Loading...
2008 06-05O Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay - ;_ - - ~x~t~~t~ X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall ~ r ~~~ X David Moe -chairman ~~. ~~ ~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended {r2 '~ ~~ 'ti~~~.a _w 3. Consent Agenda: i' Y' 'nA i A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission l ~-:~ , Special Meeting: Approve ' 8,:, B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission _ Meeting: Approve r C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ,a, 08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church <~~ r- from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Vineyard ~:; Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street: Approve x 4 `.' . " '~ 4.. Continued Public Hearing from May.15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for - °~ ~~ Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts ~ °~~' '~ in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Village by Relo _ ~'~t, Develo ment - 3330 E. Overland Road: Recommend A ~ ~- p pproval to City Council 5. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an °q R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors, d~ . ~ ~ "~` LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council ~~T~' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 2008 Page 1 of 2 ~`x 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, '~~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~,~ ~, ~~z ~ +~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~`~' ~. ~ ::~ ,~ j'ik~ t xy, Xr ~, a ~ r ~ ~~, }-4.3;1 ~ L $ rr ; ti k #`p4 i'i Aw y~.f4.7.;1y ~.~„~, y 3 k i. ~. , -u i. f A'~i~ i ' P ` • ~~r ' w~ x ~- ~ `a ~~- T r+. t. ~t t~ n: S i7,~ its A ~~ 9 ~ x '~~.~Fj ~'V CL L r 3 . ~~~ ,. F-.~. ' !r' ~. ~~ a'k~ fW .~} ti ~ ~t-'Sim _ U~ ~,! ~~~ - ~~~ °, ~ , ;: ra t ~~ 7 `Tk e~ ,. ,. , , _.. ... ,., -_ ~~..~. ,gip. „°` ~.:,-,'-~ ] `x'. ~C 7 _ , .. , ~F FF~ i ~ ~i ~ - - - ra a~ 5 ~ I. 1 j E ~ ~~ ; f~ ~~ .. ~. u: ~'..a ~~; ~. r.f ~- ~~. ~~ ti t ,< ~. ~~ s , ~~ ~ .r~i.~ 6~~~ ~x~ .~ :.. ' I L b'~ s ~ ~ Lg - _ _a ~S y ~~ t ~[ ~y~,. - ~,~{ ~ ~ :~ ray. vsft - ~+ S" N ~ ,~~ -~''- j~ rt~yy;;'~ ~, ^TT '1 '~. ~.~., G~ Z~w h ^Y3a L 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: CUP 08-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities ' containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed `Y. ~ ' . .~ Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon _ . ,~- Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council _ r ;~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92 ~ ~" _ of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Property by Denise Alter - 2741 E. Leslie Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council ,~_ 8. Public Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from ;r`~ ' the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot ,~.., ~,;~ Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 N. Leisure Lane: °_` '~" Continue Public Hearing to July 3, 2008 9. Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of ' ' 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 _ (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, ~;'- ~ ;`_ west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast corners of W. McMillan Road -~~~` ~~ ' and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road ~ ~` Y and N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 17, 2008 10. Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 - lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of _ W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to July 17, 2008 .~11, i f11i4~ y~. ~ iii- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly 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. .P. ~. ~~ . .~ , ~; h ~h ., T ~~.T 4 ~ f7/- ~l :~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ l:' r. 's ,~a ~y~ti fit. C ~ ~~,. ~+ ~~ A- ? 1 ~ ,yip ~ a ~. '! ,~ N $ 1 ti ~w,. ~~ ,_ ~', ~ ,,r Y yip {' ~'j 4a r ~ ., r~ L '1~.. ~ ~ i C ~~ r ~ ~v ~ ~ t -.,xt~ ,. ~ ..era seJF ~'t . ~ ;_~; r, '' tyr 'i ~ ~ \ rw~y # i ~'' ~' ~., ~ ~a S ~Y.~ r~t~ v ~c` ~ y9 ~ a y > ~ 4 f `' ~ ~~ r ~ ran r; n .j z ' c i ` W^'s x . "~.. rry ~~y ~-;grip ~,~ ~3-: ..., 1~,: ~~: . S F r.Ff ~E» 5('. 'y- ;' :.; ~.,: ~~, , .?.'~ >F• ~~i R~' kt'ira ; ~4~"'~j :k. ~s L:~Yj~ ~A I~ 7-.: ~ :~'~ 1''" y: ~:-:4 e ;~~i .?'_L~& F: ~: ~~'h ._ ~~} ,~: }z a '~~ta~.~ ,~ 4 ~~.: ~:~7,5 ~^ ~= .. ~,, h b~a~~`` .: ;v i I ~ ~ . E IDIAN-~- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I ® REGULAR MEETING AGENDA I ~, City Council Chambers '~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay Michael Rohm Joe Marshall David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Vineyard Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street: 4. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Villaae by Relo Development - 3330 E. Overland Road: 5. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: CUP 08-008 Request for, Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 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. o ~ i containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92 of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Property by Denise Alter - 2741 E. Leslie Drive: 8. Public Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion by the Meridian Library District -1727 N. Leisure Lane: 9. Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast corners of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest comer of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: 10. Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest comer of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 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. (P.'A! f ,~"~T i :~. Date/Time 06-02-2008 05:21:55 p.m. LocaIID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report ~ Transmit HeaderText Clty of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11 " ~~~`2u52 'I'n.~" ~Y ~-~vrbuc 1~ltrtiee ' ~~G ~~~'Vl E IDIAN BAERiD1AN Pt.ANNING AND ZONIPIti f t! A H O REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chamber9s 3S East Idaho Avenu+s, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, June S, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. °Aithough the Cfry of Meridian no ta»ger requires sworn testimony, ail preaentatians before the Mayor and City Countd! era expected to be truthful and honest to best of lire ability of the presenter.' 1. Roll-caR AYtendanari: Tom O'8rien Wendy Nevrton•Huckabay Michael Rahm Joe Marsha0 David Moe - chaimtan 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning ~ Zoning Commission SpeC181 Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of array 1S, Z008 Planning 8 Zoning Commiasion Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and ConaiuaiorYS of Law far Approval: CUP 08-Oi0 Request for Condfflonai Use Permit to operate a chgrch from an existing building In an I-L zoning district for dinsyard Christ[an Fellovrship by Randy Roder - l33t3 W. Taylor Street: 4. Continued Pubila Hearing from play 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.08 acres fram lire RIiT & R1 zoning districts In Ada County to the G-G aon~g district tar ,Overland Vlllaae by Refo Development -3330 E. Overland Road: 5. Continued Pubila Hearing from May 1S, 2008: PP 08004 Request for a PreUminary Ptat vrlth ti restdentiai building lots and 1 common !ot in an R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 awes for Maxfield by Cottage investors, LLC -3285 L. Falcon Drive: 8. Cor~nued Pubila Hearing item May 15, 2008: CUP 08.008 Request fat Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living FacAities ~mtsovat~cmeen~~~eQ p~eriyar~crgr~m ,~~,~.or2 Mynae deshh~g accon for d~antusa raUated 6o aws„+,anie snd/ar hearing, Maass comsaa~ any as otn~ ee eas.aa~ ~>e~ ae ~ ~ rA a~a puma ~eewe. ~~ .: . .~~:, Total Paces Scanned : 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 34 No. Job Remote5tatlon Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode 1obType Results 001 133 3810160 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:02:10 2/2 9 EC HS CP9600 002 133 8989559 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP19200 003 133 2088848723 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:27 Z/2 1 EC HS CP28800 004 133 8886854 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:25 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 133 2088985501 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 133 8467366 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 133 8950390 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:26 Z/2 1 EC HS CP31200 ~5: -r ~, Date/Time ~-;~. Local ID 1 ``' Local ID 2 ~' ~_,: ~ A. r~ I~. ~' broadcast Report ~ 06-02-2008 05:22:02 p.m. Transmit HeaderText Cltyof Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Tlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 133 2088882682 04:58:28p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:25 2J2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 133 2083876393 04:58:28p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:52 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 133 287 7909 04:58:28 p.m. 06-02-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 011 133 8885052 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 133 8881983 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 013 133 2083776449 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:01:14 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 014 133 4679562 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:27 212 1 EC HS CP28800 015 133 8886700 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 016 133 8884022 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 017 133 3886924 04:58:28 p.m. 06-02-2008 00:00:52 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 018 133 8841159 04:58:28 p.m. 06-02-2008 00:00:28 2/2 9 EC HS CP28800 019 133 8840744 04:58:28 p.m.06-02-2008 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP26400 ~a;` , `'' , Abbreviations: 'r HS: Host send k HR: Host receive ~!~>~ WS: Waiting send ~~. ~>; ~.,• _ ~' ~~.' ; ='r yW. F• ). K~'.' Pf~ ~~, :. ~.;: ~...: i ~5 I ~~ yy '''*: ( li ~P.- ~' ~~ ~' `I ~,~ 4... ~ ,' A) ~~ :.' ~~ { ' PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mallboxsave FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct ,,:,, F, r: ~~ r_r° r~~~s ~%f ~~ r~~~ rf \ a { ~ ~ 1}F t vt"t.- ~ r ~ «t ~ ,~s e , T ~,~' S',y,, ~.7 ,~ry{ j ~ k '' ~ ~; ~ ~ j ~: ~~ t J ~/ ` ~ 1 ~+ ,.t ~~n ~ - ~ry~t ~~ar~~ is ~Ji~ ~ ~~ ~,- F j•~ s ~ ~r ~~ ~ ~ ~ s '"' ~~ ~ ~~s ~ S } L; ~~ ~- b r •r. ~ ;r' r 1 x •. y~, d a ~'~r -- ,,, ~, $ to ~,~w;;:~; ~.~,. y:; ^ dl's • ~r~ E IDIAN h ,_ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING t';~ ' n ~ ~ ~ 7 REGULAR MEETING n _ m m -'' AGENDA ~-' City Council Chambers k~~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 1 :~ Thursday, June 5, 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: ~om O'Brien ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay 9' y _~ Michael Rohm _~Joe Marshall ,. ~;, David Moe -chairman "~~ 2. Ado tion of the A enda: ~~n. 3. Consent Agenda: ~ ,. 3- A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission t;; Special Meeting: ~~ ~p~ ~a ~ `' B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission 1'F.~,'• ~"" Meetina~ n ~ ~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ` 08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Vineyard °-~ Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street: ~ , ~-~~ tad ~ v _ 4. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for p~:.. '~~~ Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts }- in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Village by Relo ~_~ Development - 3330 E. Overland Road: ~it/ C Dr-'trn~ ~Yf~v'o Ire. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~. 5. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for ' ' ~~. a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an s;," R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors, ~T.. m LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: //~~ //~~~_, Q ~ ~P.