~ `ylY~..::j f.4 ~+ t,. S~ . ,0h~+-5 C4y-Y~ c s n y ~' ~ +E s,~; . ,: j~{3}~ . 1 n . ~"Y Yn ,~~ Y ~ b~ ~~3 ~ ~ ;? ~jy 1;~")~ y t~ ~ ~ 1 ~ _ ~ ~: _' Y y ~ I~}~1~1 ~~ ~~~~ fj T~ - -~-~, ~~ Y r F r ~ ~ .~ w ~ 'd ~k Sri` +~ rt_t .. .. '.d ~~~~!~~~ ..e~ 1 k}`'i '~ ' '~1' pYy "~ ~ 4 - 1 +~ t,,. c ,~ a ~Y~- j ~ ,..~~F fi ~1 * ~1: Vii P K}~'f~'~ , f Y ) ~ ~~ ~'SI~If ~ 3. ~ ~\:' ~ H %'a _ ! i'~~~ r , irk ~' ~ r ~ d~ ~ .~; ~ ~~ T ~ i'~~ ~ f ~w y~ i 4 Y~a l : ~$. ~~ i 'eT i3 :~cr.t 7 , ~ ~ ~ r ~ i i . ' .. ~ '~'~+f ~+ :'~ r ~ , ic . a?. y ?'J+' ~~ ° a( a ~ , 1 a ~, > ~: ,'3 ', 1 • ~ a,: a: January 14, 2008 CUP 07-020 _~ ;~'~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 APPLICANT Pamela Hall ITEM NO. 3-B ?, "` REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law for Approval- Conditional Use Permit - for adrive-thru window in a C-G zone within 300 feet of a residential district "k for Starbuck's Drive-Thru -Lot 3, Block 1 of Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Findings ~ ` -/~ ~~~ r~~' n C~~ L`~ Contacted: ~ Date: U Phone: ~(~ j- ~(~~r J Emailed: ~- t! ~(> taff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. r~; ~ ~ 44A Y`~ + ~ ~b _ J~. .t F ` t ;ir ~ fq` ~ ~' r ', c ~,. at.~ ~. . s { -, x. ' 4 ~ K"~5 "i~ h S jt4 ~ ( } ' t 1 y~kyF` a. P ... t~ ~„~ •~r4 ~y ::fi iN dy :'7 ~ ~ R r ,~Y ~#~= it;i ~:- ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ ' ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ° " rw: - ' 4 r t - ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~ 7 :; ~ f~ { ' fl j ~'~f~~ ~ ' r ~ E~ `~h N,' ., ~~~rr - ~',~- Hq ., , g}~ x F r ,5 tee- rt 5 ~. ry„' ,fii,~.~ - ~ Y 4 'AM 6.t~. ~. °P~r ,.-L ~ ;y `~L~~{ ~ r fl d t T:~ ~ ~ti 7 ~f 1~ i ~ ~` _ 34 `~~ fi ]` t ~ ~ j1. ~, ~ ~ ~ p F'~' '~ 7 r ~' 4 t1rtfj ~ ~ ,; ~~' ~: '' i.~ E~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ t! ~~ } l~ ~ ~ 1 ~ *~r~ 1 } ~ TNY ~~ r[n ~C e ~ w x ~ Y ~ 4~. ~,ri• ro ,µ „n..,,~,h, ~ , ~ ~P~ .~'L ~y ~ } ~ R~ bl'4.~.F~ } ,' I~~ F~ <: ~: ~~: ~:~ ..- .a' I ~.N _,~i v CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIAN:=-- LAW AND ~ ®~ B ~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval of aDrive-Through Establishment within 300 feet of a Residential District Case No(s). CUP-07-020 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Bearing Date of: January 3, 2008 (Findings on January 17, 2008). A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-020 Page 1 ~~ a~.ri :. i~y,~ s=~ r i ~ Y 5 ~,. ~~r ~,f a.a2~, `~ '- ~ <~ ,,:_ ', e gi x - ~ ri l~ P '~~ 7 h ~~ ~ ~ ~ 7~' d"w _ _ t ,_ < , ~`. ' ~~ ~ ` A. ~ y'L l'°`et ~ Y D+~ y~ a Ys) }''VQ'~ ~ +` ,L ~ "~ '~'~' c~.' t L r. r t - .~' ;_ ~Sl.'7:i{r a 'S g~_~' tn. .'.S? ~~,-. t~ ~ 3 «n r s ~,~.l ; 7 ~ L ~ ` ~' ~r ,,wx. ~ ~ r r a `ry.~.~ _, +r,k %r~.~,. t 5 ,,;: Lr ,, ~3: 4~ ,~ ~' y ~~ ~QILi t~ > ~ 'Y t ~1 ti.d- z 1;~~ ~ ~ { ,~~. r ~ na?"" ar w; e ,~ ~ ~ ` r ~ ~ _ t ~ ^F fa P~~i o f ~~ 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 Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 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 .~ ~1 Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein '. ~ adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan ='~:', dated 10/18/07, prepared by Horrock's Engineers, is hereby conditionally approved; ` and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff x Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference. ~?~:~ ~I D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits t,>'` ~' i 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 eriod of ei teen 18 months unless otherwise a roved b the Ci P ~ ( ) pP Y tY - During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the __ ,}~ conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, ~; ~'~I 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 r' 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-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the 4;''y 5 time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-020 Page 2 x •~-- ,~~ x .~~~y'~gf~t 4cJ. ~, ` ^ ~ ~ ~' r ~i y y • ~ v F' } v~~;~ r~kefii~` Y d n r y ~~ v~ r Y y y ~, 4 ~ 1 ~ ^§ ~ ¢ t r - 1 ~ ~ f ~ I I 9 fi .t~' ~'~3 t~ I f i k i~r }::? ~ - K /( h ~ il ' } ': ~7-r }}r a~~o t ~t~ ~' x ~~j,~ F ~~ - r~ k a r:: " v ~~ r .. r ~ d .. : *yf. :~'. r- - ~. cry :: l ~; Y 1a;?}; ~ n ~F 'T ~ x r ~ ~ ~ y h ~ ~:~ t r . ~ ~ r~l - t~,~~ _, " ' ,, ~ t ~ • ~, w..~ dt 7k -rx~ t ~ ~~ a~~` - j ~ ~ ~ . . y..Y ~ ~F j - ~ ~ •`4 ~~~ t a~ `' L ' ~' ter 4 r " r~ _ ~~ ~ LA : ' M ~ Y 1 i ' F A r ~ x ` IC. ~ ~ ~ require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code ~ ' '; Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than - -- twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of i the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008. ~t 14 Y` ":;. '1- c ~I r,,.,_ ,.... s i Y`•~ '3 ;: ~,~ ~` i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER '~~ y~l' CASE NO(S). CUP-07-020 ,:.:~ ~. °:~ Page 3 ~~ ~ w 3 ~r ~ ~ ~'~ b~7 f~ ~ ~ `' 1> _. ~ 4 ;~ t" r :_.f~ Y.:~. it ? z ~~ 4Hf ))~~nra~ . ~ "e ', - '~i ~+ r3 ~~ i ~ EY ~a+ 1 -_a ., i'+k I ~ - ~` +e wy-~ii( ~ ~f ~ i~`r~ ~ ~~, ~. 33 I` ~'is~ ~ 5 j'r t . . 'R S3 ~' ~ ;'J.'x ~! yry2 RLM~... ') ~ t Zj+ ~'~ i F " ra if t ~ ,,~ i t r, ~ e~~, , 7 ~~ ~4~k n: f ~~ ~ 3 f u } v ~ R > ~ ~S t~+q is f ~~ ~Yi3 .~+~t. ~ ~ r ~ - ~ ~ J,^' 'C f.'~,~~w r ~ ; c§ ~ i ~r,Y g r ~ ! r ~ ~ J ~~ ~ ~ _ 4 y.- ~i` `i - . ry`~ > M ~ ~~t ~~~~:. x~ i. '; 2.. ~~ ~~,~ qt ~~~P .~ ~ ~` ~~ 'F .. ~ ,. By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~ ' ~~ day of ~ ~ ~~, 2001. ' ` COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED r ;; COMMISSIONER MICHAEL E. ROHM VOTED y ~ i:~.(' COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED '~ I ~ d COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED a `LG(.~ t ' COMMISSIONER VOTEDI G~G ~/I ~(~~ ;N .. ._ CHAIRMAN DAVID D I E Attest: ~~.~`,~.~ O~ ~R~'~~ ''<,~ ~.. ,, ~® .qy ,,, ~, ~® '' ,q Tara Green, Deputy pity ler "`'' ,~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~~'~, ~ 1 ~~ pan ~~ :` Copy served upon Apphtd~~~~i\ge~epartment, Public Works Department and City t~ ., Attorney. ~° y- ~ ~ ,, ti; By: ~'~y~~° ~' ~ ~ ~ (, ~ Dated: r~~ ~ r.r. City Clerk ~~ ~ ~ L~ r:s" F ii i ~;=.~. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ;;`_~ CASE NO(S). CUP-07-020 Page 4 F '~'~ i ~ ~~,Yk'?6~Y,~ , - ~ ~~ ~ S k ' , f `, ~' ~i ~ a r ~ ' ' t i ~ ~ _,wit~~ a~t ~Cj ?'h ~ Y _ ~lJ~~ ~ ' { alt { ~ r 1 _ ~ ~ { ~7 ` ~pp A.%' ; ai'~:~ >y t: _u..t~i. ~%' tir n.:~.: i- ` 1 C 4 ~ ~ ~c ~ '-~ " 1 ~ ~ y "~ r~ , t~~ F r M..!~." ~~ x ~ k " ~ ~~~"u ~ i ~"~ 'S ti.' ~ 4 i r .. >l.{~~nf;~. ~ y}' ~f f ~~_'(~ ;n ~ .9' T r. ty ~ 4 4 Z } ~_. ' 11 ~ .~ n ~4 C +f,.a Y ~ ~ ~ * ( ~ N rF ' k S 1 . i ~ i ~ ~ } 1 , i~ ~rF „ .s~ h~ .. 7r ~ M Jf~ ~~ , Y_h ~ ~ ' f ~ y ~ ` ~ ~.y_y~~~l. - ~RR~~ ` ~~ M ~ 3-.s ~1 y, ~:. ~ ~ r l~ ns ( y~ ti r , i 5,y •'" ~ ~~ ^~Y ~~~ i ~ r r4:;~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 °=fi STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 3, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN~- FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 ~ d ~ ~ O' SUBJECT: Starbucks • CUP-07-020 _{ Conditional Use Permit for adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of a residential district • DES-07-020 ~.,r: - Design Review approval for structure/site located adjacent to an entryway corridor (Eagle Road) 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ~:~ ~' The applicant, Timberline Surveying, PLLC, has applied for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval of adrive-through establishment within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. Design Review (DES) approval is also requested for the proposed structure/site because of its location adjacent to an entryway corridor. Eagle Road is designated as an entryway corridor, and as required by UDC 11-3A-19, the applicant has submitted a design review application. The subject site ~: k is located on future Lot 3, Block 1, of the proposed Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1, on the southeast corner of E. Franklin Road and Eagle Road. ~.w ~EI ~-~kp The property is currently zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). The applicant ' is proposing to construct a restaurant (Starbuck s) with adrive-through window on this site. A _ restaurant is a principal permitted use within the C-G zone and adrive-through window is allowed as r',<.~ r- an accessory use. However, the Unified Development Code (IJDC 11-4-3-11) requires all drive- - through establishments that are proposed to be located within three hundred feet of an another drive- '- - through facility or an existing residence or residential district to obtain CUP approval, prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. ~`:`'~' 2. SUNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION s ""'` Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP and DES applications below. Per UDC 11-SA-2, the Planning & Zoning Commission is not required to make a decision on the DES ~~~~ ~! application. However, the Commission may review and make comments on the DES application, as it is significant to the proposed development of this property. Staff recommends approval of CUP-07- 020 (and DES-07-020) for the Starbuck's as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date ^li of January 3, 2008, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 3. 2008. At the --; ;' ~_~ public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-07-020. a. Sum i. II. iii. iv. - v. F, Vl. ~:~ mare of Commission Public Hearing: In favor: Pamela Hall, Timberline Surveyin~ (Applicant's Representative In opposition: None Commentins• None Written testimony: None Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters Other staff commenting on application: None Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 ','' Page 1 "r", ,'t z;i,t~~if.. i = 7?; (~ I `- S ~ 3. h-7~: 1 .1,. - l~ ~ a ~.~1:'' ~~ f~ k ' ~ f f ~'; i y ' ~ t T~$ G ~ ~ ~ „ 3 rt i l~j ~~ = ? ~'ti ,,..~ Ih ti 1 ` },f~3 ~,.,~ 4 f T. '~s.~ft.. t~ .7 (~ 1 ~~ t l ~ "~P M ~ '~: . 9 ~'~ ~rZ.. r .r f f ~6` ~ f ,`g. a.r.~y~'~. I Y vt,~" ~. ~ 3Ny x(f (v~ :: S~Y. } `~ ~~~ `~:: .}; r ~: :~, y ,L^ ,;i ~, . ~_ ~! ~,.,~ i ~I ., "7. '~;; , 'I {'~~=~ i, a ^> y:f', ~. „' ;~ ~~:' {. '~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None - c. Kev Commission Chances to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify condition #1.2 as follows: "A "Do Not Enter" sign shall be installed in the 1} east end of the planter island on the east north side of the drive-through lane on the Wiest south side of the building where traffic exits. This provision should help to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong direction; please include signage on a revised site plan." ii. Modify condition #1.3 as follows: A "Caution -Pedestrian Crossing" sign shall be installed on the west side of the building where traffic es~ts enters the drive-thru; please include ~ signage on a revised site plan." 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-07- 020 (and DES-07-020, optional) as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-07-020 (and DES-07-020, optional) as presented during the hearing of January 3, 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 Commission hearing on January 17, 2008. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 07-020 (and DES-07-020, optional) 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: Lot 3, Block 1 of the proposed Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1 In the NW % of Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 1 East b. Owner: Ahlquist Development, LLC 13901 W. Wainwright, Suite B Boise, ID 83713 c. Applicant: Timberline Surveying, PLLC 847 Park Centre Way, Suite # Nampa, Idaho 83651 d. Representative: Pamela Hall, Timberline Surveying e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 2 b ~ ~~ ` 4 { t~ ~ - 7 ~i ~ h f :f~' 4 ~ f { 1 x '~ i ' ~'~ j4 ~ ~ r F {yyf~'~ ~~~~'S+ ~ i i t, - ~ r .~ - `d'~7 `IYk ~Lt i - ~r~` -; ~~ t +.'+r J4~.. __ ..~,~ ~, i~ ~. j,^.,eh U y~'~w .~; ~. r t ,_ ~z.i as rr~ - v~U ~~' } ~R i ~ ~ ~ )~k ~ h h i; t k i• ~ C Hr -i ~ ' ~ A ; ~ y ; t f 4 - ~ ~ yr l ~ - ~ r ~^. t nil P Z +': ~,i ~ S~~ t ~~.J rt} ly _. yl.` _. .7 1 4 :r t _ ~ ~ i ~. r~ q a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ° ~` ` 3 ~ ~ v t r^ i; c. . ,~ , rt~ a` 7 µ ~ F ~ ~ Zr~,,i 1 Lt }t ~ ' ~ h ., ou . ~ ~ Z~ M1 Y N µ ~ '. 1 'fir S .~,' YA ;~ f-\ ~R ~~~ ~ ~~'~~r ~~ > 4f( + ~ ` ~P ~ r' a ~ ~ t -rc ~: ~ v f' ~ ye. ~4v^i~D'~ ! Fi r,~ i^:b: ~ Y" ~ r "' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 _ f. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval " ~ ~ for adrive-through window within 300 feet of an existing residence and a residential district. The ~:~ drive-through will be located on the west side of the building as shown on the site plan. Design ;: ti Review approval is also requested for the proposed structure/site because of its location adjacent '"- to an entryway corridor (Eagle Road) as required by UDC 11-3A-19. Note: The Commission is " not requited to make a decision on the DR application. l 1. Date of Site Plan (See Exhibit A): October 18, 2007 ~ . tl - - 2. Date of Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): November 30, 2007 y ~', tc~~ '', 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use per City Ordinance. By reason of r ,`~ the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning , Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17, 2007; December 31, 2007 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 14, 2007 i~., d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 10, 2007 6. LAND USE <'; _~ a. Existing Land Use(s): The site currently consists of vacant commercially (C-G) zoned land. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding properties in the Gardner- ;~- .Y'~ Ahlquist development have recently been annexed and zoned C-G for commercial uses. This site use to contain several homes; the site has been cleared for commercial development. The site is ~, surrounded by commercially (C-G and L-O) zoned properties on all sides, and existing rural ~ residential homes to the southwest in Greenhill Estates subdivision, in Ada County. ~.~,, c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: ~~ ~~ }~ 1. North: Commercial property (R.C. Willey's), zoned C-G 2. West: Office property (Parkway Plaza), zoned L-O t.. M~ 3. South: St. Luke's Medical Center/Hospital, zoned L-O .