~iDi'h~'3'1 t~h o~ T J job Y2~ 1/GW ~ ~ ~ ~J~~ „~ ~}.~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: CUP 08-008 Request for, ,,; Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 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 888-4~4~33 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~'~ ,~ t, ~[~ t ~: C ~ - y nY' ~' # I ~,_ gK(~b4 y;i~ rtn~n !'lt r :5 ~ x Eli ~ *e L r ~ -' . f ~'. v f ~w(R ... ~ t :: J :, '4 ~: f j 4M one ~ K3' H.4'•f""'R~`w' - ~ "ff" Y~ ~ . } r +; ,~I , } y; yr i ~,y, ~ Fit ~~,:' :.t= -.. Z,; ~.n R ~ ,~+' ~ `~ ~ :; r~r K~?- a .y _ g ~~$ ~~ ~ x . { ~ f< -+ ~$ ~ ~ i `4A~4.3 y„ ~ ~ _ <~ ~ '~~ r~ti~~~~~~~~ ~~ o-r g~' '~' !3 1 S 1 Sj. ~~ •~ ~I i ~~ tt C~1 ht ~ !r`y~n' 7 C i r+ ~ ~ ~ =f i s ~~ ~. ' '` 3 ?t f y. 'rVr Fry r ~; ~{ ~ ~ ~3flf ~r~~ i to ~` ~ ~ +~ ... r ~ C °, ,,;, y r L`4'~I :~; ,,.a: ~~~ . :;, ,-. r ~~: ,. ~,, ~KL ,~n ~~- {- %uy =~~ ,=~~~; ,,;,,.. ,~~,;:;: o~ az ~, ~:*< ~-,~~ "i H ,Y{k 'E>,: ; <r. r_ .:> H rte' r~ . _,.._~} t~ :}_ :_~, ..µ€ ,y r ~, x~ . ,;~~: .. ~~ ~ o containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC/'-- 3295 E. Falcon Drive: Q~Go~v, ~. P,nc+4 A'/~~`'01/G~ ~ C~ ~ (_-fjGc.o~ Ci~.Q 7. Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92 of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Property by Denise Alter - 2741 E. Leslie Drive: ~~~m~~ ~ ~~~ov~ ~ G~~ ~ ~~~ 8. Publrc Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion by the Meridia Library District -1727 N. Leisure Lane: 9. Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 F~equest for annexation and Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: ~ ~~ ~o?©~ 10. Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest comer of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: ~ ~o~,-~ n ~z f~~c.,bf.~'c ~-l~a-~i ~5 ~v ~T~y ~ ~ODB. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - June 5, 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. '~;;;: ~: ~ ~ ~; } _' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 5, 2008, was called ~~~ ` to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. w;- Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckaby. Members Absent: Commissioner Tom O'Brien. Yfk Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Sonya Wafters, Bill Parson, Scott `" Steckline, Joe Silva and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall ~'~;; X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for June 5th, 2008. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call roll. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: ~:~~~ Moe: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of agenda and there is one change to our agenda this evening. That is Items No. 9 and 10, which are the AZ 08- '~'~ 004 and PP 08-003 for Oakcreek will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 17th. So, those hearings will not be heard this evening. They will be heard on the July 17th meeting. Other than that, the agenda will stand. So, if I can get a motion to approve the adoption of the agenda as revised. Rohm: So moved. .Y _ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. Marshall: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve the revised adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. -, `~° ~ Item 3: Consent Agenda: ~,,.,s; ~•., ^F~ ~~' S'~, ~ L N a ~ Plannin & Zonin ~~ M ridi g g e an June 5, 2008 Page 2 of 43 ~' ~. A. Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission - Special Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a church E' from an existing building in an I-L zoning district for Vineyard Christian Fellowship by Randy Rodes - 936 W. Taylor Street: y~ Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Items on the agenda are the ar ~! {' approve minutes of April 3rd, 2008, Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting. µ'> Item B is the meeting minutes for our May 15th regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and C, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 08-010 for Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Any discussion? Comments? Having none, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor _: ~ say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Next item on the agenda is the start of our public hearings, but before we get that started, if there is anyone out here that hasn't been to a Planning and Zoning meeting, I'm going to kind of give you the format of how we go through this. We will -- I will open a hearing and, then, ask the staff to do an overview of the project and, basically, give }' the recommendations to the Commission for this project. After which time the applicant will have -- will come up and they will have 15 minutes to, basically, review the project as well and explain to the Commission why it should be approved as they were hoping it would be, as opposed to what, possibly, the Planning Department was to change. After that time -- there are sign-up sheets in the back for everyone in the audience that are .r willing to come speak, you would have three minutes to speak your mind in regards to -> the project. At that time, once all the signature items are out, I would ask if there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak and, if so, they will also have three ~~_ minutes to speak. After that the applicant will be given the opportunity to go back and come up and, basically, discuss anything that was discussed during the hearing itself. _ Other than that we would, then, vote and go from there. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: AZ 08-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts .~~1~~. .. ., .. .. ~~ ~-: ~ ~ zw r ~,s ] az :~~ ~~ ~~ >~.~• ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~* _ F c ~ _ ~ ~ , ~,: x,~ i `„. y ~ ~ ti< r ~,~ ~. ~ °' ~ _ ~, x. 3 ~ r ~ ' ,~ ..; , r, ,v ~tF ~^ ~ h j '' y :ma ? Y s ~~ f ,f `f ~~ i5;~ ~4,a , 1 ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ F ~ ` r .' n ? ~~1>?= }; 2.'' aa, [ ~ ~, '~ ',> I M ~z '~ ' i ~_4 •. 1 ~~ 4~ ~} 7 y t '` ~e - '~. t G t:''1(m ~f. L ^:tr a y,, 'h ~:~``~; ;. ,. 3' Y:: r:E. S'~ _, _ ~-~ q ^. r ;. ~" ~'. f;.., i. k' ;`SY: 3~;` ~;;, ;. °1 :._~,. ;;_~ -„ r ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 3 of 43 in Ada County to the C-G zoning district for Overland Village by Relo Development - 3330 E. Overland Road: Moe: So, having said that, I would like to reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 08-001 for Overland Village and ask staff for the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for annexation and zoning of 9.06 acres of land from RUT and R-1 in Ada County, to C-G, general retail and service commercial. The property is located on the northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Overland Road. Right here on the overhead. This site is currently vacant, except for an ACHD park and ride lot at the north end of the site. Right here. A rural residential property zoned C-G exists to the north. Commercial property zoned C-C in Silverstone Business Campus exists to the south. To the east is vacant land zoned C-G. And to the west across Eagle Road are commercial properties in Dorado Subdivision Zoned C-G. The requested C-G zoning district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed use regional for this property. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan showing how this property may develop with 28,820 square feet of commercial uses, consisting of one 10,000 square foot multi-tenant building, one 14,820 square foot building and one 4,000 square foot building. A drive-thru window is depicted for each of the buildings. And the police department is requesting that conditional use approval be required for each of the drive-thrus. Staff has included a development agreement provision to that effect. The ACHD park and ride lot currently at the north end of the site is proposed to remain. A portion of the city's multi-use pathway system is also planned across this property. The applicant has included a pathway on the site plan in accordance with the pathways plan. Access to the site is proposed from one right-in only driveway from Overland Road right here where Rackham Way is currently located, approximately 262 feet east of the Eagle-Overland intersection. Rackham Way is proposed to be vacated and relocated further to the east. Right here. City Council approval of a vacation of the right of way is requested with this application. A full access is proposed to -- from Overland where Rackham Way is proposed to be relocated, approximately 518 feet east of the intersection. No access is proposed or approved to Eagle Road. A stub street to the east is proposed from Rackham Way to the west easement boundary of the Eight Mile Creek for future connectivity to the vacant commercial property to the east. Staff is requesting that the applicant submit a road trust to ACHD for half the cost of a bridge crossing the Eight Mile Creek to allow for future connectivity to the east and access to the signalized Overland-Silverstone intersection as a provision of the development agreement for annexation of this property. The ACHD report states that the Rackham Way access will be restricted to right-in, right-out in the future, either on determination by ACRD staff of a substantial safety issue or on the provision of a connection from Rackham Way to the signalized intersection to the east, whichever occurs first. Based on this, the fire department has concerns about emergency access to the site from the west. After meeting with the applicant and speaking with ACHD, ACHD sent a memo agreeing to coordinate with the fire department to insure that any access restriction device to be installed at the intersection of Overland and Rackham would allow for emergency vehicles to turn left ;'d'~'¢i f .. ~„ s +.. .._~ t .... s~.:. .x~, f .J .~ a 2 ~fi c,~~ . 4 L ,F i t. ' ~ n h ~ `'. r '{~ ~ ., ` 3x ~ .~~~Y{ ~ T 3 *f 1 ~ T_. . .v-~, . ~ ~ r~.y~~., p. +t.. _ i n$ "~ ~ 4 ~ =''~d ~ 1~ , y t ti v, tzt x ~-, . G { ,; f 5 ~~~ '. t ~~~~'.~ ~ ,• . ~rf'3~ 1~dr . k ,, ~ ~ ~ h~'~n ~ H }. i ~- ~y i 8' !''' ~~~~_ t '- 3. ' . 'y-) W 1 (.. ~ ~f ~:~.. k_, ;,; ~~. ~'~ f ' ;. Y, a° `. F' ~j Y Meridian Planning ~ Zoning ~J June 5, 2008 Page 5 of 43 actual -- what this property owner owns is actually 4.77 acres. So, it's quite a small piece of property. Okay. So, they are being required to dedicate the right of way for Rackham Way and do all the improvements, the construction of that road. The vacated portion of Rackham Way, which is this right here that currently has utilities in it, such as fiber optics, that are extremely expensive to relocate. So, we -- it's just not feasible to relocate those, so that roadway or that -- where those easements run has to remain in a drive aisle. We don't gain that as buildable area. The property owners at this location do not own any portion of the Eight Mile Creek. That' is solely on the neighboring property's -- property owner's property. We are not responsible or do we control the timing of their development, the right of way needed to get access over to Silverstone where the signal is currently on Overland, or, frankly, the cost of that, since it's an off site. Due to the floodway -- and if you see -- Sonya, can you go just to the site plan, please: This -- actually, I'll just stop real quick. If you want to go back to that one, I'll just point out -- so, this is where the existing road comes out, that's a full access right now. Part of this development, the conditions from ACHD, is relocating that approximately 236 feet to the east. Okay. Thank you. Next one. What we have shown on this site plan is the floodway. This is controlled by FEMA. It's different than a flood plain. Flood plain we can actually build in, you just have to build your buildings out of it. floodway we cannot touch. It has to remain a conduit to get flood waters through the site. So, any type of a crossing has to span this area. So, the -- you know, one of the smallest areas is in that location and that's roughly 80 feet. So, to gives you scale, that's about half of what a bridge crossing of the Boise River would be. So, it's -- it's not just a small little bridge. This is -- this is a big, big bridge and for a small 4.77 acre property to absorb that cost or half of that cost, it's -- it's just not feasible. Sonya, could you go to the -- the zoning map, please. So, here you see this is kind of a little doughnut hole, if you will, for what hasn't been annexed. The -- the entire C-G zone on this comer, once this is annexed, is a little over 85.5 acres. So, this little comer is roughly -- it's less than six percent of that. It's 5.6 percent of the total. And we have looked at some concepts for how these crossings could occur. Currently -- where Rackham Way currently is, there is a crossing across the Five Mile currently and I don't know if it's still there, but there is a -- there was a residence up here that utilized this Rackham way. So, there is a crossing at this location. And if you could go to that -- the last slide that I had, please. Right here. One of the northem property owners gave me this plan and we put our site plan on the comer. They --from the property owners that I talked to to the north, their main objective is to get to the signal to -- they already have access to Rackham Way. My understanding is of fire code that for those northem properties to develop, which is just over 70 acres, they have to have two points of ingress and egress for fire code, that you could not build out that amount of acreage and I believe they couldn't build out more than probably seven to ten acres with a single access point, that two access points are going to be required for those properties to develop to the north. They already have access to Rackham. We have a crossing there. They want to get across to the light and that is where the money to build a bridge should go into -- into the crossing here and, ultimately, by default, these two are going to have to join, just because they are going to have to -- you know, you have to be able to get to both accesses. So, ultimately, this is how we see the master plan, not an additional crossing to get across here, but the crossings to get to the signal. Safety is i9 ~~~ r ~~~ ~ Y~ ~1~ *f~ $jE~r~j,~41 _L 4,i ~Y ~~"" W t -'cf'. S ~~` a~~0~r ~~~ 2 ~ ~ ~ 7 km ;~~V t T m M~ ,x, ' ~ -' *i d .fit ~ - ~,! a .. 4 ::-3 ~ 4 }L lS~A~„ Yx ' 1 . ~ ~ SLR 3 ."'-a H .F.j ~y _ ~ ley +~' ~ ~h ~` F , ~T~" Meridian Plannin & Zonin ~' g g June 5, 2008 Page 6 of 43 ~, :=~~ definitely a concem of ours also. We had' our traffic engineer, which is Stanley `_, Consultants, look at access or response time for the fire department -- back to the ~~'' aerial, please. There is a fire station right here. Access time to the site is roughly two minutes and 18 seconds, which is well within the five minute goal. They can achieve that several different ways if, by chance -- I mean right now ACHD said that they won't eliminate the left tum, but if by chance that does go away, there is also this option of going through onto Silverstone and, then, you could take a left tum to get into the site ~z}° via that way. I think as far as the initial response, I don't think that's the issue. It's secondary and tertiary of -- of emergency vehicles coming from the north across the ~~ freeway and, again, they could go through this way as a little bit, but with what I was showing you before on a master plan, you know, they could take a left in here, a left in _ here, and come around. It's really that -- not that much further than -- than what the other is. We have provided several viable options, we feel, to the fire department. - Actually, the planning director Anna Canning came up with one with -- after a median, having grasscrete where we have a curb cut already, that it could -- it would just be ~'~ landscaping and they could get in across a landscaping area with grasscrete with a -- that would pass a median if a median were ever put in. And, then, again, there has been different designs shown by our traffic engineer for a mountable median, which the fire department has a concem with the -- with the low areas on the fire trucks and stuff - like that. But there could be a median cut where it's striped and you really couldn't tell. So, there is -- there are lots of options, but I do want to go back to ACHD has agreed not to eliminate emergency access and this bridge -- half of the bridge is not their - ` requirement. They have -- that's not a requirement to ACHD property. So, I will wrap it is > up. Two -- two items. One is the four stories in lieu of three. And second is to remove the provision to put up a road trust for half of the bridge crossing. Thank you very ~-- much. ~.:, ~; ,~ Moe: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? ~ :. ~; ~~ - Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. :. . ,~-;" Moe: Okay. Marshall: Can we go back to that conceptual master plan for me for just a second? There. Thank you. Now, when you were saying that you're about, what, 4.7 percent or _ ~R,, five percent, essentially, of the total buildable area -- -; ~~, `~ Thompson: We are 5.6 percent of the total buildable area in this location. , ~' Y ' ~~'~~`' Marshall: Now, you're including only the 4.7 acres that you're saying is buildable? ~, ~'~~` Thompson: Correct. ~;. ~` Marshall: Does that include just the entire C-G area up above? ~~: , ~~ -; Thompson: It does. It includes -- ,, ;; r ~' `W ~- %~ ~ k~ ~~t~ ~~i ¢~ 4 '~ r¢' ~* l R 9 ~- tk }' S Y ~ s t ~ e;'r;2 ~y 3+ ~' ~ ~~e ~.r,2. ~ 4r .~ ' P h M ;n J 't ~ e 'u~ v. ~ 1 6 ~ 3.az, :. ~~ ~ r +- r C '~ 4 j 1` L ~~ .~~ r- '~'; ~ i JC n~ sA~ '~ ti ~ .~^ ~F2 = :.. a' p r~~r 4 1 l ~~ ~~;. c ', r~~- u.; ~o i ~ ~ > h t 3, r ~' ` ; ~, i` !y ~ZI '.. 7 `~~i' v s ' ~ ~ ~~4~ ~~ ~ y q ~ M ~ ,` l y.,~ ' r, ,~ '; ;:~ 4;~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~-~ June 5, 2008 Page 7 of 43 n Marshall: So, we are including that area that's not buildable up there in the on-ramp area and all that stuff that's also zoned C-G -- Thompson: No. What I took this from is the assessor's parcel map and it's just the property boundaries. So, like this property here was annexed to the center line of Overland. I have not included that -- right -- or that right of way in that calculation. It's just actual property lines, not -- not the right of way. Marshall: Right. But you said they own Eight Mile Creek and things like that. You didn't take those out of the calculations? Thompson: I did not, no. Marshall: Okay. Did you just -- to me it appears to be -- it's a small percentage, but it doesn't -- it appears to be more than five percent to me. Just --thank you. Thompson: Yeah. The top area is over 51 acres and, then, kind of in the middle above the Five Mile and just to clarify everything, this is the Eight Mile right here and, then, this is the Five Mile. So, that north of the Five Mile is a little over 70 acres. So, that -- that wouldn't include any of that. The ditch -- the creeks in that calculation, but where it would is probably this piece of property. Marshall: But knowing that you have to have -- that the city typically needs -- for emergency purposes, needs two entrances and exits; right? They kind of need that pass through, you don't feel you have any responsibility to that bridge over Eight Mile at all? ,, .. Thompson: Well, we are providing this access here. We are providing a hundred f' percent of the right of way and a hundred percent of the construction of that. You know, we are not getting any help for that. There is no pay back for any of that. So, that's one ~. of the access points that's needed for that area. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. ;. ,;,_ ~~,_ Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, anything? Rohm: Nothing. Moe: Thank you very much. Gary Allen. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Gary Allen. My address is 601 West Bannock in Boise. I'm project counsel for the applicant and Tamara covered our issues on this well. I just wanted to emphasize one or two things about the bridge. And the first one is we have no control over if, when, and -- if that will ever be built. We don't know when development's going to occur over there. So, it's not r y: ! ~ ~ s ~-r; .'S'S't H iJA xG '~ '~ ZI J ft~ ~ ~y~~,-' ~+ }~Lr ,_. ._ .. vl +~`.. 1 r I L +' t'~ 4 fwtl. ~'7 ..A~ ~. ~' C _ i pA'? ma~yy..r{~ ~ ~'._, ~;~F ~~~___lll N 7. ~_n li Z ~~ ~ 5 j : ~~ ~ es' ~ ¢ fir:. W y ~ ~ ry I 5~ ~ ~;i .. _ 1. ,. ,~ ,~ y r i,`^ P ,e:r:: ~C 1 ~'~ 4 ~ x > , ' z: -~ ~~i ~ ~ ~z H:~~Y ~4 .: ~. e'~+e~.. ~ ~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning J 5 2008 "a .Y une Page 8 of 43 ~ ~;~~~ ~.r. -- ou know, we ma be uttin u mone Y Y P 9 p y -- if we have to put up money for the bridge -- ~ .: that is not never used and so, you know, that's one of our concems is that it's just not a ~~: _ useful expenditure. As Tamara pointed out, it's also not proportionate to our impact on ~~~' the area, so we are concerned about that. And I wanted to make sure that you I ~ -~ I understood what the ACHD condition requires. They are also concerned about trying to 'i ~~.'.' gain some connectivity in here and we would like that as well, of course, but, again, it's not our property, we don't control it. So, their condition says that if the -- if that other r~t'~ road is put in, you know, that -- and there was a connection made, then, they are going to cut off the access or the -- they are going to close off Rackham to be right-in, right- '~ : out. They want the main access to go around and out at the light. But they have said, ,- as Tamara said, that they are not -- you know, because of the emergency access concems, that's going at least have to remain as athree-quarter access until then and F ~~~ there is no proposal to close it off at all now and the only reason they would close it off rA ~~ is if there were a substantial safety issue, in which case they would leave at least a k'- three-quarter or if the light goes in and they get a connection the other way. So, we `~~~ think this is covered about as well as it can be. And that, you know, you have really got a lot of different ways for the emergency vehicles to get in here. You have got -- as ~~~~~~ Tamara said, you have got direct access from the south. You have got the secondary access from Boise, which is to the east. And, then, it's only this tertiary access that we ~:: are concerned about and that is provided for with at least alert-in access. So, we think 5r `'; that that's sufficient. We have already got belt and suspenders on this. There is no need to have masking tape and staples. You know, we think that the fire department is ~: just being a little too cautious here and we would ask for that condition to be removed. ``''V Do ou have an I would be ha Y y -- ppy to answer any questions if you have any. "' Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. That was the only one that was signed. If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to speak, you're more than ~:~ ,, welcome. Okay. No one wants to come up. Okay. Thank you. Sonya, I do have a question for you. I was kind of curious in regards to the condition on the three stories in '::` lieu of four stories. What is the purpose of the three story in lieu of going any higher? F' R, Wafters: I believe that's -- excuse me, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. I believe that's '~` °:t.~' ~- what was shown on their plan. Staff does not necessarily have a problem with that ~~ being, you know -- the C-G zone allows up to 65 feet. So, that's fine with staff. ~.~ . Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~,= Moe: Yes, ma'am. r'` Newton-Huckabay: I may have missed it in the staff report, but I'm unclear on why the ~~^~ existing bridge isn't sufficient or -- or couldn't be improved if it was say widen or =;: something like that. I just need some clarification on why -- why the existing bridge on the property -- kt ~ ~~ ~'.yr ~,1 :^r s ~ ~'. r.4" i x^41 ~; J u i 1 i y~£' :dY ~ ,~ ` t °~ ~~ x ~_ ° ~ r9~ '-F nt' .Y ~4 y~, r: . 1 y ~~ ,p5 ~y~;Cy~~r; _; i %~ Ip ( s~. ~, ~ ~.t.