-,,r;~,! 4. East: Meadowlake Village, retirement community, zoned L-O y, "~~~n` d. History of Previous Actions: - On July 10, 2007, the subject property (included in the 26.84 acre Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway ?~c` ~ development) was granted Annexation and Zoning (AZ-06-065) approval by the City Council with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zone. A Development Agreement was also approved with the annexation (Instrument No. 107099628). ~~; - On Apri124, 2007, a Variance (VAR-07-006) was approved for aright-in/right-out access to _~,~, Eagle Road south of this site. ',t° - On May 28, 2007, a Preliminary Plat (PP-07-007) was approved by City Council for the '.` ' ;. Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway development (which included this property) for 11 building lots on 19.3 acres in a C-G zone. - On September 11, 2007, a Final Plat (FP-07-027) was approved by City Council for the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway development for 11 building lots on 18.47 acres in a C-G zone. `'~ Starbuck s Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 3 ';~ ~- = , b, ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ } ~ ~ ~ ;~ n .. ~ y . 1 '~ t. 'u3!•.~ ~. a .~ ~ v .,~ Le ~A`' ~ ~ Y„~Y ~ ~yS .f~~'~ ... ~F' ' - ~ '..~",. ~ 1. iF' i' ~? h o 1 :F n ~ ~ r . N ~., , %y. - ~' t r ~ 4 ~ - d vl~ r1 ~, ' {~ ~PFR" r~ ..c 3 ~" h S 1 r t ~ ` l~ ~ ' d y~~ 4s;3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rt~~l ~ - - ~ I k _ R 4 . ~ t 1 ~ ,r r ,~ t ' '" ~ ~ a „ f 4 ? r ~ t-" y' S::.w~ ~ 3 4 4 7 ~~ ~ v ~ •_ - ~ f et _'~ .~ s` ,~ ~ ~. ~ a s ~ f~~ t.~r a - 4 a fir' '~~. hk a :ri'$. ~ - T ~` t rt ~ j y~ ,~. a ~ - ' - C .,.,4 .: J. ., l~~~L~y',. y -i. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 The subject property was included in the final plat as Lot 3, Block 1, Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1. The fznal plat has not yet been recorded. - On November 7, 2007, a Variance (VAR-07-018) to UDC 11-3B-7C2 was approved to allow up to 35 feet of the required 35-foot wide landscape buffer to be constructed within the Idaho Transportation Department's right-of--way along Eagle Road. A Variance to UDC Table 11- 2B-3 was also approved to be allowed to decrease the required street landscape buffer width from 35 feet to 30 feet for approximately 541inear feet along Eagle Road - On November 7, 2007, a Vacation (VAC-07-012) was approved to vacate the existing public utility, drainage, and irrigation easements within Montvue Park Subdivision. - On November 7, 2007, a modification of the recorded Development Agreement (DA) was approved to include both phases of the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway development into one DA. The modified DA was recorded as Instrument No. 107164790. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: This property will sewer from mains located in E Franklin Road. Location of water: There are currently water mains in E Franklin Road and E. Louise Drive that were installed with the Gardner-Ahlquist Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None existing 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No canals or ditches traverse this site. 5. Hazards: NA 6. Size of Property: 0.3 of an acre 7. Description of Use: Proposed drive-through window fora 3,824 square foot restaurant (Starbuck's) f. Summary of Proposed Streets and / or Access: Access to this site will be provided from internal driveways that connect to one right-in/right- out/left-in access point on Franklin Road via S. Brooklyn Avenue and one right-in/right-out access point on Eagle Road via E. Louise Drive. The access to/from Eagle Road/SH 55 was previously approved with VAR-07-006; the access to/from Franklin road was approved with the preliminary plat (PP-07-007). Across-access agreement will be recorded via a note on the plat for all lots within the Gardner-Ahlquist Subdivision No. 1. Direct lot access to Eagle Road and Franklin Road is prohibited. Because this lot is the first lot to develop within this subdivision, internal streets and driveways have not yet been constructed. Staff is including a condition of approval in Exhibit B that either of the following shall be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed building: 1) Construct two, minimum 24foot wide paved driveways that meet the Fire Department construction standards, to this site (1 to/from Eagle Road via Louise Drive and 1 to/from Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue); or 2) Construct one, minimum 24-foot wide paved driveway that meets the Fire Department construction standards, to this site from Eagle Road via Louise Drive or Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue and construct temporary Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 4 r-:-. .i.>~_=~..... ,~ .._ .. >r , ~ ~ ;r ~ lid ~ } 'i. rJY t.•. ,yy H x. fr`~~ } $s ij `S n!{i: ~5 ,i~i t' ! ^5 I: r; .1 ~ ~ `. C. Nn r~dr~:ye ~. yy . n'L'' ~~ ~ ~.~ij.±rl) , ,y,w ~ ~~ 1 ,y Yr});. ...,i ,~ ' ' S r a ~ a ~~,. k w `i ~ a1 ~' ~ ~. ~~ ~~ j 1h_ ~~~ d..,x 4 ~ z" k -f"-, x ~ r , ~ ~e y ^ ~+ irfir e~ryf.. L," [4 ~•~ ' . ry .. T e ~ 1 ~L F ;. -~~ ~ ' ~ ~ . ti ~~ ~ ~ e c~2r~~ Y 1 ~ Y ( 'h O~~ ~~nn ~n1 NM1 l~Y t.. 44 tt K~L~.I:Y... ~y~f~ is is .~'' l„i ~,~~,,. Jr, '' ' ' c CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 construction fencing around the site and driveway to the site to prevent vehicles <II from drivin across the construction site where there are no paved g >~`; ~ driveways/roads. - 7. AGENCY COMMENTS °a Y a; w=:~'~:~ On November 30, 2007, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police - N;I Department, and Meridian Public Works Department. Staff has included comments, conditions and ~:~-=`~' recommended actions in Exhibit B below. ~~~~ 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" on the Future Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan defines the Commercial district as providing "a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone." The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a 3,824 square foot restaurant with adrive-through window on the subject property within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. The proposed use of the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for this area. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. - The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACFID) and ITD. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 5 Y n 'a~ r i . ~ + t _ ~ S ' r R~ r c ,w s ,~sr ~ r ' .~~~:. ' ~ ~ .ran: y. r F ~-C .. ~3 ~. T r{ i ~C1.,"H 'G . ~~ s ~ t ~ ~ , i c e~~r - r,a ~7 --3 r4~ ~ Rao~ ~'~:~~. N Y y '+~.. o ~. t -. - Cyy r ~r t G'h ~ '~ t P. r r , 7'i,,. y ~' r z ' ' ~ Z E " y ~ r } ' ~ _ k ` ~~ - C ~~ i ~ - - 1 ~~ ~ ,y ~. Fa i~~. _. k `' x ~}., ti ~ ~ e w ~. ~ -~ (( ~ ~ Lr.. y ~`~ ~^~ ~T ~ A ~ ~S.F " ~- ~9y F ,+ t x:~ S ~ ~ r :v ~`r.~r ` ~ ~ ~S~ r..s~ . "7 ~~~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping on the site in accordance with UDC 11-3B. A landscape plan was previously approved by the Planning Department with the Final Plat (FP-07-027) application for Gardner Ahlquist Gateway for the street buffer landscaping along Eagle Road that abuts this site on the west. Internal parking lot landscaping is proposed on the landscape plan submitted with this application for this site. All landscaping installed on the site shall comply with the approved landscape plan and UDC 11-3B and shall be maintained. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) A street buffer will be installed adjacent to Eagle Road, an entryway corridor in compliance with the landscape plan approved with the Final Plat (FP-07-027) and UDC 11-3B-7. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed restaurant use (Starbuck's) with adrive-through window on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. Staff also fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimize access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets:' (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on ...arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Obj. D, #5, page 107) No direct access is being proposed to this site. With the GardnerAhlquistprojecr, only one access point was approved on Eagle Road/SH 55 and only one access point was approved on Franklin Road, both arterial streets. Cross-access is provided to all lots within Gardner Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No. 1. Please see section 6.f. above for details on access provided to this site. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists a drive-through facility as an Accessory/Conditional use in the C-G zone, with Specific Use Standards for Drive-through Establishments. The Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.11 for Drive-through Establishments require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for drive-through facilities that are within 300 feet of another drive-through facility or a residential district or an existing residence (see Section 10 below for additional specific use standards related to drive-through establishments). The subject property is within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services, as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 6 ~.y ; , t ,,,,.. ~ d w.. ~;:.. t ~' - r ~ y~ .. g r > ~~z ~ ~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' 7 ~ 'k t ~i ~!* ~. a . t r ~,2~ h ~~ r ~ iq ~F ~~~ , ~ ~ eye ~ r , ; z ~~-0 r~ F ~ >.Y~~~ _ ~ ~, ~4 N l~ y ~S" C ~ 1 ' -t 7 ~ , - _w , rr~s r~,~,„„ ~. ~ f '. l Y ~ _ . , D e kr ' ~~ ;? ~~`i~+.,t;'~. ~ ~ ,'~~- T' 1 N ~ P.~• , . T ~ti p'te p -r e i ~ ~ ~yaf ~~ . Y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i rt - , ~1X~7 '' i ' ; ~ 1 ~. ~ ~_ 4 t b ~Y VIE Sr - ~ .c~{' 7 ^ F , d4 ~ i' ~ ~ Y ~ ~ h s j3 ~1- , Yy .r,.xw;t. ~f. ,.. `';`4 ,aka ~fe.~'~ "c x.,.~,'~ ~• 1$}r'.r~'~i .. ,. w .fir .> a. c ~*. a. ,~ '~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 ~, i 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: The applicant is proposing to construct a new building for Starbuck's with adrive-through window on the subject property within 300 feet of an existing residence in a residential district. The UDC (11-4-3.11) requires CUP approval for drive-through establishments that are proposed to be located within 300 feet of an existing residence and/or a residential district. Compliance with the design standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-19C pertaining to site and building design is also required for properties that are adjacent to an entryway corridor. In compliance with the aforementioned UDC requirements, the applicant is requesting CUP and DES approval for the proposed Starbuck's building and site with the subject application. This lot is the first lot to develop within this subdivision and internal streets and driveways have not yet been constructed. Because this site does not have a direct access point to either Franklin or Eagle Roads and is essentially landlocked, Staff is including a condition of approval in Exhibit B that a paved access road(s) be provided to this site prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building on this site (see Access below for more information). Landscaping: The applicant submitted a landscape plan with this application prepared on November 30, 2007 by The Land Group, labeled as Sheet L1.0. The street buffer landscaping along Eagle Road was reviewed and approved with the final plat for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision No.l. Staff has reviewed the internal parking lot landscaping depicted on the landscape plan and found it complies with the landscaping requirements in UDC 11-3B-8. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6, 1 vehicle parking space per 500 square feet of gross floor area is required in commercial districts. The proposed building consists of 3,824 square feet; thus, 8 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing 8 parking spaces on the site (Lot 1, Block 3), which complies with this requirement. Additionally, across-access/cross-parking agreement will be recorded with the plat, as a note on the face of the plat, between all of the lots within this subdivision, which will allow for more parking if needed. Also, per UDC 11-3C-6, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every 25 vehicle parking spaces. Per this requirement, a bicycle rack capable of holding at least one bicycle is required on the site. Access: Access to this site will be provided from internal driveways that connect to one right- in/right-out/left-in access point on Franklin Road via S. Brooklyn Avenue, and one right-in/right- out access point on Eagle Road via E. Louise Drive. The access to/from Eagle Road/SH 55 was previously approved with VAR-07-006; the access to/from Franklin road was approved with the preliminary plat (PP-07-007). Direct lot access to Eagle Road and Franklin Road is prohibited. Staff is supportive of the proposed access to the site. Staff is recommending that a "Do Not Enter" sign be installed in the north end of the planter island on the east side of the drive- through lane on the west side of the building where traffic exits. This provision should help to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong direction; please include signage on plan. Additionally, because this lot is the first lot to develop within this subdivision, internal streets and driveways to this site have not yet been constructed. Staff is including a condition of approval in Exhibit B that either of the following shall be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed building: 1) Construct two, minimum 24foot wide paved driveways that meet the Fire Department construction standards, to this site (1 to/from Eagle Road via Louise Drive and 1 to/from Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue); oY 2) Construct one, minimum 24-foot wide paved driveway that meets the Fire Department construction standards, to this site from Eagle Road via Louise Drive or Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue and construct temporary construction fencing around the site and driveway to the site to prevent vehicles Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 7 ,,, , ~' i ~ ~+ ~~i~. ~A ^ _ pp ~ M IF ~ $ ~y.p~ ~ ~ ~ %~ ~. ~' i t S r .i S c _ ~ r, k. ~, ~ F ~~~y' l rr, e ~ S ~ r ~ A ~.r t ~ ~l! .:'h ~~. Y4 , ~! ,w t {f . `~.. ' f Z ffw i~•.- - i S~ ~~'s ~ !1'`fF ~~I~~ _ ~4 ~ , ~'~~ Y { _..~ ~ 4 y~ !! elk Y t r~ k.x r: 7~7,, ` ~ t t ~t~' 4 S ~* S 7 . ' ? a" 1,.44. ~S ~ k x g'r', _~,.( y , A / ~l i ~` r ~ ~ R Y ` ~ F } r~ ?F b- ~ ~. ~~- ( ~k'l~[ • 1 -' ~ . r~ _ 1 4'. #~ ~n" 4 u 2 ~ r ' 1 ~ .T ~ s ;h S ~ 7'F r y. f r ~ ~ ~ Y. t i ~~~°, ~ i. ~ ~ Z ' `,'k, -.t >~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINV~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 from driving across the construction site where there are no paved driveways/roads. Development along State and Federal Highways: Per the UDC (11-3H-2), specific development standards apply to property located adjacent to a state highway. In this case, SH 55/Eagle Road, borders this property on the west, so compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4 is required. The aforementioned standards were reviewed with previous applications and the site was found to comply with the standards listed. Specific Use Standards for Drive-through's: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed drive-through design, and fmds that it meets the requirements set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11, which states that "a site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties." UDC 11-4-3.11 goes on to state: At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of--way by patrons; • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking; • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or existing residence; • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape lane. • A letter from the Transportation Authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies shall be required. Staff finds that the site plan submitted with this application complies with the specific use standards for adrive-through establishment, as set forth in UDC 11-43.11C. Further, staff believes that there are no mitigation measures necessary to protect the existing homes across Eagle Road from the proposed drive-through. Design Review: Because the subject property is located adjacent to an entryway corridor (Eagle Road), structures proposed on this site are subject to the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19C, as follows (staff analysis in italics): 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 facade visible from Eagle Road has modulations in the facade, roof lines recesses and projections that meet this requirement. b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. The primary building entrance on the east side of the building is defined by an awning over the entrance. The windows and awnings shown on the west elevation (Eagle Road exposure) exceed the required 30% of the facade length. 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 parapet heights and cornices, which complies with this requirement. ._,, Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 8 ~+y~`~} ~Sy G ~ ~ ~. / K ,". ~'~ : ~ r ~ cx ~e~r tP ~ 1 . ` ~ . . L ~+ 4 ~ , ~ a i e~ ^ r ,~ , y~' i ~ ' 4 l ~ _ ~ ~~ ; . At z„4A~::~j,i ~ Nf,T+n ~ ,~ ~ ~y~ ~ lli 'S.~ ~-~. F,~'~ t ' r+.~ ~, .C * x ~-~. A ~ f}'.i~ iy' ~ 4 ` J. Sfi 'Ft t Fy~ji: DVS ~~ . -- Kt j} _ µ _ ~f F ~ ' _,t d~ /Y M~ ~ r ~ ~'.~:a , ~ ~t '~~~ x 4 ~ ~, ~~ ~ E ~ L , ~~ K 3'f'~ ` K y - 1~F ~~ u• 1~,' ' ~ t M ~ A -~ `~ ~r~ti~~.. d i N~ ~ r. ?. . f d i ~ ~~~ ~~ .n ~ ~ ~ ' y ~ ~{ ,~v ePn 2 y , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 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. The building design incorporates finishing materials such as E.F.I.S. and stone veneer. The E.F.I.S. consists of a minimum of 3 different colors to compliment the stone veneer. The proposed building design complies with this requirement. e. Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. All mechanical equipment will be screened by the parapets as required. 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. The building is proposed to be constructed primarily of E.F.I.S. and a stone veneer, which complies with this requirement. 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front fagade 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. None of the off-street parking is located between the front facade of the structure and Eagle Road, which 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 pedestrian walkway is depicted on the site & landscape plans from the sidewalk along Eagle Road to the main building entrance. Because the pathway is proposed to cross the drive-through driveway, Staff recommends that a "Caution: Pedestrian Crossing" sign be installed at the terminus of the driveway for the drive-through. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. Construction materials for the walkway are not currently depicted on the site plan. The proposed 8 foot wide walkway shall be constructed according to this requirement. 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. This requirement is not applicable to this 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 building elevations depicted on Sheets A.2.1 & A.2.2 show awnings over the entrance of some of the entrances but not all of the entrances. Weather protection shall be installed for all customer entrances to comply with this requirement. (Note: There are discrepancies between the line drawings and the colored drawings included in Exhibit A.4. -the entrances without awnings shown on Sheets A2.1 & A2.2 are not shown on the colored drawings.) Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 9 ~r',r° ~ ~ , s~ , . ' .. M ~' , 1 ' ' h r ~. ~ ~'~ , t ~. Y K L ~1p h ~ _ i~- ~ ~~,~ # ~ ~ .. ~ ' - _ .a . , . t - ..'Z r x ~ r 4f -. -_ ' x A'M ~y f C { P . ~ . ~ ~ € 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Y ~ C .lR, 7` Z F ~ ' ~,~ Y~ ~~'~c ~ G y { fy'~ 1 j ~ } ~ ~ ~~ l ~C ~~ ~ . ~ 5 k ? ~~' ~ ~ o t ~ ~'~SH'I .~ .r r fi, c '~'~ i a rx; ~~ 2 Y ^~ L ~ i ,3 y ~.;j r s~' ~''$ ~'y'j'~- 4 N . 1 (~ T' Vii' p' '~~ f 1 n tc S.~ r ~~ ~ S t~ . i ~ ~ ~~` ~ Y' f, ~ V,,~' ~~SL7 f.~ S~ b , i ) 1_ y t~' q h~ ( !. 4 t~ , .~1 ~. i ~ ~ ~ ~P £,}~" 4 t t~5 +aC 7v''.!'C.' ~ ti ,~'t kJ•+~~_ }~ l r _'_4 ]~ 1'1 ~J~Y~ ~ .. ~~.... CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINri DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 (Note: The EIFS material noted above stands for "Exterior Insulation Finishing System. " EIFS is not 'stucco' in the sense of the word stucco. Traditional stucco consists of sand, Portland cement, and water, and is a hard, dense, thick, non-insulating material. EIFS is a lightweight wall cladding that includes foam plastic insulation and thin synthetic coatings. Specifically, there are three layers to EIFS: 1) Inner Layer: Foam insulation board that's secured to the exterior wall surface, often with adhesive. 2) Middle Layey.• A polymer and cement base coat that's applied to the top of the insulation, then reinforced with glass fiber mesh. 3) Exterior Layer: A textured finish-coat.) Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for this site, prepared by VCBO Architecture, labeled as Sheets A2.1 and A2.2, dated 10/3/07. Color elevations were also submitted for this site. Note: The building entrances shown on the colored elevations do not match those shown on the architectural drawings. The applicant states that the colored drawings are more recent and reflect the actual entrances proposed. Staff has reviewed the proposed elevations and construction materials and is supportive of the elevations and materials proposed. Site Layout: A conceptual site plan was approved and included in the Development Agreement for this site depicting proposed building locations and square footages. Staff has reviewed said plan and found the proposed building size and location to substantially comply with the previously approved conceptual site plan. j 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 (iJDC 11-SB-lA). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain a CZC from the Planning Department prior to receiving a building permit. With the CZC application, please include the following additional information on the site plan and/or landscape plan submitted with the new CZC for this site: • A "Do Not Enter" sign should be installed in the north end of the planter island on the east side of the drive-through lane on the west side of the building where traffic exits. This provision should help to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong direction; please include signage on plan. • A "Caution: Pedestrian Crossing" sign should be installed at the terminus of the north end of the driveway for the drive-through. • The site plan shall depict the stacking lane, menu and speaker location (if applicable), and window location for the drive-through window. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-07-020 (and DES-07- 020) for Starbuck's drive-through, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 3, 2008. At the public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-07-020, Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 10 ~a.'~ a~ ~r ~ ~ r Y ~~ .. ~ ~~ } ~ n ;p E ~~ ~' ~ , _ ~ ~:, Os ~~_~r ~ ] _ ~ i''y- -' ~ ,'t.: T ~ y~~ t" a ,~ t .~ ~ ~~ >~~ ~# ~ ? ' `~ Ry `', . a ~ ~ b ; .r e ~ ' 't ,s~~^` Y" ~ ,~ ~~ g ~u'~~t "Y~`` ~ ~'~ = ,r if i; ` ~~ ` Y ~r'r< ?Z ~, 1...~~. ~ ~~ `~ ~ ' . ~' ` ~R L''C.. ti . ~, YY 93 ~~..fi.~~ {ham ~~: -F~ u ~~~~ ` i~y Nr 2 ~ j ~ ? ~ x .tin-; ~, p „ ~:.. _.. :'6 ~ '~ 4 l `~ Y i~ 2.tr .~" } ~}~~~LL~ 4 k~ ;'fit Y }•,~~~ err 1- r ~y , ~~ ~ ~ r- t , c ` ~1 r~~ S r~s , g§~~ Y' 4 ^, ~ a~ 3 a t ~, ' , , _ SY X ~ti ~k~ a14.1.~:•. ~ jj ~r -~ 1 ~' ~ ~~~ ~{., ~ .S~s r~ ~ ,` tl~~>. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 11. EXITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan (prepared by Horrocks Engineers, dated 10/18/07) 3. Landscape Plan (prepared by The Land Group, labeled as Sheet L1.0, dated 11/30/07) 4. Building Elevations (prepared by VCBO Architecture, labeled as Sheets A2.1 & A2.2, dated 10/3/07) 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 ~~; C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Starbucks Drive Thru CUP-07-020 Page 11 a ,, ;, .~ ~ ,, _: ~' k1"~~ rA ~~~ r I.f Y - ~ ~ .. t . ~4 +i F raY` v a - r ~ '~~' S ~ Awe 7s ~y'.t4~. . elf r.1E r Y ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~; f ~ L (I +l'c hF ^ ~~ ~ ~s~~-~~ i ~,- , ~ ~ k ~L ~'. '" ) N ` ~ Yh F ~ ~~ 1 K `6'-. ~~g .~i( Ct~ .t~~ y~ 1 1 iAl yit-, r `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~N F- ):~ ~tij:t~ .: ~, b 1 ~ ti ~ y,1.,~ L'~ E lt •,_ ~~ '. ~~I`., E ' ~~ `~ i T~S ~~' '~ ~~. _ ~ . ~ . ~~ .., 4.,.Z ~se Ma ~ Fy ~ ~1~ h ~ , y r~ ~ :_~i ^~~ ~?d~;~,'C: a. r - v-; `' ,c ~r Sa J a A~ . .. ~ 1'( , Y > ` + ' 4 f J _ ?-t '4 l 'I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP~TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING D~CTE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map (property lines shown reflect those in the previous Montvue Subdivision; the final plat for Gardner Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision is not yet recorded) M1 C- G L-O /\\1' RI 6W98 `" ~/) ~~ ;~i ~ - RIIT L cc - __ _ r~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP1~ItTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING ~TE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 2. Site Plan (prepared by Horrocks Engineers, dated 10/18/07) ~. 1 ~: Exhibit A p ~~ ` '{ ' 1 _ ,R «, ~ . Y ~ ~ k 5 ,6,-~~ / ry Y ~ u ~ ~yyf .rnvy ~ .. 4 t tl.; ~ W b 4 1 ~~~~ ,r ~ Y ~ } N ',.~, ~ E 1 i y ` l t C' U s+ y ;.~_ k r 3°-'r-,{~ ~ Y ~ ~ r - ~.,, ~£ ~ r.~ 1 1~i'r ~}F-.311' ~ _ /' ~ .Z ~._~~~ f J h~ ~~ ~ E ~: L i e ~,~ ~« h ~'a~^'~1 ~f ~ ~ ~ r ti y ~ .d. ~~~ 1 ~~ ~ }~ , ~ K `'.~ .. Tr6 ~ ~L Y ,. y = ~ ~~ 3~~ .. r y s ~;~ r ~ ~ y,~ 7 -:; ~i ~y~y ) `~ ~ t ~,, , ~1 < i h h. ;~ ~ ay ! ~~ ~ ~ s 3 `f, J 9 s * } 7 ~ r ~` k ~ y ~ 1 ~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP~TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DTTE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Exhibit A 2. Landscape Plan (prepared by The Land Group, labeled as Sheet L1.0, dated 11/30/07) 2i ~, ~~ ~N p~u d--- a ®E~' a ~~ ~~~' f. ~~ i~ i~ i u 0 u ~o ~. II,.!!."~~'~'~ F3 ` 41~ ~~ ''~~3 ~t is 1 {r b~ ~~ ~ l ~ } +' t- ~ Wixk~ ~ ,k`F~ yf~t ~ ~~ f - r 3{i . r i~~ .1 -- ~~ }~y7 t 1. a'F ~~~ -j a^ 1 '2 } '.a S ~ ~ Y }} j'+ ~ 1: ; ~ { ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ k 4 Y (T ' ~ affil ".~. . iYI ~~~,~ ~ 9~~q y ~ ~ F ~' ~"`~ 1a Y ~~~ ~ k t ) ~` 7,~ ~ ~ ~ `e ' ~ i ~ r s .. rt~ e:~o~ } ~ ~ i, r ( r i ~ ' ~b ,zr~r,~; i~ . - ~ Ar Rd:'i : :~ a > y 2 „ ~ :~ ~ ~~1._ i ~ SAG rrr Y l F e ~`~.' ' ~ ~ ~r ~~k ~~~~- ~ ~ f, ~rY r ~ ~}4'ui~., v ~ '1 ~, 4 ~~ „~ ~FZ _ _ - ~ ~ ~ i? _ 9o.'i 4 ~ i - = _ _ _ = ~„ ~, ii s,~ , ,~ I ti, ~ 0 - w I', ~1 tl CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP~tTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING OF JANUARY 3, 2008 3. Building Elevations (prepared by VCBO Architecture, labeled as Sheets A2.1 & A2.2, dated 10/3/07) ~,, ~~~M +--: eri~rn+mrr~eicgsa ~:i ,~ ~ ~ eos~ \. _J v=.: Exhibit A i f~ •t :?~. x~ .~~,. ` c~^ ~ : - ~ s ,. ,~ b~ a ' fi FYt • ~~ ~" ~ t Y.~, ~4,,:~~.. ~ ~,¢,.~ ~,f'~~.. t i~er"r'~',~,, . ~~tr~ k Fr~c„ ~~ 'S i.'af r i } ~ _ ~ f ~ ~, ~{ , x s, r ~, r ~ ~ h 1-.`~:1~ J ~~ ~~~ r 5 .. ~ y~.M~~~ l ~ ( .Y ~0. a '~ ? ! < r~ra ..' ~q.x 1 ~ ~~ ~ i ~r 4~ PL" s r- -t+r ~ . ., . 'iH~1: f~tti _ ^d '`- ~L~ _ Nt ~'~3 A i,.h• F. y ;_ jj~ , J j ~l F. ~7 ~' .r; .,i ...i;y~a S ~ t ~ ' f b ~ 3 ~ a #~' ~ ~ ~~' t ~`~t Y . ~ .. ~~~~ ~ ~ h fi ~M-..,'y'k~., ~ i., i i ' ~~ r. ri~ .y v~~ C ... 'it r ~` - ~ r ~r R• E-K+ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEP~TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 ~,."' ~C :..~_'_ ` ^' -~. F F 1 i. ~ `~ ' ~ y~ mil/ ~\ F .._.. ~C '/ ~ ' . ~ \ ~~~ `~ rl -~'.,~f. ws~ nr ~ ~ 4 -y 4 R ~..-F .~ i f c ~ ~ x- ~,v. - - « ~ ~~ i 4 ~ , ~, tl 5 i p~ # ~ ~ ~ ` a f Exhibit A _~.,. ~ , ~ M ~"J k ` f 4 ; ~ k t +y~i r ry~.. 1 .Fh 4 '~ 1 ~ fy 1 _r 1 ` 11 { l~ ~ ~~ ~ :. £ 1 v'n 'SSq.. ,} ' t,~~. 1 ~~}~. c ~ ~" ~ 'S~ ~ ' } *;.. 5 ~ t-c~ `fir ~, ur. 'i~., r. r~ r I ~^~ ~'s ri , ,~ ` 2 ~ F • ~,~ : ~ 1 `~ x , ,~ {:.~~, 1 w, , Y t 5. 1 ~ ~ti'T~Y - ri S t ( ~ ~ Af' '4'+' .~ ~~~~~ ~~ s u~ i ',?'8~ a :~ max. ~ ~ ( n,~ :. * Yf f M1 ~f ~ ~ t l t U. R ~ ~. ~{'T~~t~V ~ C ~ ~' y~>L .4 ' ~ r .~. F ,,,x a ~ - r 3 f ,., t r ~ k~: ,. , , ~ I,~~ _ a ph5.