~ - P~.Sr c , i-. ,t'v&'"~ ~',~ L , ` _ ~ZtY ~ j ~ ~ ~ t ~. ti ; Fm g,. ~ { } ~ ~~ 1~~"~~= ~~'' '~` ~'`~. a~ !fi~ ~ k ~ ~~ n n w~ "'cfi. ~ + x ~~ ~~ ~ ~ it ~ ,. ~ ` 4,~ } i f c ~ 'i 5 a~ 6~'~'$'~s}'s ~ r"~Y~ 0 2" ~ n r~... t v ~ _ L _ Y' ! 5 r i~~ k~ `~ w- ~ a ~~ , ar., ~. ';~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning •~ June 5, 2008 Page 9 of 43 µ~: Moe: You might want to wait until -- Sonya? She has a question for you. ur '~t~., Newton-Huckabay: The existing bridge, why is that not -- why do we need an additional bridge? Wafters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Huckabay -- Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, we need an additional bridge for interconnectivity between this parcel and the parcel to the east. It will also provide a more direct path for connectivity to the ~: signalized intersection at Silverstone and Overland. It also provides a more direct route t~ for the fire department. I think Joe is wanting to address the -- that a little bit more also, ~$ `"' if he may. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Can I -- Mr. Chair, can I ask one question before? ,~:<>~ Moe: Yes. Please. ;~~` Newton-Huckabay: I don't recall any other projects where we have required a bridge ~~ trust. Have we done that and it just is escaping my memory? ~{ Wafters: Waltman. Browning Plaza. North of the site. :~ ~:.:; - Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Oh, did we? Okay. Thank you. - Moe: Okay. Mr. Silva. "~ ~ Silva: Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, I know there is a little bit -- excuse me -- been a lot of controversy associated with the bridge. And there has been several k t<' instances where we have had multiple bridges within a given development. We have had it done multiple times. I just -- the names escape me, because we have had it - several times, probably about a half a dozen times. Our concem here is that -- and we have kind of addressed this -- or explained our concerns to the -- to the development team and the owners. You know, there is the Eagle fire station down here and there is '~''~ no problem, if they are in quarters or in the area south of Overland, there is no -- there t ;K is really no difference whether or not they are going to come down Eagle, turn right here on Overland and, then, go into the development. Or if they have to take this route down and into the development, our concem is that ACHD senses that there may be an overall traffic concem here where they may have to put some sort of median or control to prevent left turns in here at some point where the -- where there is a traffic safety concem on behalf of -- that ACHD has. And they proposed, as the design team had - indicated, that we could maybe perhaps put a raised median or some -- or some control ~=< device like that. Again, it kind of revolves around the issue of damaging apparatus as it ;`,% goes up a raised median at an angle, a 50,000 pound vehicle, and it twists the frame and we can damage our apparatus going in there. The other instances that the develop -- that Tamara alluded to was perhaps we could put sort of grasscrete down here with a -- basically, a gate that would allow us a back entry into this project. We have not under M ridi Pl i & Z i ~ 1 ~~ e an ann ng on ng June 5, 2008 Page 10 of 43 F; ~ any condition every had that situation arise in a commercial project. We have never _ had to go through agate -- a locked gate, whether it's an electric gate or a locked manual gate to enter any commercial project, though we have done that in residential settings. So, if this engine company is in quarters, there is no -- there is little -- little delay getting in there, whether or not they come down here and in or if they have to go , through Goldstone to Silverstone and in. But if we have any fire in this area right here, F f the second due company coming from our fire station one located right across the street from the cemetery, if they come the most direct route -- let's assume they go east on Franklin, south on Eagle, left tum, and in on the realigned Rackham, that's 2.6 miles. If they have to put on the additional mileage required to come down to Goldstone and into Silverstone in here and into Rackham -- realigned Rackham, that's three and a half miles -- 3.5 miles. And so that can be a considerable delay. In today's economic -- economic situation in the business community, we -- this area -- this C-G area here has =,; ~~ already been annexed in. Tamara's absolutely correct, we have little or no control over ~;N::_ conditions we may be able to impose to improve the connectivity to this parcel. That's . our concern is that ACHD may at some point say, hey, we need, for safety concems on ~' ~~ behalf of the public, the motoring public, we have got to control the access right here . before this parcel would be subdivided or come before Council for further consideration, but as it is currently zoned, could just get a certificate of zoning compliance and processed and they could build the buildings and we have no opportunity to improve the connectivity here at this point or across the Eight Mile, either one, and it could add significantly to our time -- our time response -- time for response into that whole area. `~' ~'" And so with that I'll stand for any questions that,the Commission may have. And, really, : this is the only instance where we recommended if access cannot be provided at this ~_'. oint, that the fire de artment would be o p p pposed to the project being developed and that would be the recommendation of the fire department. That's a first ever in my tenure as the fire marshal in Meridian fire department. This project has some unique transportation challenges and we can't overlook that as we evaluate the pluses and minuses of the project. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Silva. Any questions? t:, Rohm: Yes, sir. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Silva, if -- if, in fact, you don't have any control over the adjacent property, "~'~ then, what 's going to make it where that other half of the bridge will be built? If you can't ~. make them do anything, then, this developer putting up the money for half of it is to -- it ~~`: doesn't get you anywhere and I'm just curious, doesn't seem like that's a fit. -~. Silva: Yeah. The only -- the only thing that can be done is that perhaps that money could be put in a trust that would at least, basically, have the improvements done to this bridge here for connectivity. If that can't happen, all we can do is work and plead our case with ACRD as to the overall safety concems we have for being able to service this particular project. .~ ~~ r ~~ ~. ~~ ti :i _4 I ,~ , S ; " s LLv ~ °. ('~ ~ 4 t i~~ i,Y +4i Fu6~'.i l ~ u G ~ ~ y i ;; p '.~' ~/~ ~ . 1 ~ J ~ ^l R.,~ '~ j ,~ 5~ k\'~ $ ~~ ~ h [5 ~ K , •,r; 1 `13' f '4 y a~ i i ~~*b F - -,~ .,... .. ~ t ~~~.. .v, t. r x ~ti pt~ s C`~"~ r u:~' t~t t' ~ y e'_t ~ ' ~ } t ~: ~ a ;.y i,~ y ~ i G ~ ~ `r ~ ; y h . ~ . y He ' r ~ ~r; '~ ~ ~. ~ re }5:0.*~ cka- _ _.-'- ~~ ~. . , ~~ ,a ~t },, ~ Grs--~.~`, ~, n. ~ r ; .~` ? '~? 1 k.5"... 'p -fie 5 `,.~y ~ w:. r , ~' ~' ,y.:: :et ~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 ~_~~ Page 11 of 43 Ste; _~, ti. 's ~ ~ e, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 12 of 43 and due to the uniqueness of this one the only ingress to your parcel is from the north and it's -- and that, typically, isn't what we are at, we are trying to get both from along ;' Overland and from the --from the north. So, even though there is no advantage to your __ parcel, at the end of the day we'd like to see that connectivity between adjoining parcels in -- in all developments, so -- u ~:~y. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, the -- we are giving that cross-access. So, you know, if somebody wants go from their property onto ours, we are giving it in all '~ - directions and we are giving it to the east, but, again, there is no portion of that creek that is on this property. It's solely off-site. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. ~~ ~;'~~ Thompson: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08- 001. I -~~ guess that's it. ;~~ ~Kj Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Did I get a second? ~` Newton-Huckabay: You had two seconds. ~¢, ,.'.~ Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. on AZ 08-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Commissioner Marshall, do you have any comment? :~;~r::r - ~ = Marshall: Well, first off, I'm kind of worried, though, if just this -- this is a separate a~ individual parcel and if it were to develop and were going to get this connectivity here, that's where we have got to get across this to get the connectivity over to the other parcel. I know we are going to require any connectivity coming back here, but -- maybe I'm wrong. I -- I'm not -- I'm struggling a bit with the connectivity issue. The rest of it _ seems pretty good. I don't have a problem with the four stories, as long as it's within 65 "'' '~ feet. I have got no problem with anything else. I'm just still struggling right now with the connectivity. I do think proportionally it's kind of a problem, but I do wonder if some of `~~ fi ; ; this other area closer to Overland will develop before the rest of this back here and . "~' "'"'"'' understand that if the rest of this back here develops we have got to have connectivity in two areas here. But I guess that's where I'm at. r ~;- E Qfi*.?K~'~ ~j>: 4?=- ~w7? '.SY. , r;y+'~? S' Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 13 of 43 ~' ~ Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any comments? ~~ Newton-Huckabay: I'm just trying to remember how we -- when we annexed the stuff to the north. I can't imagine that we wouldn't have put more requirements for connectivity to the whole comer of some sort. Moe: That pretty much came before us. That's why I don't have -- Newton-Huckabay: Honestly, I don't remember annexing -- doing that. I'm going to y; have to go with the staff report. I don't really -- it's a rock and a hard place. I have a hard -- I mean as I say before, I don't recall -- although I do remember Waltman, which is a larger project, putting that burden on a development agreement of off-site improvements, but I don't think -- I think somewhere along the line we have already been a bit remiss on this comer and Ithink I -- although I empathize with the applicant, I think if we can -- I have to -- I believe staff has the best solution to -- to a tough ~~;`~ situation. ~`: Moe: Okay. Thank you. Quite frankly, I think the -- other than the bridge crossing and this is a -- this project is -- is a good fit for the area there. Again, interconnectivity is a major issue and it does need to be done and so I am -- I am definitely in favor of the ~`' staff report, other than the fact I do -- would like to see an opinion from the other Commissioners in regards to a time frame on the road trust, because if, in fact, they `= ` don't get with doing something to the east, I don't think this applicant should -- have ~~~. their money held probably more than about a five year plan. Newton-Huckabay: Isn't that even too long? Moe: It probably is. So, I would be more than happy to listen to what you folks think. Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments? Rohm: I do. ~.. `~ Moe: Thank you. I figured you would after I said that. ~~.. Rohm: My opinion is you proportion the crossing based upon the differential between the acreage sizes and you don't put a time frame on it, because that -- that property to the east of this development will redevelop at some point in time and to put a sunset on the funds collected doesn't build the bridge and at sometime that bridge will need to be ,`i~ built and -- and until that develops it's not needed, but if we were to just say, you know ~`/~ what, that bridge is going in and you're going to participate in your proportional share of ;- it, then, we don't have to put a time frame, because my opinion is that if we put a five year time frame or any time frame, the monies would go back to them, because it won't develop in the time frame that we listed and, then, we have no participation in -- in the bridge crossing. So, I think it should just be proportional with no refund. That's the way look at it. a t~p ~ ~ ,~c~r r ~ ~ _s. C ~ ~, ,, ` i ~ ~ ~~ : 4 t ~ ~ "r{~ ~' '4~i';. ..' d i Y~, ^~ d: G ~_. ~~ .. # k y~,- kit ~JL i,4 ~. ~i' j4 k N ,~p'~ ~ d '- A ` ~ `~ ~` J" f~ ' ~ ~ tk<~G~ t~ v' ~ ,~: „.