`-~~ :~~ r ~ ~". h~'~ 1 t kS t~ ~ ~ 7 f ~ 1 4 J , t ~ _: ~ ~ ~ r r. `fib ~ kr ? , ~~ r. ,~ Y . ~~ s -N~ - t'-, u, ~ ~ .•. ~ f ~~ ~ ira~~~ ,. _. ~_. ~ f ?j T 5 ~DATE OF JANUARY 3 2008 ~ CITY O , F MERIDIAN PLANNING PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ~; ~, B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan, prepared by Horrocks Engineers, dated 10/18/07, included as Exhibit A.2, is approved subject to the conditions listed herein. Submit copies of a revised site plan, depicting '~ ; ; the conditions listed herein, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. .; 1.2 A "Do Not Enter" sign shall be installed in the ~er~h east end of the planter island on the east north side of the drive-through lane on the west south side of the building where traffic exits. `, This provision should help to prevent cars from entering the drive-through from the wrong _ direction; please include signage on a revised site plan. 1.3 A "Caution -Pedestrian Crossing" sign shall be installed ~I on the west side of the building where traffic ems enters the drive-thru; please include signage on a revised site plan. r ~ 1.4 The 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway depicted on the site and landscape plans at the north boundary of the site connecting from the pathway along Eagle Road to the main building entrance, shall be distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored ~~'~' or scored concrete, or bricks, in compliance with UDC 11-3A-19C4b; depict construction materials/design of pathway on a revised site plan. 1.5 Weather protection (i.e. awning, arcade, etc.) shall be installed within 20 feet of all customer entrances, in compliance with UDC 11-3A-19C4d; depict on revised elevations submitted with ~~~ ~~ the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. x,; 4~?y 1.6 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land Group, dated 11/30/07, is approved as submitted. "' 1.7 A bicycle rack capable of holding at least one bicycle is required on the site, per UDC 11-3C-6; depict location on a revised site plan. - 1.8 The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised to depict the stacking lane, menu and speaker location (if applicable), and window location for the drive through window, as required by UDC 11-4-3-11B. <<~ ` 1.9 The subject drive-through design is approved as proposed with the conditions noted herein, as it complies with the standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3.11. Submit a letter from the Transportation Authority (ACRD) indicating the site plan is in compliance with the authority's standards and policies. 1.10 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.11 Except for the "Do Not Enter" and "Caution -Pedestrian Crossing" signs mentioned above, no signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in b compliance with the sign ordinance (UDC 11-3D). 1.12 The request for Design Review approval of the site and proposed building with adrive-through ~~;#~ window is approved with the conditions noted herein. 1.13 Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of approval of the Gardner-Ahlquist development does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. The applicant shall comply with all prior conditions of approval for this site. 1.14 To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP-07-020 are complied with, the applicant shall ~~ be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning ;~ ,E Exhibit B i t P. ~. _, x.,:.., FF ~ .~»Y~ .. A ~~ s;~ I~}, r ~;r ~ ~~. ~ ~~ .> k , f ~ ` ~ ~~~- ~ =: irht ^'l;F ~ ~ ,f~~+p~, S~. s may.." ~~~ rt ~~. ~ i 3 " ~ .. h n - ,hit ~~~~ ~ ~ ` ~ .~ r k .1'i 6 ~i r - .. t , S ' C ~ t ) ~ C ( t ~ k y Q F ~ fit ' ~ S ...'. 0. '. ~ ., t -. - - ~L y1'~ ~'. e ~ F )3 { j ~~~~ ~ J ~( (~,' r ~"' y #2 ,~77 -h ~ I ~ i 3r ii j . i ~ f~'Y'~!~ 1 ~,. ~ ~ .. '4... y,1 F t. { ~~ C C Ci .`~` ~ T ~~ ~ , l ~ J , q E k ~ ..,Lr,F '.~ ~ f r 4 1 ~~~~ - t t i,. ':~~f '+. x .r 1~ ~; ~ ~ 1 f: L ~, .~ - . i 1~ ~'fi . ? ~ t< r AY CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Department prior to commencement of the drive-through use and construction of the proposed building. 1.15 The applicant shall complete either of the following, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the proposed building: a. Construct two, minimum 24-foot wide paved driveways that meet the Fire Department construction standards, to this site (1 to/from Eagle Road via Louise Drive and 1 to/from Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue); or b. Construct one, minimum 24-foot wide paved driveway that meets the Fire Department construction standards, to this site from Eagle Road via Louise Drive or Franklin Road via Brooklyn Avenue and construct temporary construction fencing around the site and driveway to the site to prevent vehicles from driving across the construction site where there are no paved driveways/roads. 1.16 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. 1.17 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 WORI{S DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public Works has reviewed the plans for Gardner-Ahlquist Subdivision. All utilities have been installed and are waiting for approval. Surety has been received for all unfinished work. Public Works has no concerns with this application. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be 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 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. Exhibit B ~'%~ ~ Y ~ Y ~~~'P `~~_ gyp: V~ l~ hn».:ri..- Yy ~ i~:',~~.' ~t t I t4 ..Y~, ~ ~ y,,.., riy - V ~ ! k ~ ~! ~ ~} Ln ~ 'ri.19 '. .. .. H.~t .Y'~ -r3.. l~~,i, C t , ~~~ ~ ~t ~ f~ .,,F1.... 1 ~:~ ~ nth -~: l I~ t `w.~ t. ~ f ~ ~ 1 yyy y '(4~ ~+R FI.l6i~ t •:A: y.. F ~ k , [. ~ s I~.' . a ~r'~x C"t ~ ~ cµ ~~, . ti z ~ ,~ f. ~ .',~.' ` Hti Y f4 rte ~,~'.' ~~J~yt'~1 + L - 0 i ~ S `i ~.~ e . c ~} S"'t , t'' p,,,, k ; st Tt, a ~ ,. h tY" 4 j s ~ 1 1 -~el-~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 3.5 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. 3.6 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.7 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.8 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the Intemational Fire Code. 3.9 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.10 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.11 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.12 The proposed building may need to be fire sprinklered. This will be determined at the time of building permit submittal (per 2006 International Fire Code for A-2 occupancy). 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 Waste enclosure access: The applicant shall provide drive-on capability for 6 and 8 cubic yard containers. Allow a minimum of 60 ft. frontal clearance for such containers. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at S5C (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT a _. 7.1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval for this site. Exhibit B ti n,t. 4 ~ v .- 1. '. ~~ ' i ~qF ,~.+ ~,;;~ ~.` k F 7 ~ Y S~~r, i l~ ~~_. Y ` ~ .n'.'~._ E ~~~' ~ ~ k ? 0 ~T`~ ~N ~J`~i+'~ ~ C+w t x 1~'~, ~, K i s a «t ~" _ a , ~ t ~ L~t t j 3 J~.,j .i # ~k ' ~ ~ ~>' ~u ~~iT~1;t~~ ~y ~i~ ~ s*< ._ + ~5~ I ~':.ei a w . ,,,ys ~ ~ ~t c~~:-. •~ }~ t~.L wµ ~w~ ~: 4 c ~~' l~3 Y ~}. F i `r F C~ ~~ ~ ~ 4 1 f~ ^ j ~4f ~' k f ~Y~' 1?4Z~•- j '~, rN y~{ rt ~ ~ , ~} :- i t.' t 3 ~ ~':~ I ~ ~ E Y ~ ~n k - - ~J]s~ 4 1^4~~~,. f t - ~7 Jl ~ . f CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 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 building and drive-through facility on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. The Commission fmds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required 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 "Commercial." The proposed use is generally harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC (see Section ~' 8 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 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 a restaurant with adrive-through 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 Staffs 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 fmds 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 fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, and ACRD. Exhibit C - ~~i~: ° ~ ~;'s':iS..: ~ . <~!, T"n ~ ~ _ :rig'. ,. : ~ ~ _yy - ~~ ka Y.r~.r ;.. 3 ^a1. w ji F_> i i a dFY~~~ _ ~*' .'.~. r e r Y c ~~~,. r r,,r ~ { 21 d S,4", ~C r ~. _ ` v r:re' 9~y ~ i i~ nt~y$,, ,'r~,. ,F +;,'i ~ t ~ ~'(~ t ~5~~~ 1. Y. !Z 1r~ : :: ' . ~'~ S ,. M ~ ,'~ W^~, ~4~.. l ; L , ~ .w {4~i~ i ~~~ Y ~' .7. ~ i{p ~n+1~z .. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 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 fmds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 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. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a restaurant with adrive- through use in this location; however, Staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Therefore, the Commission fmds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property 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 fmds 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 fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. _a~;. „; _. ;, ~~' ~, _; Exhibit C y.~'' F i~i~ti~:' ~ `~ rc ~I j~. ~ G ~ ~ h .v~.. ~v '~ '. ~ _ ~~ ' ` ~_;t= i~ .~~ s ~ tt° 1~.+ 1x5 p r '1 it r ' ~ 1'~' a ' ( rN~ r : 4 y,~ ~ ;y,;. f ~ s ~ ~' , ~ ~ i ~ ~''c r ,s ~ 4 xt? ~ r ~~ ' , ,.~ h' k,'~ . t 5 ~ r' x ` r v.,. G~: ~ ~ 'a~ ~•_ k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~~~rs rox +x '_L 8 ~` f ~ ~. s . - , rat ., ~ -~ ~`vt Sr~1z~:. . ~:~ ~,v.. ti„ i F r ~ y , 3 ; ~; t_. r 72~ z ~,..i j r January 14, 2008 CUP 07-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 APPLICANT Avest Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval-Conditional Use Permit to expand the storage unit facility located at 355 North Ten Mile Road for Stor-It Addition - 355 N. Ten Mile 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: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Findings ,{ ~ M `n~~ ~~ C (~(~ ~ g~~~, taff Initials: ~, presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ,ifs` ' r ,. f y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ a ,„ r f ~.i J {.{'r s q 7Y i~3 h ~ z. s x~k ~ S { Y .AY 7' ~ t F 4 - ~' Zr . ~ i , .:'ia:.# i a Y r+J+ .-j ~S i r ~ }: S~ K 'R3' } G -'' ~ f t ac , ~ h V 1'~ t P s ~xt~ ~~T 1I. ~t x~?6 .. ~` ~ i ~h„k t ~ ~ 3 {{ F~~ A '~'~J - Z.. - - r ~ ~~ 7 1 - ~X aa~~ !~ ~ ~ r ~ } ~~ J ~~ ' ry ylkr ~i ~ c -~f 1 F s ~ y --. i+. ~ v;a ~ .. ~._ yr .~ CITY OF MERIDIAN A FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIC'~N'~ LAW AND s ~ ~ ~ ~" DECISION & ORDER :~ ~. .. _ ~'~~ ,t ~: __ In the Matter of Request for Conditional Use Permit Approval to Ezpand the Existing Self- Service Storage Unit Facility Located at 355 N. Ten Mile Road Case No(s). CUP-07-021 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 3, 2008 (Findings on January 17, 2008) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-021 Page 1 ~..~,, i ~ +.~ ~' r, f r ~ is:.°.. y~ ~k u. a ~~ ~ ` i ~ ~ i ; r ~ 4~:a,: . 4 ~ ~, ;. i ~k~ <~"3 1~ 4~j a:a ~+ ~* '1 (i. x c ~k ] ~'< 7 ~J,},,:5i ,: ~. ~'~ I f C~ 1i p 14 k y,.. L r ~ ~ v G ~ i ~ ~~ , i .,: ~'~~ ~ .gt { t ~` R~ y~ i~t w ~ P~ 'kc ~R ~ ~j 4T T1 r ~~ .} 1~ . 3~ } ~~ , t.. ~ 1N j :y~:.. ~ S ~ ~~ t ,~`~ ~_ ~ I _ ~ W Yr „y Ia - QTY . v~,:hf k ~i~„ ~ s l;s < i o as z . ; ~~ } r„ l ~ ~y.. 1,~+r. . i R i' 724'. qfi Y' . f~ ;' t' ~, . ,~ ;1 ~ ;; ~~~~ :;_ 4 `::~, `` '' j 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein ~~ adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan, dated 10/16/07, and Landscape Plan, dated 8/16/08, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, is hereby conditionally approved; and, I 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 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-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-021 Page 2 ,~~ ~ ,, ~ ~_ ,~ ~ s~~ . ~ s ~ ~ ~,:' ~ ~; ~ s~ ~ 7 r'- ~' v~+-'~< - ;. ~r~ ~ ~:, f ~ 1 v ,- p~ ~} t ti ~ ~Il' ~}Sn ~ ~ ~ v .< ° - ,~y 7 ,,~=:~:; ~~ r,:~ ~ {~ _,b ~ _ t . CCwT : t . ~ i :: $ x` C ~ L ffi ' { 4 i ~" J :~' . ~. ~r ~~~ ~ ~ S 1 f _ 4 d\ ,j Y p -., "7. ,_ ~ r t ~ ~ ~SC l ~ ` .~ 1 ~'" `~rj1R' r ~ t ~ j~~ i F nn NS`{ [ ~ #~~~~j ~ y / k '~ C x ~., s r..~ b f ~~ ~~' ~~s' ~ nar.YF+r3~ S i require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-021 Page 3 ~ , ~ r r ~~~ 1 ~ y.F 1~v ,H~, ~'~ ~ ., ~ - y~4 *4.~_ 1 ~ -'~ ~~ ~~a~r~" al 5 `` K, z - 5, t ~~ •~ ~ f~t~'b ~tl Y ,~ ~ ~ , ~ ; stf ~ ,_~_~,,. ~~ rJ ~, 1 ! ~,.r y p; ~ S 'v ~.~ ~ r ~11 ~ Kk,~v~p~'. {A` ~~~~~. t' tt ~~uf K .fi ~,~... ~1 g _ 3 a ~~.~ M A ~ 1~ ~ l ~l y L~4 ~~ .`e}~ , `~ ,. r.> -%y! ., ~{ nib _ T' ll ~~lF?y~. f 7~ S~ :y; ~': ~ ~t F s ~. '' ~ r ,: ;: i ~i~ ~qt_. " 3~ _ ~,4 ~ 2 ~ r ;t ; ~, ~~` ~'ri ; ,~ ri 7 r.+ := r: " 7 t w_tib.~. ' ,_ ^~ By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~Cz ~ ~-C~'L~ day of ~ ~~ `~~ , 200s~. dJ COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN COMMISSIONER ~ Y ~ ~~ ~ ~ Attest: Tara Green, Deputy pity Copy served upon A Attorney. ````~~~ ®~~~®oooeoao~®~a®®aad ~~. C3~ ~, ~~y e'~ ~~ lerk~~'~~ ~ ~ _ ~: ~ ~~ -.- ~c • fY Y~an,te®ea VOTED ? VOTED ~ZC~ VOTED_ ~~~''C~~l~''P~i r~ ~..Q~ VOTED ' VOTED ~' L~ Public Works Department and City By: Dated: ~~S D ~' City Clerk's o~+c..L CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-021 Page 4 ~ , ~' 5 ~ - ~ ~;~ t . fi ~ t{ ~~ P ~~~~/ - + x S ~~.~ ~, - ~y>~n° c ,ax.: -" ~i':'~ ~ ~' '+~ 5Y( ~~ S s r' . -~a 4a-3~.. ~~, h~_ i ~ /! ~ :1 f~ ~ _~ 5 C .. J y~„~~ . ~t R ~ Y ~ ' v z~ ~~ w s~ r •~ y .y a i ~ .+f t ~Y ky~,.a ~ _ '~ 7 yi f Lh f ~~ ~ ~ < t '~ F / Ys ~ J' 'i ~" Y ~~ ~ ~~~a;w C ~~ i Q ~~{.fl~ '~i ~ T ~ ~~% ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ 1l~ ~ } _ 3 7: .~ ~; ,i d { t y . :~ Y+ E q +, i ~' ni ~. F r5 ~ ~ Y .