~ '. ` ~ ; ~ : ~. ~' Fa n s-~~ .. re ~~ Y ° . -~ r6 ~ . , ~ a. h' ~+i ~, Gk s4 .,~ ~ ~tFi , ~ ~ Y'' t.. ~ ' S Sl-. 3 ,L 2 C` y~ l~t'~~ t TS '` k ~' ~ v ~ ~ x, < : A { J 9~ (: '}` ~ ~ ) i'v L'~ {,~ ~ ~ b~. 1 f L } ~~ ~`; ~ Y L. A ~Ilu.~~+ F,.~ ~~,(. ~j 1 ~4. >:' .i r ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 14 of 43 <: ~ ~~ t r~>~; ~~~7 ' ~~,' 'S~ 4 i, . L ~ F} 5 it < t ~ V~ ~ ill .r t" ~ ~~ ~,a. r ~ R. rk ~, ~ ~rn r ~ ~'~ q`3 '- ry.,. Tl 7Q Ay ~1K 1 W t ~ <r w ~, b.~, r ~ ~ ,5v r~S~t F ~ ~~ rr a ~ ,c a ~~ ~ ~w~ ,, ~ li ~ ~?l ~ ~~ 1 ~ , r ' if a?:~ k ran k,-}ulr':. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm, are you basing -- I mean where do you -- what -- just the -- the already zoned area there? I mean do you create the calculation off of that whole northeast corner? Hey, thanks. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: This section here? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: This acreage? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: So, it includes -- so, you take this -- this total acreage and whatever percentage of this total acreage this development is, they pay that -- they put that amount of money into a trust for a bridge? Rohm: Right. And the reason, additionally, why I feel this way is because the additional property that will develop in time will actually be able to utilize the road that this development is putting in as their second access and so they are already getting a -- a contribution from this development for that future development based upon the ingress- egress off of Overland Road. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A couple comments. One, this area back here, to get access back here to up here is going have to build a whole bridge over Five Mile. They are going .to have to pay for that on their own. Period. This connectivity is between this. area here and this area here. Right? Now, what if -- I'm not sure. What if this area develops, without developing this area, this. area may sit for another 15 years while this development -- this area develops in two years. Do we still need the connectivity right here, because isn't this connectivity over Eight Mile supposed to be between this area and this area, not this area back here? This area requires here over Eight Mile and here over File Mile. This one over Eight Mile is existing; this one over Five Mile, they will have to absorb that cost. Newton-Huckabay: So, Commissioner -- Mr. Chair? ±~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 15 of 43 fir,:;; Moe: Yes. ~~~~ Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall, your argument is that the only property should be -- in consideration is this -- is this RUT piece here? Marshall: I'm assuming -- it's my assumption that that's where we are looking for the connectivity, is between this intersection here through this RUT piece over to here. This '$~~ is the interconnectivity that we are looking for. This is going to get two connectivities; f: `- one here at Eight Mile and one here at Five Mile and that's going to have to come through this RUT piece to get back here. So, this has to develop before this or that can't develop. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Marshall: But my argument is that this whole area here could develop long before this without this developing at all and isn't that where we need the connectivity? °'° Moe: Yes, it is. What do you think, Mr. Rohm? You look like you had another thought. Rohm: Well, I do. It's -- and I don't know the rules of the game as well as staff, so maybe it's best to ask staff. If, in fact, that parcel which Commissioner Marshall alluded to were to develop on its own without reference to the property to the north, would that parcel be required to have access across Eight Mile Creek to the west if it was just that ~'.'n- parcel, because it seems to me that, ultimately, the multiple egresses to Overland is only dependent upon fully developing the entire C-G zoned properties. It's not just that small parcel. It's one -- the full development occurs that the multiple accesses have to occur; is that correct? Do you follow that? Silva: Perhaps I could provide some clarity, Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission. There is -- there is three ways in which secondary access -- or three ways {< into a given project is required. Based on building height, building size, or that unique ~~~ thing where -- where in the opinion of the code official you have a unique access ''` problem and that kind of -- that's the situation here, because if we don't get it to that ~'~ parcel, that RUT parcel, we are forever going to have very limited access forever for a large piece of commercial property and it's going to offer some very large challenges for _ the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council going forward if we don't, you know, go on the record and have -- have a plan in place to deal with connectivity and access to parcels. ~~ Rohm: And I fully agree that we need to have that connectivity, but what my question is is if that front parcel were to request development independent from everything north of them, would they be required to shoulder a hundred percent of the balance of whatever this applicant doesn't pay for that Eight Mile Creek crossing and it just seems -- it seems to me that the entire acreage that's -- the entire acreage benefits from the Eight Mile crossing and I guess that's my whole point is the entire acreage does, not just those two "~ ~;= .~~ ~`~ 1 "/~ "~ ~;t =/~ >~ ~ 2 a r> ~¢~~ t-.~ pp H C~ ' ~ 4 ~~ 1 [ }t, t~ ~ t ~ 5 ~. a- ~ v~y., (~i 4 i - k ' ~ ~~ es . ~ .. ~ ~ ' 'k `~ ` ' ''c ~' f r~ J-, i~i 1' #~~4 t # i~ 4 ~ 7 !y~ ~i ~r t i t ~'TS ~ Sid.. L F - ~' S l~' ~ s :" ~`} Y I y V ~„~'i ~~ ~~,.~ r. P A D j~ ~ ... - ~ r f- ^~r~'~~: ~µ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ F k < y" {- f 1.f ~~I`1 ' ~~ ~,y ~~( ~ ~ it. ct ~ q y c, r ...t ~''r~ 1~ i Z i L `+' ~T ~~' ~ A ~~~~ t~~~ Fi ~ - J '~~ ~ ~L ~ y K 1 j f~.a y w ~ w~ ~ ~ yC ~h- ~ ~ F ~S ! }I: j L a i ~~a~ k _,r ~ ,...v e _,r~~ rA` Meridian Planning & Zoning r ; ~ . June 5, 2008 Page 16 of 43 -,~ parcels, and it seems that it should be proportional to all those that receive benefit from it, not just the initial applicant. And I will just leave it at that and we can go from there. ';;~; Moe: Okay. ,~ ~'~' Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, I thought that this is where the Zamzow's is. Is it right here? a;=` Am I just -- so, I'm just off one. Okay. Moe: Well, Commissioners, we have all kind of spoken our mind. What's next? `` `= Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to make a motion. '`~ Moe: Thank you. ~~~1 Newton-Huckabay: And I just got to find the page to remove the building height. =~-~ Rohm: Page ten. ,~., '~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-001 -- and although we are not -- we are only making an opinion on VAC 08-001 -- as presented in ~:` the staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with the following modifications to ~~.~ ''~ the proposed development agreement, that Item C on page ten, stating that the storage :s,> . be limited to three stories, will be changed to four stories, with a maximum height of 65 ~'->'; feet. End of motion. Marshall: Second. `4`: Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to move onto City Council approval of AZ 08-001 `~'~~ for Overland Village, with the changes as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? _:~'~. Rohm: Aye. Moe: That motion carries three to one. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. y Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: PP 08-004 Request for ~~ a Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an _ R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres for Maxfield by Cottage Investors, r.;', LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: ~ ~ -~ ~~, ~ ~~~, ,t ~.~~ ~ 1y f Y {i: s.. ,y-.. T ~ :.v a 4- .• ~ > ~. 4 4 y r Era{ ~ - I ~ A~~ ~ ~ ~f 'rye«~ d a ` ~. v', ~.x..~;~g, - c ~* r. ~~-ti,~x. , ~~ ~ Afi ~ a ar ~ i ..fib I k ~' ~ C ~ 7~ r x c~o.;~. , ~ N ~ }'~ ~~~~t • 7 ~ .ti ~{~ s € i ~ ! £^ ~ r f ~ ~- ~e,r ~ ya ~+~ ~ ~p t ~ -k { 7 ~ ,`~~I~,„~ , rn~ ~ r ~ f ~' S ' 1. t o j , ~ '' fi b' F L2M r ~ r:. k ,~ ,}} "f~•Y `~ .:{... f" ~ A~ ?~ ~ ~ ~ '` Y 'LUfi~ _ ~ Z _1 K ~ t f;~. f's t4 ''u'T .. ~~. ~' `~~ - . Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 17 of 43 • Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008: CUP 08-008 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed Maxfield Subdivision by Cottage Investors, LLC - 3295 E. Falcon Drive: Moe: I'd like to open the -- reopen the continued Public Hearing on PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 for the Maxwell by Cottage Investors. Newton-Huckabay: Maxfield. Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: Maxfield. Moe: Oh. Maxfield. Excuse me. And have staff give us a report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Applications before you tonight are a preliminary plat consisting of seven lots on approximately 4.7 acres in an existing R-8 zone. Concurrently, the applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to construct and operate an assisted living development, comprised of five individual facilities, each with a potential to house up to 16 persons. In addition, the applicant is also requesting approval to construct a private street loop to provide access and circulation throughout the proposed development. The site is located at 3295 East Falcon Drive, just south of Eagle Road -- excuse me -- just east of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road. The property bordered on the north by Golden Eagle Estates, zoned RUT. To the south is Dartmoor Subdivision, zoned RUT. To the west is Medford Place, zoned R-8, and Golden Estates is on -- to the east, also zoned R-4. Here is an aerial of the site. Currently there is an existing home on the site that's proposed to remain and be a part of the subdivision. In 2005 the City Council approved annexation and preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit for the same use at the subject site. However, the applicant failed to submit a time extension application, record the plat, and establish a use on the site within the time limits of the UDC. The DA governing the site limits the site to five retirement homes and requires the existing home to hook up to city sewer and water with the construction of phase one. The difference between this submittal and the previous submittal is the applicant was proposing a two lot preliminary plat and is now proposing each building be on its own separate lot. The submitted plat consists of six residential lots and one common lot. Access is proposed to and from East Falcon Drive via a private street that will provide access and circulation within the proposed development. So, here is South Eagle Road. Here is East Falcon Drive. Here is where the applicant is proposing to stub to that for the assisted living facility. In addition, here is where the existing home site will be located on that lot, as I mentioned earlier. Access to this site is located here and here. ACRD doesn't really have access requirements for local roads, which this East Falcon Drive is designated that, but staff feels that the applicant should still vacate this access here and just provide one access point to the home. The home faces west, so i~ r ~~. @'.' F b,:~.. ~ ~ }Y ~`' i a ` e , , 4k~+ ~ ~V. ~ ~ ,~ r ~ ~ i`~: f ~ 7~~r = j ~ +~~"; . 1 ~ ~ t ,e~k .el. ~. X.~~N I.hiyo •Yf l ~;Y ~~ c 9 ~$ ~'t i Sq F ~ f Y ~ ~ 4 ~"• ~ ~q ~ i ~ ' ~ _ ' ;..F i ' d 4 '~;i C ~ L 5, { '-P tP k~...' y~ y.a kxi * ~ rriA 7 Y~~ ~ L~ f~ !} . Z ~ "j ~ a~ ~~ >~ , ti ~ ~;~ ., ; ., ; ~~ ht~t~ k't ~v~ 9 ~~ 1;~: s4:P5~SS ~}~. f~. R ~,. ~., ~~. : ~ ~' r f a'. ~" 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 18 of 43 ~~ ~;' c. the driveway for the garage is right here, so the applicant would have to come in and drive -- like I said, the garage is located here and the driveway here, so this -- even though this is kind of close for what we like to see, it still makes sense to have that one in place, so that the applicant will -- can have access to that home site. Here is the landscaping plan. UDC requires a 25 foot landscape buffer here along Eagle Road and a ten foot landscape buffer along local streets. The applicant has provided that, as you can see, and is in compliance with the UDC. Also, the City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by year round source of water. The applicant has stated in a narrative that there are insufficient surface water rights to justify the construction of a pressurized imgation system. As previously approved, the applicant is requesting the use of city water to irrigate the landscaping for the development. The applicant should coordinate with Public Works regarding city water being used for irrigation purposes and staff had conditioned with the final plat submittal that the applicant provide proof that the property does not have sufficient surface water rights from the appropriate irrigation district. Here is the site plan. It's expected to develop with five 8,525 foot buildings and they are proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase one will be building A and B and, then, also provide services to this home site. Phase two would be C, D and E, but the plat itself will all be recorded as one phase -- in one phase according to the applicant. Amenities for the site include two gazebos, a walking path, and approximately 18 percent of usable open space. That applicant is also in compliance with the parking requirements of the UDC. It's 1.5 per bed and the applicant is providing roughly 15 beds within each development, so they are required to provide 38 parking stalls and the applicant is proposing 49. Here is the amenities on the site. Here is a gazebo here. A gazebo site here. The pathway goes around the development here. Provides that connectivity and some recreation for future patrons. Nursing and residential care specific use standard in the UDC states for uses providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease or dementia, a barrier with a minimum height of six feet along the perimeter of any portion of the site is accessible to those patients shall be provided. At this time the applicant is proposing self-sufficient facilities and does not anticipate dementia patients to be located at the proposed facility. Staff has conditioned that 24 hour nursing care be limited to building C and D on Lots 5 and 6 of the project. If applicable, strict adherence to this requirement is required at CZC submittal for the proposed building. Furthermore, staff recommends the shift changes for the nursing staff should not occur between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to not disturb the residents of the surrounding neighbors -- neighborhoods. So, basically, what we have done is -- basically, this is just a retirement community. Staff didn't want to have the applicant come back and possibly modify the CUP at a later date, so we worked together and staff has conditioned this is where Lot 5 and 6 is located and this building C and D. The applicant is proposing a six foot fence along this boundary and, then, a split rail fence along this -- these two boundaries. So, when we had this discussion with the applicant, they felt it was best to house -- if in the future they choose to have dementia patients on the site, they could easily gate this off and contain those patients within the site. The applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposed buildings. However, the siding and roofing materials are not called out on the submitted elevations. A masonry veneer is proposed along the front facade. The same veneer is also carved to the side elevation, with one side having full ~ i;rti'i ~ ~ l 1 rv ~ ~ 1 ~ l Y ,+• Yt ]' i r ,yY~ l,fii :~ ~t _ •Y.~ I F~.4` A nj f [-_~ 1 ~ .~. T ~ ~ 7..a y' ji J' 4:'_' ~.. y ~, F: y r ti.; i { ~ _ ~ t [y S 3 1 S y 1 t }L ~j '~Y kyr^ , ; ~ .~ f i' ~ ~ '~ R ry 4 . sf. y ~ . ~+ t : ~.7V . a _ d r~ .y~~ ~T4 A y' ~ ;'t t ~ .... { ~' ~. +rj ~F iy ~ ~ r ~z- t r„ ~~~+' d ~ Y 4 ~ 1 '.. 1 L L! `~ -~'~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 19 of 43 treatment and the opposite side having partial treatment. The UDC requires buildings to be constructed of a high quality building material, such as stone, brick, wood, or other native materials. In no case shall the buildings use vinyl siding as their primary siding material. Staff has requested the applicant testify to what construction materials are proposed for the assisted living buildings. Staff has also conditioned that any street facing -- public street facing elevation have the same masonry veneer along the entire facade of the building. So, I will step back to the site plan. So, basically, if you look at -- well, let me go to these elevations. If you look at the rear elevations here you will see no stone at all on that and this is where they kind of have stone on the front facade and, then, just kind of wrap around the building here. So, basically, what the staff has conditioned them to do is anywhere they face a public street they carry that treatment throughout the entire facade. So, this -- the back of this building would have a full stone treatment and the side of this building would also have a full stone treatment. Staff has -- one other, too. In condition 1.3.3 in the CUP conditions of approval, we didn't really tie the developer to any building materials for the purposes the construction of those buildings, so if the applicant states what the building is to be constructed, what materials they are proposing to use, I'm asking the Commission to modify that condition to include those building materials with that condition. Staff has received an a-mail from the applicant's representative that the owner of the property is in agreement with the conditions of approval for the proposed development and didn't have any concerns, that's why we continued the project, so we could meet and find these out before we came to the hearing. Staff is recommending approval of the subject PP and CUP with conditions listed in Exhibit D. This concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Elg: Commissioners, thank you. My name is Van Elg with the Land Group. 462 East Shore, No. 100, Eagle, Idaho, representing Mr. Maxfield this evening. We appreciate the opportunity to defer this for a time, so that we could discuss a couple of points that needed to be clarified prior to coming to the Public Hearing. Staff did clarify that there would be 16 persons -- potentially 16 persons in these apartments -- or in these care facilities. One of the beds in each of them could be a double bed for a married couple, so we just need to make sure that we were clear on that. Thank you for popping that up, Bill. Why don't you go to -- this is -- I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. What -- at the previous application that was approved -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Elg, so you're saying a total of 16 people, potentially 32 people? Elg: No. Sixteen in each -- in each unit. Newton-Huckabay: ~ Okay. So, not 16 double beds, just -- ~: v ~~, t h ~~~ * :, ~,~, I Y .: f t Wry. 1 ~: ~rT ~y b ~ ~j r'.s y ~~: 11~ jr~ ~F { J'. _ ~' ~T r..3 F r f r ,~ ; # "r "' 47 ~ ~ ~* ~ ~ yea} '. v t ~ iit~ ~ ~ 1 k { # ~" ~ r , 4 ~ ~_'y't -0 ~1~ ~'f yy ~TJ i~:' i T ~i ~. S'~ P t ,+4 y _ , ~~, , . C~ [ .,4 s, r f~ e.A 7 ~ _ t k t x .rh ~{y~ ~ ! ~ n:k a 4 K~ f _ ~~ f ~ ~ _ a ~' k r x ..'~7` Y ~ Yi`iy -' `4"9 R t S' ~~~~. 9" ~S~IY ~ 1~ ll Y .~~„h,, '~2 y 'iti't, r ~ ~ 3 ~ ti i E~t j ~ F a7'~k~.. ~ c ~. ' ~ ~ 4 ~~~ o- . r -~ ~r ~N ~4y Y' `tw. ~r;o-~~. ,. + _ ;:1 . ,.. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 20 of 43 Elg: No. Sixteen -- yeah. It would be 15 beds -- if I understand it right, 15 beds, one of ~' them could be a double bed, or I guess if they don't -- a married couple wants to have two beds, I guess they can have two beds. I don't know how that works. Rohm: I don't either. Elg: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. '; Elg: All right. This is the original project that was approved back in 2005 and you will ~ .- ., see that the -- the access point -- the house was still a part of that, I believe, in the - original application in the subdivision. The access drive is still in the same -- essentially, the same location. The access drive is still here in the same location for the house. - There was mention of a second access up here at the home. ACHD's also asked that we close that. The owner has no problem with closing that secondary access up there. I , ~ , , - It s reall ust used for ettin acces Y 1 s to the back and l u .,_ 9 ess. But it s not a -- rt s 9 Y g not a E ..f,,; significant stumbling point for us. The -- you can see that the -- the original application l _ has a number of twists and turns and the buildings face Eagle in this location. Buildings ~~ ; face sides in this location. And, Bill, if you will put the next slide -- we have come up with a new design that provides a much more fluid movement throughout the project. I, Again, the homestead's here, with an access here. Our new drive -- or our drive i t...~ n the same location comes in and loops around as a -- this will be a private lane and loops through the project providing landscaped areas here, a gazebo area structures up front i th iddl ~~ h ere n e m e. Pathways that wander through the project and through -- so that the E s ;~ residents have a -- they are more visible where we can monitor better and a much more open feel for the entire project and traffic circulation, of course, is greatly improved with it. The other thing you will notice is that the units face in, with the exception of the Alzheimer's units right here that have a double courtyard that face each other and we _ are not saying that they will ever go Alzheimer's, but if they did it's designed to accommodate that. So -- and, then, heavier treatment -- this provides a larger open area up here for the residents to recreate and plant a garden, have a little rose garden ~~=~ or whatever they decide to put up through this area here. There is also another gazebo and a little courtyard area right there where they can come and sit. So, overall a much `~~ better plan, much easier to -- to manage and to move through for the residents and for the --the employees that will be there. Rohm: Before we go further, would you kind of give me an indication where the driveway to that existing home is going to -- ~`~ Elg: It's right there. You can see the two little lines right there. ~, h~:: Rohm: Oh. Okay. Elg: It exits right there right now. Ff ~ r 4H F~~ f: ~. Ei~'t`k ~ t ~.~' . ~l J :~ ~ ~ ~J 4 ~Y t, x t~ 2~r ~ 1 ,~,~ 'i ~w ~ ~, ~ wK ^» f l { ~'k ~ ~ r ' 3 "W ' '~a i { r ~ yyyy ~ 'RJ,. L, 1 ~, a ;~ r' ti ~ ~ ~tr~' rr. f' S t,., } i 3 w ~ -- r p r ~}' `~~~ ~` ~` .. M~ ~ ~~r: ~r,`. ~ ~ ~ ',J 4 3 , iz t t tF` y i~ . ~c7r~'~~~ r ' `.. " ~ w ~ti ,., ~ ~- ~ ~ . r ~ 4 ., S~ 5 =~ .~:~''"3y~'. _ ~4j.~F? f t~ .