~ q ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 3, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner E IDIAN-%^'' (208) 884-5533 a ~' ~ H ~' SUBJECT: Stor-It Addition • CUP-07-021 Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing self-service storage unit facility located at 355 N. Ten Mile Road 1. SUNIMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, Avest Limited Partnership, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct additional storage units at the self-service storage facility located at 355 N. Ten Mile Road. The site is currently zoned C-G and consists of 15.44 acres. The storage facility (consisting of self-storage units and outdoor storage parking) was originally developed in Ada County. In 2004, the site was annexed into the City with a C-G zoning district. Because the storage unit facility was an existing approved use in the County and because the Meridian City Code in affect at that time allowed storage unit facilities as a permitted use in the C-G zoning district, a CUP was not required at that time. Because an addition to the storage unit facility is proposed and because current City Code (UDC 11-2B-2) requires CUP approval of self-service storage facilities, a CUP is required for the expansion of the existing use. 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-07-021 for Stor-It, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 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 January 3, 2008. At the public hearing. they moved to approve CUP-07-021. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin i. In favor: Crain Callaham, Quadrant Consulting (Applicant's Representative); Larry Woodard (Ten Mile Christian Church) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. S_taff_presentins application: Sonya Waters vi. Other staff commenting on application: Anna Canning b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Type of storage building (solid block back wall with an open front for RV parking) proposed along west property boundary; ii. Fencing along the multi-use pathway that bisects the site in relation to security of the storage facility (keyed entry at bridge); and iii. Hours of operation of the storage facility. c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify condition #1.6e to allow the portion of the site east of the Ten Mile Creek to continue to operate 24 hours aday/7 days a week and restrict hours of operation to 6 am -11 pm for the area west of the Ten Mile Creek. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 1 F~ ~~~ ~` ~v ,~ , 4,~ R'~ r a r _ i ;, . a , a ~~ r ~ e Y FF ~.~ i . ~: ~~ ~'I~'~ ~ Y.,r '4 hh~.r ~r . _ ,~, ~k t ~ :'4"~ .I ~~- ~ - 'r` ' ~a I~ ; - y > ~. :. ~i l ~~ n ~}~4Y~~ '. .r ~'J_f Y $7 i.A e n i ~ I~. n~ ; } a ~ y 's_- +a , ~ .t .~ r J + f ~~ }' f3 ~, ~; rt _~~.~. ~ Fy !~ S ~' ..1 ..'''Y; .. } . y~Fy1,af'y . A~ h l .h. A $q ~.,. L S ,_ .;~ ~. C~1 '; 7 j ~ ~fi~ ~ cL ~: ~: ~: h ~~` 5 a ~ F ~: : f~+1 %.~ ~ .. ~ .~.,r;;; ~M ~. ~4-at"~ ~. ~ q.. r ~•.rL,- 1 n~ ~h ~,'~F~'t~ - ~'~ ~. ~r, ~" CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-07- 021, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 17, 2008. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP-07-021, as presented during the hearing on January 3, 2008, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 17, 2008. Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 07-021 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: 355 N. Ten Mile Road (Parcel #S1210447501) Southeast % of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owner: Avest Limited Partnership P.O. Box 140075 Boise, ID 83714 c. ApplicantlContact: Same as Owner d. Present Zoning District: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Regional f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for an expansion of the existing self-service storage unit facility. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: "The existing use of storage units fits into the goals and objectives of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan because it provides a needed service that is compatible with existing and future uses and is desirable to be utilized by all the other surrounding uses. Storage units are utilized by both business and residential uses. Storage units are one of the lowest traffic generating uses for this site on Ten Mile Road." 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11-SA-2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 2 A ,~~ , ~ 7t ~~~, 3 ~ 1 1 fYa li~.i ~5~~;~'. .i. F CC~~;} .. 1 --- J^ S`~ - ~r'f E~ - ~ M 4-i * - `~ ~ .~.1if { ~.._ 1 t~ ~ ~ ; k +t ~e$.'.d~r s ''~~ ~~ ~ "y ~.! ~ c. ~~ t .i h~ ~ r ~ t ~~ ~. ~_ ~ , ~ 5 it +~.," - ~~ c,.' ~ rr`,~ 4 f r ~ , ~'~ ~~ r ' -~<q ~ - a - i ', ' ~ aF~ R c`A~~ ~ f ~ ~ 4 _~ ~{y l' f 4 ~,~~~ ,~ ~ - ~~, 1y ~. r. ~ ' ' ~; ~',.'r.. r ~ t ~~~~' ~~ A.:~ ~~~. ~ d ;t r ~ ,. Fla { f s t~%t s~ ,~:. V ~ ~ t =4~, - t Y R~ ~ ~~-,:. - _ ti •r T ~~~: Tr ~. { t ~. ` j ~..% ti w ~ ~. b, - ~.,, ~r r ., r ;.7 fr v k ~if~ Sfi'~ ` w r ." a Syr. rr .k . N rr CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE ~ ATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 b. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17 and 31, 2007 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 600 feet on: December 20, 2007 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 18, 2007 6. LAND USE '~=~ a. Existing Land Use(s): Self-service storage unit facility b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Rural residential and agricultural property exists to the north and east of the site and the property to the south and west is currently in the development process (Ten Mile Christian Church and Umbria Subdivision). ~~~ c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 4~;; ~... _ 1. North: Rural residential property, zoned Rl and RUT (Ada County) :~ 2. East: Agricultural property, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Agricultural property in transition to a church use (Ten Mile Christian Church), zoned R-4 4. West: Agricultural property in transition to multi-family residential use (Umbria Subdivision), zoned R-15 ~'~ d. History of Previous Actions Pertaining to this Site: ~`'~ €, • This property was developed as aself-service storage unit facility in Ada County. ~:;~ -_ • On March 15, 2005, this property was annexed (AZ-04-033) into the City with a C-G zoning district (Ordinance #OS-1143). A Development Agreement was approved with the F:{> annexation of the property (Instrument No. 105115815). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities ~~ 1. Public Works ' Location of sewer: 21 inch line located on the west side of the property. '~~ Location of water: 10 inch water line located on the west side of the property. Issues or concerns: Fire Flow Requirements possible connection to 8 inch water line in s .; existing storage facility. 2. Vegetation: Any and all existing trees on site that are 4-inch caliper or greater in size that are removed from the site shall be replaced in compliance with the mitigation requirements contained in UDC 11-3B-10. ~`'' 3. Floodplain: NA .~~-,: 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ten Mile Creek bisects the subject property. ;,:-''~ 5. Hazards: No hazards are known to exist on the site except for the Ten Mile Creek, which may present a danger to children if they should accidentally fall in. 6. Existing Zoning: C-G ~ F 7. Lot Size: 15.44 acres f. Conditional Use Information: ~¢:, 1. Non-residential square footage: 136,197 square feet (s.f.) addition proposed (115,568 s.f. existing) Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 3 li t C =i~ R - ~4. ti. '~ ;~ z ~ ~ r ~~ .lf .~ i t y ~.`d ~ , k~ ~ y, K~ a f 'lY r _ y ~ ~ ~ , „r~ ' ° : t ~ ~':~4 qW .. a y '~.: ~~tt § ~ a ~~ ~ i^.r t kw d - K ft )~ t~~ ~~ ` , ~ij' N L ': ~' ~i N. :. p~~~t f~ y.. 2 i~ ±' H t r.; f ~~": f E~~~, - ~, b ]t v~d ~ 5-:.. ,~ C LH'~ hJ y ; F ` x } ,l1 1 i ~ kv~- ..d~i~'t. - S~ `~ ~ ~ ~, ~~, .~If ".~,Y,::~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEADATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 2. Hours of Operation: 24 hours per day, 7 days a week (proposed) g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 506 2. Parking spaces provided: 5 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 Per UDC 11-3C-6B, one parking space is required per S00 square feet of gross floor area in commercial districts. There are existing parking stalls on the site located by the office/residence that Staff believes is sufficient for the existing and proposed use. Because this is a unique use that doesn't really fit with the parking standards contained in the UDC, Staff recommends that the applicant apply for Alternative Compliance to this requirement in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-SB-S, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the additional storage units proposed with this application. h. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A minimum 25-foot wide buffer is required and was previously constructed along N. Ten Mile Road; landscaping within the buffer shall comply with the current street buffer landscaping standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: Per UDC 11-4-3-34G, a 10-foot wide buffer is required along the west property boundary adjacent to the future multi-family residential use and property currently zoned R-15; buffer shall be constructed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9. 3. Other landscaping standards: See 11-3B-12 for landscaping requirements adjacent to the multi-use pathway along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek. i. Required dimensional standards for the C-G zone, per UDC 11-2B-3: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS" C•G Front setback in feet 0 Rear setback in feet 0 Interior side setback in feet 0 Street landsca buffer in feet Local 10 Collector 20 Arterial 25 En a corridor 35 Interstate 50 Landscape buffer to residential uses in feet "` 25 [see note below] Maximum buildin hei ht in feet 65 Maximum building size without design standard approval as set forth in 11-3A 3 in s ware feet 200,000 Parking requirements See Chapter 3 Article C. off-street parking and loading re uirements Landsca in re uirements See Cha ter 3 Article B. landsca in re uirements *All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way for the street classification as shown on the adopted Transportation Plan. *'"minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. ~**Where the adjacent property is vacant, the Director shall determine the adjacent property desi nation based on the Comprehensive Plan desi nation. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 4 (t• CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Note: Per UDC 11-4-3-34G (Specific Use Standards for Self-Service Storage Facility) allows landscape buffers to be reduced to 10 feet if a sound attenuation wall is provided; the rear of the storage unit along the west boundary will serve as a sound attenuation wall. j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this site is provided from Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. An emergency fire access point is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Please see Staff's comments below in Section 10, pertaining to the location of the proposed emergency access point. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 14, 2007, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, adopted in June 2007, designates the subject property as "High-Density Residential." Per Chapter 3, page 3-7, of the Ten Mile Plan, High Density Residential areas should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Most developments within the High Density Residential areas should fall within or below this range, although smaller areas of higher or lower density maybe included. Residential densities can be concentrated in multistory projects with up to 50 dwelling units per acre allowed. The subject site is currently designated C-G, which allows storage units as a Conditional Use. The Ten Mile Plan which is an expression of the City's long term vision for a planning area that includes the subject site conflicts with the C-G zoning. Where such conflicts exist, the zoning supercedes the plan. However, that is more a short termed situation. Because the Ten Mile Plan envisions future development over a long term period (10-20 years) it is likely that transformation of the area from primarily vacant land or low density development intense commercial, mixed use, employment and higher density residential will exert pressures on the subject site leading to its ultimate conversion to the planned high density residential or other uses contemplated in the Ten Mile Plan. The site is in close proximity to areas designated Mixed Use Commercial as well a planned transit station. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis below policy in italics): • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) One curb cut on Ten Mile Road exists and no new curb cotes are proposed with this application. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Ten Mile Road. Said buffer should be landscaped in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The Ten Mile Area Plan also encourages generous landscaping as well as the provision of street trees. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 5 a , ~ ~ t 'Y 7k.L1~ ~ '1 ti ~~ t'j tt~~+ M )? ~ 1 it 4 y ! S~ ~ .~ 3 1 ~~~ ~ 't o l . ,... I or s , 1 ~ v 3~x .Y. s;~~ i yy ~r,Y ';t .. F~ .A gay^.'",~ I. 1 a a l $ ::~ S r i ' . c .Y M~ S r+ + ~+,~.~ Y ~ ~i ~. 5'9h ~ , ik ,~ yf It J{ t^ r~~ j Y T >i .'~ _ _ a ~~ ~ ~.~] ~ ~ Ik .h'i~'~-t ~,~~ '. ,~ ~~ ~ w y~ C F 1 7 ~ ~: v ., • 1 - - J ~r 4-.'f. - _ ~+~. ~ z r ~,; - ~ C~~6- _ l F,~Sx~ 3 r (_°,,~ S1 , . _ y t' ~ t f : i t i v r ~ a "~S V~ ~{ H' .. N:{11~ { CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) This property is currently in the City and is provided with City services. • "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective B, Action item 5) The subject property has frontage on a designated minor arterial street, Ten Mile Road. The existing uses adjacent to this site have not yet developed to the expected residential densities or commercial uses anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan -Ten Mile Interchange Speck Area Plan. The existing storage facility will be complemented by the uses of a church to the south of the property and medium to high density residential densities to the west of the site. The comprehensive plan future land use map designation to the north of the site is Mixed Use - Community and to the east of the site is Civic. The anticipated residential densities and future commercial uses in the general vicinity would be expected to utilize the storage facilities. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) The proposed and existing self-service storage facilities are the only storage facilities in the general vicinity. It is expected that a variety of commercial and residential uses would utilize the site with a mix of infill commercial sites and a varying of densities in the residential developments. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) Landscaping is proposed with this application and should be installed in accordance with the applicable standards listed in UDC 11-3B. • "Multi-use off street pathways are to be located along, natural drains/creeks and canals... the UPRR railroad corridor." (Chapter VI, Figure VI-3) The Parks Department Master Pathways Plan designates amulti-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek, which bisects this site. The landscape plan submitted with this application depicts a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway along the south side of the creek in compliance with the Pathways Plan. Said pathway should be constructed in accordance with the standards in the afore-mentioned Pathways Plan and UDC 11-3B-12. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing and future surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-G zoning district. Self-service storage facilities are a conditional use in Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 6 ?'"?' N g ~d i•y5 ~ias~~, ~ ~ y ~; ^~' ~ r ~ t v~ .. 'r S Y ~ ~. F .• ~ f~J S~~ ~; i +} I~~f T 3:i L ~ , !G~'~ ~ S ~ ~ r ~ 54 ~ ~ . ~ t r .. F " ~ ' s „fi ~~ ~ ~?' (1 L'?r.'~ . . n i k ~ '~ ~ 4 j c . . .y, s~ t .1 _'~J~,4~3~•~ fi i ~` ~~ i~ t i N p `~~ .q ~~Y.. ~ i _i ' ~ ~ nx F f I ~ f £ ~ i,-~~,4? ~~f ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 the C-G zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need oftravel-related services, as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the CUP request as proposed, with the following comments: CUP: The applicant submitted a site plan, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/16/07, labeled as Sheet CUP. The site plan depicts 8 new storage unit structures at the west end of the subject property across the Ten Mile Creek and an addition to an existing storage unit and 2 additional storage units on the east side of the Ten Mile Creek. Per UDC 11-2B-2, storage unit facilities require CUP approval in the C-G zoning district. When the existing portion of the storage unit facility was constructed, the property was in Ada County. Since that time, the property has been annexed into the City. Because an addition to the facility is proposed, a CUP is required and the entire site must comply with current provisions of the UDC. Dimensional Standards: There are no setback requirements in the C-G zoning district. However, where landscape buffers are required, buildings must be setback at least the width of the required buffer. Per UDC 11-4-3-34G, a 10-foot wide buffer, instead of the 25-foot normally required, between land uses is allowed as proposed adjacent to the future residential uses along the west property boundary with construction of a sound attenuation wall; Staff believes that the rear of the storage unit along the west boundary will serve as a sound attenuation wall, if it is a concrete masonry wall. Staff has added a condition of approval stating such requirement. The perimeter buildings will also screen the outdoor parking from neighboring views. Future phases would add the interior indoor buildings as demand increases. Self-Service Uses: The existing and proposed use of the property is aself-service storage unit facility. The UDC (11-3A-16) requires all unattended self-service uses to comply with the following requirements: A. Entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or to adjoining businesses and shall have low-impact security lighting. B. Financial transaction areas shall be oriented to and visible from an area that receives a high volume of traffic, such as a collector or arterial street. C. Landscape shrubbery shall be limited to no more than three feet (3') in height between entrances and financial transaction areas and the public street. The applicant shall comply with the above requirements. The Meridian Police Chief or designee may approve alternative standards where it is determined that a similar or greater level of security is provided. Self-Service Storage Facilities: Per UDC 11-4-3-34, there are Specific Use Standards that apply to the proposed use of the property as follows: A. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at a self- service storage facility is specifically prohibited. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 7 ~ f ;;•ru~~ t .+~ ~~ ~, ,. ,r,~ 4 ~~° ~{t r F~ ~ ~, ~' r~ ~~ r , .' 44.ri'" X { 1 T ~ 7 ~ _ ~, ~'_~ skp~A+; ~f~., _:. ~ .~+i~_:tt ~ t :_-f E~ ! ~.a1 ., s1~ q'K'~~,_ ~ 4v. ~ls~- ~ .. ~ .~ . `" ~ 5 a ~ w' ~~ S +ic. ~~~`i .:~:.. x~y ~~ ~J4~,i~~ '` ~ ~ ::{: F~ 4 !t d ,~W K ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ^ +,~-~ »~ + ~ ~ N 'i t , p o-~ eft';; Y~ ~ L ~~.~~; - o tt r~~r3 z ;3 ,. F S ~ . _ ~ ~ii~,;.. r. '~~ ; ~I~ . -_; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JANUARY 3, 2008 B. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a temporary use in accord with Section 11-3E temporary use requirements of this Title. C. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). The site plan depicts 25' between structures. D. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chain-link shall not be allowed as fencing material. Fencing is not depicted on the site or landscape plan; the applicant shall comply with this requirement. Fencing in compliance with this requirement shall be shown on a revised plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. E. If abutting a residential district, the facility hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The hours of operation of the storage facility shall be limited to the aforementioned hours. F. No structure, facility, drive lane, parking area, nor loading area shall be located adjacent to a residential district without a sound attenuation wall. Staff believes that the rear of the proposed storage unit, as conditioned, will serve as a sound attenuation wall. G. If the applicant provides a sound attenuation wall, landscaping buffers maybe reduced to ten feet (10'). The applicant is proposing the rear of the storage unit building along the west boundary to act as a sound attenuation wall and a 10 foot wide buffer in compliance with this requirement. Staff believes this will meet the standard if such building wall is constructed of concrete masonry. H. If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-16 self service uses of this Title shall also apply. (See standards from UDC 11-3A-16 above) I. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. The applicant is proposing one emergency access point at the southwest corner of the property (Staff is requesting that the emergency access point be relocated to align with that approved with the church use to the south). J. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. K. The site shall not be used as vehicle wrecking or junkyard as herein defined. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. L. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material, the use shall be located a minimum of one thousand feet (1,000') from a hospital. The applicant shall comply with this requirement. Building Elevations: Building elevations for the proposed storage units were submitted with this application and are included as Exhibit A.4. Exterior materials are proposed to be cottage lap vinyl siding with a metal roof. Staff has no objections of the elevations proposed by the applicant as they comply with the maximum building height and size requirements of the C-G district. The proposed building shall be constructed in accordance with the elevations shown in Exhibit A.4. For the building wall adjoining the west boundary, the applicant should construct the wall with split face masonry concrete blocks. This will not only serve as a visually pleasing material compatible with the residential properties, but will also attenuate sound originating from the storage facility. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 8 _,y,~ s' `. ~:~ ;;, Ali .a= * k + 4r' _ ' .ice !~ r ~ [~ c x. ~ ~~~, ~y F{ > y '~ tzt r,'9C lr iT ~ k M ~ ~4 1 - ~ "t t art >• x ~ uk r ~ v > ;9 ,~4z~~, ~~ ~ y t ~ ~~ +~ PPP h f ~~ ~ ~ ...~ `~ ~ Y-w :,y M ` 1 r' ~ ri ;i . t $r ^~,-,t.~i , t 3 ;L -I y ~r~ ~ '~ M~ -. ~~ ~ '~ ~~ ~.. ~~ t t 4~ ~ , _,.~ 1{ i _~Y ~ d i11 ('~ { z e'' 3 . /" 1 1 "~ ~rC ,p .~ t ~ ~ pt y ax v F a'L ^ ~ ~. 1' ~ ~-u.t;. i ~ .~~~: x~c ~` 1~ h~~ r r ,~ ~ ~ 1 a ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ': ~. _~~ ,,~, ~. <<, ;r i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Design Guidelines: The design guidelines that were developed as part of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area plan were developed in anticipation of more permanent structures with different relationships to their surroundings, local street systems, and different uses. The proposed project was not contemplated in the Ten Mile Plan. .- Access: Access to the site is currently provided from Ten Mile Road. An emergency access point is depicted on the site/landscape plan at the southwest corner of the property. The previously approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-07-235) for the Ten Mile Christian Church, the property to the south, depicted an emergency access point to/from this site along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek. The emergency access on this site should be relocated to match up with the access point already approved with the church site and the buildings and drive aisles should be designed to allow for the turning radius' required by the Fire Department. If the storage facility wishes for the access road to the located at the - southwest corner of the site as depicted on the site plan, the applicant should work with the church to determine a location that works for both sites. Cross-access is required to be provided to the property to the south (Ten Mile Christian Church) for emergency access between the sites. Additionally, the Fire Department is requesting that the bridge across the Ten Mile Creek be constructed a minimum 20-feet in width; it's currently depicted as 18- feet wide on the landscape plan. No additional access points aze proposed with this application to Ten Mile Road and none are approved. Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B, in commercial districts, one off-street pazking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor azea. Based on the total square footage of structures on the site (253,052 s.f.), 506 parking stalls are required; 5 spaces are currently provided Additionally, per UDC 11-3C-6G, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces, in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Because of the type of use proposed, Staff would encourage the applicant to apply for Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3C-6B and 11-3C-6G for a reduction to vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. Alternative Compliance may be requested with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the additional storage units proposed. Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the site plan (prepazed by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/16/07, labeled as Sheet CUP, included as Exhibit A.2) submitted with this application and compazed it with the conceptual site plan (dated 2/15/05) approved with the annexation of this property in 2005. Staff fords the proposed site plan substantially complies with the conceptual plan. The following items should to be shown on a revised site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the additional storage units proposed on this site: • The scale does not appear to be correct on the plan; correct scale. • The bridge across the Ten Mile Creek shall be widened to a minimum of 20 feet. • A minimum 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek as depicted on the site plan. • The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view, in compliance with UDC 11-4-3-34D; fencing details shall be included on a revised site plan. • Provide minimum 25-foot wide drive aisles on the site between buildings, per UDC 11-4- 3-34C and UDC Table 11-3C-5. • Comply with the vehicle and bicycle pazking requirements stated in UDC 11-3C-6B and 11-3C-6G or apply for Alternative Compliance to these requirements with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 9 z• ~.4 y ~ti :- ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~tx ~; ~`~ ~ _t - . 8~' ~ g ~.~ ~ - t ,~ y P~ ', Y AuJ3 r ' I r r i ~ i ~;~ , JS i ~~ z ~13c J,.~' s Z } ! .,F °r -, s~ 1~<Y~ 5 ~ Y ~ t t2 . s7~, t ~ ~ ~ ° f Q . ~` `t.. 1 a ~ ~,,. i'il r 3 - ~ } ~, (,. c ~ ~ ~~ ~T~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~,~ ',K 4~ ry s~~ ~ ' . 4fp x'1 ~ .. 5 ~y .. ~y t'6v~ f t / }. n ~ - Snt ~+tWri", P -~ rJl ~4~~ ~t 5 '; lY~ ":.l t s ~' S. ~ G ~ ~~ ~~ 1...`1 ~' tiL ~ t ~ ~. '~ ,~ :.' f ~ ~ C.,,Y'.' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Landscaping: Staff has reviewed the landscape plan (prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 8/16/07, labeled as Sheet L-1, included as Exhibit A.3) submitted with this application. The following items should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of - Zoning Compliance for the additional storage units proposed on this site: • Provide a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the west property boundary adjacent to the future residential uses in accordance with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-9. A minimum of 1 tree per 35 lineaz feet is required within the buffer along with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover with the rear of the storage unit building serving as a sound attenuation wall, as allowed by UDC 11-3B-9Clc. (Decorative rock mulch as the only groundcover is prohibited; required landscape azeas shall be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity.) • Provide additional landscaping within the street buffer along Ten Mile Road in accordance with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-7. A minimum of 1 tree per 35 lineaz feet is required within the buffer along with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. • A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer shall be provided along all interior lot lines that are adjacent to pazking, loading, or other paved vehiculaz use azeas, including driveways, per UDC 11-3B-8C. The buffer shall be planted with a minimum of 1 tree per 35 lineaz feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Decorative rock mulch as the only groundcover is prohibited; required landscape areas shall be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity. • Landscaping along the multi-use pathway on the south side of the Ten Mile Creek shall be installed in accordance with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-12. A landscape strip a minimum of 5-feet in width shall be provided along each side of the pathway. A minimum of 1 deciduous tree shall be planted every 35 linear feet along with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. • All existing trees on site that aze 4-inch caliper or greater in size that aze removed from the site shall be replaced in compliance with the mitigation requirements contained in UDC 11-3B-10. Mitigation information shall be included on the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Hours of Operation: The existing and proposed hours of operation for the storage facility aze 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Per UDC 11-4-3-34E, if the facility abuts a residential district, hours of public operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Because the facility abuts a residential district on the west, he applicant shall comply with this requirement. j.:~. `` l~ `~I Stor-It CUP-07-021 Page 10 ~ } F yy{{ h ~ l Z ` S ' 7 I ~ `0~y - l ~ o ~1~ ~ i ~~ - ~ ~ :r~ ' ,r af- -~.~~~ > x~ C3~ ' ~ ~k kt ; ~; f i?~c ~a T e ~;~~'_ {~3 ~; ~~.Nff ~~ d A r. .S,a.-+ ~~ r t #kj` f,t j i~ a ~ i~~.~,p .. ~~ ~ 4 5 .. .. ~.. Y ~ f.,~~ ~. ti~° :K.a ~~ ~ tic ~,, ~ ~~ } - T ~~~ e ~ (r~~ ~ ~~ ~ ;'' f l t c~.14 `y °4 ~ r' µp ~ a tr {. ~ }~ J": V:4 q"L.a~ii. ~' La ~~ F r~ ~~~ - ~ f': etc{ 'i .,._ ti~ s~~^: :. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted, prior to issuance of building permits, for the additional storage units proposed with this application. The site/landscape plan submitted with the CZC shall be revised to comply with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this report and shall be submitted prior to establishment of the new use. All improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-07-021 for the addition to the Stor-It storage unit facility, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 3, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Plannine and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 3, 2008. At the public hearing, they moved to auurove CUP-07-021. 11. E~1~IT5 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Site/Landscape Plan (prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/16/07, labeled as Sheet CUP) 3. Landscape Plan (prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 8/16/08, labeled as Sheet L-1) 4. Building Elevations (Photos) 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 8. Idaho Transportation Department C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code Stor-It CUP-07-021 11 Page ~3:.rr~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN• EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 2. Site Plan (prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/16/07, labeled as Sheet CUP) ~~ ~ ~~ ~ o-~ ~ a~~ o ~~~~ ~~~a ~~ U 4 SCALE ,- = so' ~C I ..... :::: ~; .. :~. U.PJLN. ~ ~9~\ ~.~~''~~.~~ ::..............~................... N.P.N.N. ~~ ......:':.t_ :'.:y ....... .._~._1c..,~~:.i,~ `-_ \ ~ i H ~,. ,.. i ~~ '~ 1 - _ ~. ~ rn~r.Te~+ .~ ~ ~~ ~z ~~ .- -~- ~Y- ---------- -- ~ ~`r ~.... ~~ ~ ~ lid ~_ w @ ~a7 -a .~ r- ~ (/~ g-~ -~' ` _______ _ W , ., ., ., '~•. ~~ ,~ _ ~. '~ ~ •. ..,a I -° - -- _ ., J .. I1II .` ~~ \ ~ ---CHARY UpE C10m71AN C9VIig1 -----_-` '' 7®'C E-N li ~ ~~ _~- . _ _ _ , ~- _-. __ 61 ~~(~ i ~ i ~ ~~~ ~ -J ~?~ ~_~~ c~ J `~ i ~ ~ ~ S~CFF/SUIf DINti 7]ATA -_ . - - SITE ZONE C-G SITE 92E: 672610 SF+- (16.44 AC+-) BUEOING TYPE tNNI STpiAGE TYPE YN + g° BUDDING SIZE: 6~ OFTICE/HOfAE 1,287 SF ~ g EXISTING S70RRCE 145,568 Sr ~ FUTURE STORAGE 138,000 SP TOTAL 254.855 SF ~ ~ Ga PARIONG PROVIQED: 1 HANDICAP CUP Exhibit A Page 1 t~l c ` i s ;. ' r~~ a„ rp.~, ~~- yy -~' IY 4, ~ 'Q~~~1~`, t/, r Y ,_~~ 1~. ~~ } $ 3 ~iC~ ; C Z `~~,;1 ~ 6 `, y `F~.> ' i~ree 1 i ~ N - iy 1~~..,~ 1~ ~ ~~ 4. ~ ~s ~ s yj ~~ ~ t~ ':~ ~,4t ,~~_c~''~ xs {' F ~ v~-# Y 1 ~ ~ ~45 ` ~~i f rr `f~ i ~ 1 f~TI' 't t -~~ }+'~I.xk~ ~ f,". ~~~ ~~t~ ! ~ 7 ~~ s _ ~Y;.if~d~~ -. . .{ } 'L+ j ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~Y` 1 _ ~ ~' .t 9 F f . 1 v VH- ~' t '~ a t ~ 22~~EE ~ - _ s ~.. 7;. 7 _ Y ~ ~ Yom.., ~ i 3-' h~ 1ak!!~4 ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ - ~ + ~ .~ ~ ~e` S f ~ l.Tyt c ~ ~ a ~ :5 ~' > aF ~ r ~i , - r'~ v ~~ 4 r+t. .. r ~ x ? ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 3. Landscape Plan (prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 8/16/08, labeled as Sheet L-1) ~~ ~ ~~ .~. mil ~c ~~a g A"_. ~~.- ~ .G'Ci om¢q maWmcebNa ~ ~.~ ui~w t ~~. ~ ^~an~ tL ami® ~~.u~®® _ ~ '. ~ - ahn N~v%.w m.~C~e~ - ~mme ~t~ro-mo~iw~m ® • °- ~qu~~ws amWUn• ,q~ooo~ ~ c°~°'e°sia ~w~° tld~ .~.~rP. ai i~°w.'ax~an isniWt an."e..-+"~+'~..~„~~z..aw.~.-. ~•~B'aae~m.-~mac~. u.a~c++.nc c~.:s.aro....wa +w R.sitar. uz+e-a¢s -U'~kJ+~ K . r-a..u ~. -.. ~-~ ~~~ < I F. r-~ ~® '., ;~. I ~', ~~.; j a -..._ .-t ._... ~f ._ • .... . cvu /rs .f J~~~~if t ~` +wnvr. awry ° ~"~~l4ll' ~ 6ae~.u-w a~.rassvvree; t~rat Ei^tJa I° = FA' N W ~~+ma _„ ,~ ~~ ~~ ' u ~. 1 ~ ~w w, .J W ~.I ~ ~ q ICI Y .i ~ mmta~s~ Exhibit A Page 1 ~' c ~. ;~+t r r~ ~. ~{ ,d,_ ': ~~cd"3:~ad~ r. . ~ fx~ .,` ; ,} , i ; y ~ 3 ,1 ~ R. ~IS 1Y'it~i~ ' Y tt>. I ~ __ .~ _eti.,.;i ~ ' ,. . ~ ,~ r ~ ~ s - ~ ~r r 'try e ~` t t- y ~ ^P frn ~~ i - ~ r,~ Y~ ~~~~ ~, ~ ~~ r 1 s1~. ~ } i Xq Y.,S .. .. ~~~C C _ ~ 1! ii +~ S f ~ ~ ~~ . },; ~' ~~5 y~ T it T T ~ i ,~). t ~~ ~ 's , - ~` ~ Q tt ~~~.: - a.: ~~ in~F ~~~ F~~+•. ~ ;5 .~ > .~. 7 .... . .. - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 4. Building Elevations r k 'i' •1 f ~ { ~~.'. .. ~ v f. .f x .! p 4 y/. . ,M ~lvt ~~. ~:. ~,. w~=' 4~. , ~.'~f, .. ` T Exhibit A Page I ~~ :-r~ ~ ~ ';, ,. ~ _ ,. ~~ ~ r ~ y ' 4$ ~~ ~ ~~ I (.. . r ~~ T~A~` ~u f ' ~ je'~~ r } }A S "F l , 333 x r ~ Y, , r v. ~~ t ~ ~ A ~~ ~ f, }`:•~ : { ~_ - } ~ ~ ~ ~ - .r6 9 } ^m~ - - - h, Y'1r1 ~ • ~ .,o _ ~µ ~ d ~~ } f Ki.S l R ~'1 .+~ l rY k ~ ~ /~i r'"'# ~ .y ~y~, ~L T '3 y,~ k 1 { - 1 .: i-lC,C ~~ r ty.N ~. ( 1 ' '4 t ,y.;. n:, ~~ H 1s~5~ * '.~ hr,t7 h~Yht 54' f r ..._ .. ~ . .-.'..a~ -3_ _. . ~_ 4 ;.y: ;. `y~ ~, ~~~. • s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The site plan, prepazed by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/16/07, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ-04-033 and Development Agreement Instrument No. 105115815). The applicant shall revise the site plan as follows: a. The scale does not appear to be correct on the plan; correct scale. b. The bridge across the Ten Mile Creek shall be widened to a minimum of 20 feet. c. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view, in compliance with UDC 11-4-3-34D; fencing details shall be included on a revised site plan. d. Relocate the emergency access point shown at the southwest corner to align with the access point previously approved with the church site to the south. e. Provide minimum 25-foot wide drive aisles on the site between buildings, per UDC 11-4-3- 34C and UDC Table 11-3C-5. f. Comply with the vehicle and bicycle parking requirements stated in UDC 11-3C-6B and 11- 3C-6G or apply for Alternative Compliance to these requirements with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.2 A minimum 10-foot wide multi-use pathway shall be constructed along the south side of the Ten Mile Creek as depicted on the site plan. 1.3 The building wall adjoining the west property boundary adjacent to the residential district shall be constructed as a sound attenuation wall with split face masonry concrete blocks. 1.4 The landscape plan, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 8/16/08, shall be revised as follows: a. Provide a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the west property boundary adjacent to the future residential uses in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9. A minimum of 1 tree per 35 linear feet is required within the buffer along with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover with the rear of the storage unit building serving as a sound attenuation wall, as allowed by UDC 11-3B-9Clc. (Decorative rock mulch as the only groundcover is prohibited; required landscape azeas shall be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity.) b. Provide additional landscaping within the street buffer along Ten Mile Road in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7. A minimum of 1 tree per 35 linear feet is required within the buffer along with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. c. A minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer shall be provided along all interior lot lines that are adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways, per UDC 11-3B-8C. The buffer shall be planted with a minimum of 1 tree per 35 linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Decorative rock mulch as the only groundcover is prohibited; required landscape areas shall be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity. d. Landscaping along the multi-use pathway on the south side of the Ten Mile Creek shall be installed in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12. A landscape strip a minimum of 5-feet in width shall be provided along each side of the pathway. A minimum of Exhibit B Page 1 „~~,;, s b ' y1~~4 ` ` .A'F ~ ~ A. {, t r 1 y{ `"~ „ irk, N i >xr 1~3 5~. ~''^rne,7 ~.-S ~ P~ Ji ,* h4 _ ,. f~ ~ - f of-~ ~ T~ `~.y ~`~N U ~i i'~ • _ -' ~'t r I y ~ ~4 ~?J}:'`.~~ 1y, l ''qI :[ L - r,~~ ~ }} ~R s '- p r r+~ .. ~ y. K S 1h ~ ~lj~ y _, ! ~t 'fit .. ' t ". ~ ~ _1 ti 1"il •~1 1 t y 4 Ir . f ` ,i. ' i r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 1 deciduous tree shall be planted every 35 linear feet along with shrubs, lawn, or other -'' f,; vegetative groundcover. e. All existing trees on site that are 4-inch caliper or greater in size that are removed from the site shall be replaced in compliance with the mitigation requirements contained in UDC 11- ~~ 3B-10. Mitigation information shall be included on the landscape plan submitted with the f .:x_ Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.5 The applicant shall comply with the standards listed in UDC (11-3A-16) for unattended self- "->: service uses as follows: a. Entrance or view of the self-service facility shall be open to the public street or to adjoining 'fir ~~, businesses and shall have low-impact security lighting. b. Financial transaction areas shall be oriented to and visible from an area that receives a high ~' volume of traffic, such as a collector or arterial street. c. Landscape shrubbery shall be limited to no more than three feet (3') in height between entrances and financial transaction areas and the public street. The Meridian Police Chief or designee may approve alternative standards where it is determined that a similar or greater level of security is provided. ~! 1.6 The applicant shall comply with the Specific Use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-34 for self- ~, service storage facilities as follows: 1~~' a. Storage units and/or areas shall not be used as dwellings or as a commercial or industrial place of business. The manufacture or sale of any item by a tenant from or at aself-service storage facility is specifically prohibited. b. On-site auctions of unclaimed items by the storage facility owners shall be allowed as a x temporary use in accord with Section 11-3E temporary use requirements of this Title. c. The distance between structures shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'). `'~ d. The storage facility shall be completely fenced, walled, or enclosed and screened from public view. Where abutting a residential district or public road, chain-link shall not be allowed as fencing material. ~~ e. The facility hours of public operation for the area west of the Ten Mile Creek shall be ,1 limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The area east of the Ten Mile Creek shall be allowed to :~° continue to overate 24 hours aday/7 days a week. .~ f. No structure, facility, drive lane, parking area, nor loading area shall be located adjacent to a residential district without a sound attenuation wall. g. If the applicant provides a sound attenuation wall, landscaping buffers may be reduced to ten feet (10'). ~' h. The facility shall have a second means of access for emergency purposes. The emergency access point depicted on the proposed site plan shall be relocated to align with the emergency J~'~ 4;*. access approved with the church site to the south. i. All outdoor storage of material shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a k'`t~ ~ public nuisance. Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. " ~ ~,.z; j. The site shall not be used as vehicle wrecking or junkyard as herein defined. f~; ~~'k~ Exhibit B Page 2 .; s: ' ~'° ~ :~ ti _ rr~., , Mt ' r ~ ~.': s , ~q gs~.# 7 ,~7 „t. c . s~, t 4 „ b~" .Mr ~ ~ _ 1 ~ ~ 7 ~' 1.1 { r=~ m'~ ~ .n y u,r ' ~~{~ # ? } + t fy,{ ' ' ~ _ ..~ ~ ~ ~F~ l [ . ~~#.~.. f ~.~~ ,~ti x ~ ~- ~?i ~C ~ _ h Ny.~.- , , # ~~ r k p"~.f~~ r i~ 1 ~ s s '~ ~~ j ~x p ~ "•*t';~~ ' ~e 'sa, . ~ tiµ}a r~ _ ° ~ ~ Yo,,~ ~~ x ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~{ t _~, ~ _ ~ r iz r i r f ~P ~ ~ ~~~'~ t ~ , ~g ~ ~ ~~- ~.;. ~ _ rf r t ~ .t~.. i r ,+ f k tti "^~ - ~ s .~ 1 . .., .. ..Y cr.. k.'i. ~ ... k ?;, . ~- .. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 1.7 Building elevations of the proposed storage units shall comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A.4, except that the west wall adjoining the residential property shall be a split face concrete masonry block wall. 1.8 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application with revised plans that comply with the conditions of approval listed herein, prior to establishment of the new use. 1.9 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.10 No new signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (UDC 11-3D). 1.11 The Applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains located on the west side of the property (21 inch sewer). The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains located on the west side of the property (10 inch water). The applicant shall be responsible to install two water connections due to fire flow requirements. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of Meridian. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81 /2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional ]Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Exhibit B Page 3 ,~, ~ : bra ~f. ~ h, ~} ~~ ~~ ~~ w ,.ice r y zs s+- ~- f {,y sr f~"~~ Hy ,, !`!.~v:1 ,yp~ n '~+ 3 ~'' .K yl) i 2 lour ~5 a = q - ~ - ~ ~' ~ ~~3, ~' '_ng;j. ~; ~ .~ ~;.~; : , z~ r~ :L 1y y~ ;;w~ E L~ ~- "~:~~. ~~~ - - l ~~ ~~~~' ~ + s ~ ( y,.y; { i ~'# A s. -.} .' ~) ~~ 4 , ~l~ ~~~~Y ` ~~~ ~e- .. ,~&s~' µ SFr- ,` `.i_; ~ ~ ~` r.~ ~ '~ i ;i ~,;,, -r, :<y i>r; F i I .,.-. `I ~,, ~~ :. '::~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING. ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE • ATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 2.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the azea being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 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 the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 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. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 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. 2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.14 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.15 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 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. 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 %a" outlet face the main street or pazking lot aisle. Exhibit B Page 4 L'n, a',.' i F r L ~Yrl~~'.. _ _ C 3 ~'t Y~' - '~5 1 i f F~ ~~, t ~s~li :~" x ~ ~ '+' v h t~.~.. 1 ; C' W _ ,7 ~ Y y _~. .~ z -f,,. _ .,5r t ~ .t Z ~l..J~ p '' ! _ _ .,~ ~ c r~ ~ ~ ~ 1 s _ ti l:a i ~ rK { ~ ~ ~ ' ~(4~i % .~ r1 n b: . ~ . ~~ } ' Y~,. :yf ~ 9 )M,NC 3 ~+,' r~- 5 SC~.'.~ i ' - 7. `~ , aJ~ S ~ Y :. . ~ k ~ ~~3 r i. ~~~ ~~ ' y~: ~ , , - { 4 + t ~.~E€, 4 J ~ T ,y [ a fi ,~ ~' ~s4 FF 'L ~T t .':~,'~ 1 t• 1 ~ j, , { I S 1 F i ~~ ~ ,. 1 w`r ~ ,~ f f .~ ~ i ~inlR l ~ ~. .(,'G' r. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 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 driveways, including the bridge and the emergency access driveway from the south, shall be straight or have a fuming radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.4 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. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route azound the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.7 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing or rolling emergency access gate at the emergency access point to the site. The gate shall be equipped with a Knoxbox Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire Department. 3.8 All buildings in complex shall be identified with building numbers. ~; 3.9 Fire extinguishers aze required on the site every 150 feet. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Pazks Department did not submit comments on this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. Exhibit B Page 5 S, 17b . Y S ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~u ~ ~ . - ,_t - ~.'; _. ~ a G ,,.. ~^ _ ~ Yf .~ ~.. ~` ~; 1 ,, f _ ~ iT 9 t; C ,_ r~ .~ ~.~ "~t'~ ~... - - L "~~ ?"t ~§44 _ t ~ ~c ~ :~..:rr,~:~ ~; ~1 ~ a Ets 1y t ti i~L'r .~"~ - ~ ` p-iS ~,'.p-;± ] ` ~ to T ~ Z - , , ~ 3 Y ~ y „~ . a+ ~r~.~' ~ri T ~d ~ ~ } ~ 'f -1~. '' ~ ~ ` { ~:. r lay .,., ~ r2- - u::W ~ ~ r €;;; - ~K E 4 i 5~ f F ~ ~ ¢ a ii t W p~ ti ~. -. 4 y' ''EE S„ - Y ~ - - ~ J t C ~i ~ t - i ~i~" ~ r_.' ., fit; F`{."'~.1~~~ ~ie L F a - - ~~.~k; t ~i - 'r Ufa ~ ` .,_, __ , . '4~' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 ACRD has reviewed the submitted application and site plan and has no site specific requirements at this time due to the fact that all street improvements exist. ud:•.:.F> ~I Exhibit B Page 6 f, ~a~t _ k~ ro } ~,~ w _ ~~ { ~ ~~ ~ 5 Jh k r~~~l• F ~~4 3~ tF ~ + ~ ~4 i ` *i . g ~ s~ .. f`, .~ - ~ Pi+S~'~. ~; Y ~~' 4 1 ~ ~ •`,~ j .~Y' i Y-AS ' EE J ._ t a d.? ~~~ 1 ~ ~.', i gib. k 7 T3~t '44G ~ . ~{, ~ i" it 1.: O z. r ?" t pp~ t ~ k:: ~ "r } ns 4 i fv '~~~ ~~ a ~ r.~~ ~ ti xV~ ~:;: ~ 5 v~.. {µ K~ ~~ y' j~li :~:5J ~', t~ 1 F S py+,:.~ ` ~- ' } ~~ ~ Fi ~ 7 ~ ~~ d i fr r~ ~ ~ r~ u`~t ~ r f r ~,z ~` ,, ~. ~ _ . ~,~. ~. ~. ~~~' l CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I3EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~DATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the existing site is lazge enough to accommodate the proposed use and comply with the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district, except for the pazking requirements. Off-street vehicle parking is required at the ratio of one space per 500 squaze feet of gross floor azea in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Bicycle parking is also required at a rate of 1 space per 25 vehicle spaces. Because of the nature of the proposed use of the property for storage units, Staff does not believe it's feasible to require the applicant to comply with these requirements. Staff is recommending that the applicant apply for Alternative Compliance to this requirement with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff's analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Mixed Use -Regional. The property is currently zoned C-G, which complies with this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regazding the requirements for this use). 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the operation of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended chazacter of the azea. Further, Staff believes that the proposed use will not adversely change the essential chazacter of the azea. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission fmds that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public facilities and services. -~' ,j;- 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Exhibit C Page Z Ty ~ Y~~~~ f ~ l ~~~', .~~:~a9 _ 1 ~ ~ , ~bx N ~ ~ y~ K~ -. r. ~~ "~'~ ~ ~_ r r f ~ * ~i F. f ~ ~~ ~ 1 .lam ~,ft 4 ~ Y ~~~ t ~ a;~ q '} cv -, ~~k 7 ", r !%.7~1. '~ L~ d h'.: kt .ti:~.. '~ ~ - ~7 ~~ ~ r as- f ~ ~ l4 YF a~'~ ~p / ' '' ~ ~• x ~' ~ ~ ~a . e ~ ~ } ~; 1 ;~~. _ a ~%, ~ ~~. ,~s ~ ~,,~;.}.. - r k ' `~ ~.h 1 's f1~ ` 1 t :~ .. kfF 8'~~ V ~• '611'3' G ~ ~~ :.~ 4 1 . .. t~f :.~.i 4 rrr ~ k~ (TS~t~(~iY ... k ~ j t ~ ~ r.,s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE • ATE OF JANUARY 3, 2008 If approved, the Applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Staff recognnzes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, Staff does not believe that the amount generated by the proposed new use of the property will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed 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. ~~ ~- ::: y ~ f. } ~ ~1~ s r .r` ~. ~ r ~ ~ :~ ~ i K Yi' It r2 !; c oi n ~N {~,4- - ~ ~. I ~ Y 7 ~ ~.P. r ' f`. - ~ ,r . ~F~k ~ ~ . " f C ~4 ~~~ Y i _ ~ T ~~~~ 1 ., f .~ ~ - ,~ ~ 9 ~ j ~ ~ i + ,~.. ~33ry+;~. ~ ~ is r '° T y ~_~,:i, f~r7 4 ~ ~ s ~,,1.+ 7~. q~ ~ti.=' t .~'. ~~ . ~'~ y*~ y ~ ~~s ~: ' 3~9r, f ~ ` ri ate; `' ~ ,t'• ~ ~~(: ~ iq ~ s ,t+ y~'p A ~ ,~, ~ ~ ^'t r w<~~~ y4 i ~ _t `^~` - ~~' ,,~~'_; January 14, 2008 CUP 07-022 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 ' ~ APPLICANT Dr. Dan Thieme ITEM NO. 4 ' -~'~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 3, 2008 -Conditional Use Permit F,~ for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the t= .~ downtown Meridian design guidelines for Meridian Eye Care - 125 W. Cherry Lane AGENCY COMMENTS a ~: CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes :~; ' CITY ENGINEER: ~%~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ` ',Y.: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ ~~ ~ ,,~, H>~ _ ~~~ ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ a CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ t~~ . CITY WATER DEPT: ;'_ :' CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~ < ,T ~. MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~;~ ~. ` ~ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment ::, 1 SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: '~ '~T ' IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting ,k ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~' `~ , P~f~~ `° MaterlQls presented cat public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. ~s ~~: :" J 'i%• 1E~r>f-2 W~'" .. ... ~~ i `~ - ,, s+ ^~. S. l~ -, ~~ 4 ISL. - January 14, 2008 RZ 07-021 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 ~~~' ~~..-~ APPLICANT Joint School District No. 2 ITEM NO. Jr µ?*. REQUEST Public Hearing -Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R-4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and ' L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive for Education Campus Commercial AGENCY COMMENTS ~; ~` `.~; CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~ ~j 0 ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~ s CITY ATTORNEY .~ ~~fy; CITY POLICE DEPT: C~ '' s; ~ ' CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: + CITY WATER DEPT: . CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment `r.; -2s;;. .y~ CITY PARKS DEPT: u ~,~ , ~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: .1 ,5 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments +~- ,: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~;~ ~y ~' ~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments IDAHO POWER: . _. ~. INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: f +, ' OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting / No Comment by ITD ;~_~, Contacted: Date: Phone: ~ "r"" #}n `- , Emaile~: Staff Initials: r Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of AAeridian. :s. ,,.. ~„' i ~.,. ...: x. ::.; ,~; ~~,x.. :z~;~. ,E ~'` ~`j 4 ;'~ ~Y January 14, 2008 PP 07-025 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 ~y ~. APPLICANT Joint School District No. 2 ITEM NO. 6 J._~ ~ +~ ~,`i ~,~ REQUEST Pubiic Hearing -Request for Preliminary Plat approval fo 7 commercial building lots ~' &$'` ~ ~ on 25.87 acres in proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial -southeast ~` comer of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive AGENCY COMMENTS ., ''~~' CITY CLERK: See RZ Packet :.~. ~ +;~; CITY ENGINEER: ~''-~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: .~ - CITY ATTORNEY ~ ,n/~ C~ - ; CITY POLICE DEPT: y 1 _ ,~~ k~ r' ~~~'-~' CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ' k- CITY SEWER DEPT: wn? CITY PARKS DEPT: ..1, , MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ~, '_y;~ ".,- ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: Ci=NTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: lY- NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~~~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: - IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: '~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~. `3 ~ ?~~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. << = ~ ~- -.~~a ~~... y;~ ,.; ~~ ~ ~'?a :.,,_ ~~LLyx: ?.,, ~ .}~ '<=j<:z '''..~;,3iti ~~ ~ -~~ ~. f.~.'. ~y.• f r~ ~ < ~t F ,,,, ~ ;< ;; - := ;, :f~ January 14, 2008 AZ 07-019 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 APPLICANT Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to an L-O zone for Stake House - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY (I CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~ ~ ~„J'J(" 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: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See AfAdavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;;_ ;- ~=:' "Y'" January 14, 2008 AZ 07-020 ,~ ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 ~, ~ APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC ITEM NO. S °4°~ REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road °~~: AGENCY COMMENTS ~. sf. p',° CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~t ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ,~~ t -;_ ,; CITY ATTORNEY ~-~ ~~, a. y ~ ' ,~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: , CITY BUILDING DEPT: '~ n~ CITY WATER DEPT: °i CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ~ ~ ~ `f CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: r': ~# ' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached DRAFT Comments ~ " CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: "' "' ' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: . ~~~ ~~ ~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS; ~~ ~ ` ~ OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting /See Letter by John H. IR~nston Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. - :,~;: ~~ ~-x! ~~_ ,_~:. ~_ W..;„~ ~ ~dz°%~`'.-. l~r~` y`,, £r-; ~`~. January 14, 2008 PP 07-027 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 3 residential building lots 8~ 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles - NWC of E. Ustick Rd and N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet ~ /Q CITY ENGINEER: ~/ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY C~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;_,., ;'. ; i~'i ?j `~ ,'-~ r'+ ~` ~~ Gy r~ anuary 14, 2008 CUP 07-023 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING January 17, 2008 APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles - NWC - ~ of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road y ~` AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ ~ ; , CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: /~ ~~' CITY ATTORNEY ~~ ~' ~" ,~ ' CITY POLICE DEPT: ~; r ',, 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: ~ ~ V''' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: =;; SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~.~r.~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: .. f ~;:~~ OTHER: t ~, Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~_t M``;"' Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~: ~ ': ,rEs~ ~ r ~ ~~~ ,Ff i~~yn