^Y' c ~;-. ~ Y ~' ,' Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 21 of 43 ~`~g`. ;:ty; ~=`; -r. -,~ ~, ~• F,;: `_'~ ~{.,~ j _. Rohm: That's where it is right now and that's where it will be -- Elg: That's where it will remain. And we talked to ACHD and they have agreed with that -- with those driveway cuts right there, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Elg: Now, one point was made that this will be phase -- that it will be in two phases and I think we have tried to clarify this with staff, too, and maybe we didn't do a good job on it, but this will -- the intent is that this will be phase one, A and B, and the entire plat will be done at once. He's correct. But this one could -- phase two are these three units right here, may not occur that direction. They are individual lots and with that, this one may develop and, then, this one may develop and this one may develop. We may not build all three units at the same time. But we will provide, as we talked to Bill, all of the landscaping necessary along the perimeters here, as required in the staff report. So -- and Ithink the fence along the outside perimeter -- wasn't that correct, Bill? Okay. Parsons: Correct. Elg: So, that's the only correction, clarification, but I don't think the conditions tell us that we have to build it in phase one and phase two anyway, so just a clarification there. Moe: The fencing will be up as well? Elg: The fencing up as well. Correct. The type of construction, we were asked to testify on that. The application is -- or the -- our client's told us that it will be a stucco construction and he agrees with that rock treatment that comes along Falcon and along Eagle, where ever there is a facing road. Also, just for -- for grins, we are going to work with Public Works -- I'm trying to do a new treatment for this and yet to be seen if it really pans out economically, but instead of an asphalt treatment, we are looking at a -- what's called a pervious concrete, which is a -- kind of a new treatment for asphalt. It kind of looks like a rice crispy treat concrete paving surface, but allows all the water to flow freely through the -- the area and can handle about 450 inches of water, I believe: It's a pretty unique system and it's held up very well in Minnesota and Colorado where -- through some very heavy freeze-thaw cycles. So, we are considering doing something like that in this area. Just as a point of reference, two or three months ago there was one approved contractor who could do the surface. There is now 15, I think, that are certified to do that -- that concrete surface. It's kind of taken off. But, anyway, with that I'll open myself up for any questions you might have. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do you have one. Rohm: Mr. Marshall. ~~r ~ ~y r, .,,,. a ~ ~~~ 1, :.,F. L•.r~: %' ~~ ~ k ~ _ ~ a y~ ~~ J ` `t Y y {f ~ . ^~ - ~ i dt _ ~, _ i Y~i: ~ , ~ ~ %w , z~,~ r o, n hX '~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ;h _ F+' ~ ._ ~~ ~ ~ 1~• p ~ :.;. .}~ ,~ r+ t,+k .r ~;i ~. r ~1k ` ~ ~~ i~: F 1 ~ +''i .~. ~tzr~ ~ k :~ t i ~~ ~ f ~ C 4 ~k' a y f ~ ry i,/ ~t :.~ C ~ .. .. i} c'' ~" ~ t ~~ ~~~ ~ . ` ~ A:' t ~^{ 1 r: -+a~ ' A ~~ i~ .7~ ~ 1 i' - 7 ~ '~.ti.: i+l ti~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ..f -.i ~ ~~ y] . I~ TA'i ivy ~ , , !~i ~, a fir; r. ~': ,, j~^.;:. ~`- w 3~: { ~.~'::: k ' Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 22 of 43 Marshall: So, while these two buildings are built and these are waiting to see what the demand is and when we want to build the rest of these, what will this whole area look like? Elg: It will be undeveloped. Marshall: So, just an open field. Elg: Yeah. It will be open. Marshall: Uh-huh. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Elg: Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Carrell Maxfield. Newton-Huckabay: Caleb was trying to get your attention. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. Hood: As Carrell comes up, I just wanted a point of clarification for the applicant, too, because due to the history of this I certainly don't want to see it die again and have to come back for a third time. The phasing plan to staff would probably be okay. Be clear, though, that each phase or each building has to be done within 18 months of the previous one. So, you can't wait five years until you do building number three or some phase -- your phasing plan has to be a maximum of 18 months in between. So, just be aware of that, so you don't get three-quarters of the way down and, then, the last building you wait 24 months and that actually dies. So, each building or each phase has to be done in 18 month successive phases or your CUP dies. So, I just wanted to -- to make you aware of that and if you need a time extension, we can certainly process a time extension. It's a lot easier than going through this whole thing again. So, just to let you know and we can talk about it more, but I did not want to go on record and let you know that, too. Maxfield: I'm Carrell Maxfield, owner of The Cottages. Moe: Address, please. Maxfield: Pardon me? S :~ Y+ 1r.---."t~~kyr. +~ Gti ~ Tom, }.T ~i~j: .•) t - ~~ r,- ~ f _;'4 ~ a ~ , ,a ~' ' ~ ' ~ + t ~i "";;i~ : 'i y 4r~~ T y •l. ~ , ;, .;t t t _ ~,~ ikt~, i „ x c L ti < - .~ r .~` 9 f rL ~y~, 4 ~ C~~ ~ ,~ a 2 > S ae ,rt Z~ ~': ~E' ; z y ~~ ~ ~ ~ r L ~ : i {{' Fl~ i 3v :.h ~,~ ~x~ ~ ~ ~. , . . A. yLY y ". I~y -~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ 7p ~ x ` y.:. j 1 '~Yh '~.~ :~~i. ' 3 Y f s ~ 'i 2 , ~ o? ~r j _ ~ ~, ~ 4 { +~ ~~ S ~. ?r y 15 ~~' ~ t ] _ ~ ti:~J . ~' Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 "~ Page 23 of 43 Moe: Address, please. ~" y Maxfield: My address is 1920 South MayFlower Way in Boise. And I have always wanted a subdivision named after me and here is my chance, so -- I don't know how many of you are familiar with The Cottages over on Ten Mile that's part of the Bridgetower Subdivision, but if you have seen those buildings there that's exactly what we are doing here. Our developments always look really nice and they are attractive and there is a big need, of course, for this kind of services for the elderly. All the neighbors have been very supportive. A couple of issues, of course, that we were able to address successfully. So, I'm just basically here if you had any questions about assisted living or what we do or anything like that. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Any questions? Rohm: No questions. Moe: Thank you very much. Maxfield: Thank you. Moe: Well, there was no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up. Okay. No one there. All right. Can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 for Maxfield Subdivision. Marshall: I second. Rohm: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I'd just like to go on record, I think this is a great development. I think it's -- as a matter of fact, it's a lot better plan this time than it was the first time. I think it's -- it's a great service to the city and look forward to seeing it happen. Anyone else have any comments? Marshall: In reference. to the 1.3 building materials as proposed by the developer, I believe he did mention the rock. Newton-Huckabay: And stucco. t~ ~ ~` ti '' InY F ~ k4r i '~ a r LMk 1 .., t ?4 ,i , ~7,Y j ~A(S ~ ~' 1 _ ~ S. 'r~. 5S~ 4 '('+C T ' ~. ~' ra {~ ' -5 F a ~ •~ -_ S,tap : ~ ~ ;,~_ ,{ t a ,~ ~ ~ {4't ;,nY ~ ~ F ~pC. f F S~ryy~"n '3( ~, •, . ~ k ~ ~ ~ ;~'a. ,« ~ ~'D P ; i ~ u 1, { 4 Y ~~'~' ~ .~ } ` k ~ ~ ~,. tt ! ; Y y ~~ {S t ~ ~ ') y-r ~ _ -r..;~-. .: ~, I } .Y 4 t ~r. Ff.,, S "t 1 ~ ~ p~ ,~ ~ ; . *" Y~2 tfrl .. .. ~.'. ' Y + •:?!Y ~ r i ,L pr1 ~ MYA'S. `~ ~. .y k ~{' y. ~ ~ ~n ~~ ~; ~ y r 'T~t 1'T~q: <., .;, ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 '' Page 24 of 43 ~~~k -~` `~r Marshall: Yes. Said rock and stucco. Moe: If that can be just put in a motion that would be great. 4.> ,: Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just want to second your comments. I think this r '. `` R development's really an improvement on the first one and you have done your homework well, so thanks. ,,, Rohm: No additional comments. I agree with the two that have already spoken. Marshall: I really like it. There we go. ,Y ' ~ Moe: Well, all I need is someone to make another motion. -~ Marshall: Mr. Chair -- if I can find where I'm at here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of , file numbers PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: That 1.3, the building materials proposed by the developer are to be stucco and rock. ;~<;~;;; Moe: Okay. .; ~; ~~ Marshall: I so move. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. `_ ~' Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve to go onto the City Council with '~'' approval of PP 08-004 and CUP 08-008 and with modifications as noted. All those in ,~ < t~ favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves. ~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~., Moe: It has been requested that -- and we are going to take a ten minute break. We will be back at 8:25 -- or 8:26. ,~,,. ;:. ,µ. (Recess.) [P h't' ~~'~~ Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 08-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.92 . ;~,,~ of an acre from R1 to an R-2 zone for Alter Property by Denise Alter - .~ ~'~ 2741 E. Leslie Drive: ' ~ :5: Moe: Well, at this time we will reconvene. I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 08-006 for Alter Property and hear the staff report, please. GYi _.`1.:. 3-2E~±..:..2a Meridian Planning & Zoning 1- ,.: t: ,r h i I ~; Vii; June 5, 2008 Page 25 of 43 Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before-you is a request for annexation and zoning of .92 of an acre of land from R-1 in Ada County to R-2, low density residential. This is an aerial view of the property. The property is located at 2741 East Leslie Drive in Carol Subdivision No. 2, west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road. Rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada County and R-2 in the city surround this property. There was previously a single family residence and shop building on this property that has been tom down. Owner proposes :; to replace it with a new home and shop building as shown on the concept plan and wishes to hook up to city water and sewer services. Services can be extended to the property from main lines currently in Leslie Drive. The requested R-2 zoning district complies with the Comp Plan future land use map designation of low density residential for this property. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning request to R-2, as stated in the staff report, without requirement of a development ,.. agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Newton-Huckabay: None. Rohm: No questions. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Alter: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Denise Alter, I'm the owner of the property, and I'm just simply applying for annexation, so I can hook into the city services. Rohm: Welcome to the city. Moe: Any questions? Rohm: No questions. Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. Lester Alter, would you like to speak? L.Alter: Fellow Commissioners, I have nothing further to say. We just wanted to hook into city services and we are building a new house there and wanted to get off the septic system and thought that would be the right thing to do. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close -- ;~ ~ Kr't1+~ ° k ~'~ : l~ wa ~" J ~.,.`f. b S h ' ~ ~ t `K` ~y1~~1< a u .y ~ '!' ^' *~ l i t *' i, y ~+~T { 1 l5 ~ _ Ji a ~~, ? j~ 1t T~.t hK ~„+ 1 . , Y ~ ~' ~ ~ >~. r F u-l+~1~. 2 _~h ~.. ~ r~ ~- r:. t '-1,. e i:. T l i~;r' Sir ~ ; ~ ~ t ~~ ~ ' i n ~ Y J ~... } 1.. . ~ ~~[[ $.((~~y 4 ~~: . t ~ ~ma r: ], ~- Yid. r,~yM~~t:. p'.t t A .. ~ ~ .,. f~:::,:re ti ~ s u <' ~,~+ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning • • 's ' June 5, 2008 `:r;~ Page 26 of 43 .,.. ~: 'Ys_' Moe: Is there anyone else out in the audience that would like to speak in regards to this -- okay. No one else. So, I'm sure you don't want to come back up and say the same thing you just said; right? So, we are okay there. Having said that, now, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~~ ~~~ ; Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006. ~;- . },°~ Rohm: Second. , -'s Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 08-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~;;:; ..f. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to a;~ recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 08-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 5th, 2008, with no modifications. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve AZ 08-006 for Alter Properties. All {'~ those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 08-002 Request for Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion by the Meridian Library District - 1727 N. Leisure Lane: Moe: I would now like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 08-002 for Meridian Library r;. Parking Lot Expansion and hear the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for a rezone of .58 of an acre of land from R-4, medium low density residential, to L-O, limited office. The property is located at 1727 North Leisure Lane, north of Cherry Lane, on the west side of Leisure Lane, approximately a quarter mile east of North Linder Road. This is an aerial view of the property. Residential property zoned R-4 exists to the north of the site. To the east is an office, zoned L-O and R-4. To the south is a library parking lot and vacant building, zoned L-O. And to the west is an existing library parking lot, zoned L-O. The applicant proposes to construct a new parking lot for the library on this site. The conceptual site plan submitted with the application shows how the subject property and the existing parking lot to the west of the site will redevelop as one new parking lot, with associated landscaping. One two-way access driveway to the proposed parking lot is shown from Cherry Lane via Leisure Lane. Two one-way drive -- driveways enter from and exit into ,.~ ~~,4' ~a Y ~~, z;~ , {} 7 M 4~` 7 !.'ii 'F 1yy ~k. +f~ ~=i h~i 1 '~" ~ `_ ~ ,~ ~ „N.! S {~ 7 1~~~ ~ ~r~ } „ 1: aR y _W~ ~4 ~ , 1 ~"Y ~ ? i k~Y S',~" ~ F ~ y .4k,' Y ~?I: ~T• , 1 ~' ~ F ~j~ ~ a t'~V.~ Y °' - s Y h ~ t ~ k -~-'+1, ~ , _k r~ti h . '. ,`k, ,g 5~ ti;_~ i : ~ ~{~. *, ~ ~. f ~ V ~~ - }' ; 'Ft l..'~ I~ ~ l ~,~ J ~ ..~ ~ Ink ply A' 3 G Y ~ ~ -l,u! } '. j f w ~` t ~ rt Y~ i ~'. '~: r ~ w S ,+W M ~ ~ fig' . ;~ ~Y ~- 1 ~"t i ~ ~ ~ Y`~1 ~R.: t ~' f ? ~. F' %~ y~ y`.y y-. l ..fig? -N Y~~ y~ '3P ~,Nrj~:~"1. 1 5 ~ h $ Ix~ ^` ro 49:_'Sl't r M ridi Pl e an anning & Zoning June 5, 2008 a`:%.. Page 27 of 43 ~ the library property where the library is located west of this site from the proposed '~ ~ parking lot. That's the two drives right here. A possible driveway connection to the .~-: -_~ , existing library parking lot to the south is also depicted on the plan. No new access points to Cherry Lane are proposed with this application. The requested L-O zoning _; district complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of office for this property. The proposed use as a parking lot for the library is considered a >; ~ public/quasi-public use and as such is a permitted use in the L-O district. The adjacent properties owned by the Meridian Library District are all zoned L-O. This property is unique in that it encompasses all of Leisure Lane, a private street at the east boundary ~~~~. south of Cherry Land. You can see here on the aerial. Leisure Lane is an existing ,~~ "~ private street that is used for access to the subject property, the property to the east, ~;:z~ and residences north of the site. The residential property owners to the north own the ~` ~ land to the center of Leisure Lane. Leisure Lane is located within an easement north of the site. Leisure Lane is currently improved on this site with approximately 22 feet of asphalt, no curb, no gutter, and no sidewalk. A raised curb exists along the east boundary adjacent to the office property that separates a five foot wide area that serves =:F as a sidewalk, but is the same level as the street. Leisure Lane is considered a ~r~ substandard street and all of the residential properties to the north are, therefore, considered nonconforming properties, because they are single family homes without public street frontage. Staff believes that Leisure Lane should be improved as a public street as a provision of rezoning this property. If Leisure Lane is improved as a public street, then, all of the properties that have access to Leisure Lane can some day redevelop in conformance with city code. If the improvement and dedication of Leisure Lane on this property does not occur, staff believes that there will be a negative impact '~T~ on the adjacent neighbors. Staff is recommending as a development agreement ~;'a< ~:., rovision that the a licant im rove and dedicate ri ht of wa for Leisure Lane as the p pp ~ p 9 Y public street consistent with ACHD standards from Cherry Lane to the north boundary of *~~~ ~: { the site. This improvement and dedication shall occur prior to approval of the certificate of zoning compliance for the parking lot expansion. Additionally, staff is including a ~ ~ development agreement provision for the parking lot lighting to be shielded, so that no ~-~ ~~ direct light shines into adjacent residential properties. Staff is recommending approval I of the subject rezone request to L-O with the development agreement as stated in the { ~" ~ : staff report. And staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this . ,. ~,~. ~, time. ~ ~ ~ Moe: Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward. Daniels: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Sonya, I was wondering if you could go to the aerial. ~~ Moe: Name and address, please. Daniels: Sony. Ed Daniels, 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise. ;: '~ Moe: Thank you. ~~ t ~~ ~.~, x~ s,:-~. t~ ~ .,~ 1- x n ~~" ~ 3 i '~ i-`~4 x i' ~~f J J { S .~ ~ i 1 ~ ~ i 3 .a - t ~ .', ~ Y ~~~ 4 T ~~ ~i t ~ t Z ~wt'i` i Z;. Y~ : t _ t I ~EY , ~.4 h,. .~ '1 yyU ~-~ t ~ y r ~Y;. ~ F. S ~'F qq ~i - - F ~4 ?~ ~' K . 1a 3 ~V ~ i~ ~ ~'~ ~ r ~ ` ayv`~k ;~ --~ ~ ~ = ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' s~ e ; r r~ . _ ' - ,~ k ~ gel ~' ~ ~ jf „~ ~ ~ c4 4 .. .~I { S~ . `E .ih w F :'~~ A ~.,tA~,'b~'H - ^Yr k 3 ~~ R j ~~ r 1 M' a'. ~ ~ 4 1 kl Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 28 of 43 t~ Daniels: Currently the library is located here. The library district has purchased this property. They are utilizing the existing parking lot and they are utilizing the existing office building for staff and some administration. The property that we are requesting for rezone is back over in here. Right now the library district has got a significant demand for patrons and children and everybody coming to the library, such that they have -- they have expanded into this for the parking lot and -- even with that parking lot expansion, there is still a high demand for parking. So, currently what happens when the library parking lot gets full is that we have parents parking in subdivisions and needing their children to walk along Cherry Lane. I'm sure everybody's familiar with Cheny Lane. As you can see from the aerial, there is no landscape buffer between Cheny Lane and the sidewalk and it becomes a major hazard for these -- for these children coming into the library. So, with the -- with the parking lot addition our hope is that we -- we mitigate any of the safety concerns that we currently have of where the parents have to park for their children. We are, however -- this is a very unique piece of property in that it does encompass a portion of Leisure Lane and I'm not seeing this right now on the aerial, but ACHD owns eight feet between their property and this property here and we haven't really got a definitive answer why that property exists or what ACHD really anticipates doing with it. Currently by making this a public road -- or, for one thing, it really straps the library financially in making this project feasible. You know, in order to try to do the right thing for the students and the patrons and the children as well. Also by making this a private lane -- I'm not sure what the intention is or if there is any -- going to be any contiguous private road that would maybe stop here and, then, the public would end there. So, I guess the question to maybe the staff is what was the intent to have half of a public -- half of a public road and, then, half of a private road when someday these may or may not be developed at any date and time. So, that's kind of the project and I guess our request would be to eliminate any requirements we have for a public road and any of the improvements that come with that, as well as the conditions of approval for water and sewer in here, I'm not sure what the intent is on there as well. I'd stand for questions. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Okay. On the sign-up sheet there is a Bob Wallett. It says by proxy. Okay. For the record. Okay. Next on the list is Margaret Wallett. Wallett: Thank you. My name is Margaret Wallet. I live at 1838 Leisure Lane, which is the second property on the right. Moe: There should be a pointer there on -- Wallett: I don't know how to use it. Oh, there we go. Right there is my property. Moe: Okay. Wallett: It goes up all the way here and there -- that right there. I am all for the parking lot itself. I realize that there is a problem. The problem that Ihave -- and the reason I said no to this and my husband also, who is at home sick, is the entrance onto Leisure _ ~.. ,, , _r ~- 4 1. 4 ~: 1~(~..5~ K .y .SSA` ='.3i $'~.,.. r ~' Cf EG~'.~.s, ,~. o '. t. `~RR'~~ .~ '( ~` J~~ ~H T y r ?:i: 4 ` r + ly~~ ,~~ ~ 'i} ~ W r d;Y" h b~ JI i x F` ~ ~,`G 7 ' ~, ;,.:F„ 114 ~w~~~t ' }~ ~~ #k 'z t t 7~ y . ~h ,+1j~,~ ~~i 5 F . M. h? _LL ro 4 'lr Y; a ~- a\ { f , xl rjli~. ., ry~y j {'iY ~,~ ~ t,4~,. 2~ ~[Y - 1` ~'d ' ~,+ L j7., r ' ' ~4 ~ ' . . ~ a~ Y;: ~ ;~i: :; t 7 f c'^1 4 k ~ ~ } ~. .., nr.. ~1 tr.~A..•--:fir. ., Ste. '~:lt:. Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 5, 2008 Page 29 of 43 Lane. I have pictures of Leisure Lane. The potholes that have been created from -- just from the dentist office on the comer and, then, when it was -- the counseling office and, then, they tore the fence down and made an exit onto Leisure Lane. I do have -- somewhere here I have pictures of the potholes that were created from too much traffic. Here we go. Right here. Moe: You'll need to give that to the clerk to put into the record. Wallett: Thank you. As you can see, there -- it's not a good road and it's because of the extra traffic. One reason that we chose to buy the house was because it was on a private lane, which means not so much traffic. We do get traffic from the dentist office, people looking for a place to tum around and that's usually my driveway or the Layton's driveway or Mr. Weeks' driveway, which Laytons are right here and Mr. Weeks is right here. And I'm right there. I have health issues. I have asthma and I also have COPD. One of the triggers for the COPD, as well as the asthma, is the fumes from traffic, which is one reason why we chose that property, because the fumes don't get there. But if there is going to be that much traffic two doors down it's going to be a health problem for me and I'm going to end up selling, moving somewhere else, just because the traffic coming in and out. And I can guarantee you people will not tum to go to Cherry Lane, they will tum to come back down thinking they can get out, even though it says dead end. And that's a given. I mean that's just the way it is. So, I am opposed to the exit -- entrance-exit on Leisure Lane, but I'm all for the parking lot, as long as they have their entrance and things off of Cheny Lane. Thank you for your time. Moe: Any questions? Thank you very much. Wallett: Thank you. Moe: Shirley Ratcliff. From the audience she has nothing more to say. Allen. Can you pronounce the last name forme. Garratt: Allen Garratt. Moe: Garratt. Garratt: 1917 Leisure Lane. My property is where the R-4 is, these two pieces of property right here. I, again, choose to live in this neighborhood, only having moved there about three years ago for a very specific reason, I wanted live in an area where I had that country lane feel, but I'm also in the middle of Meridian. I don't really want Leisure Lane to become a city street. If I did I would have lived in any one of a number of fine subdivisions that Meridian has to offer. I want to live in the country area. I'm not opposed to the parking lot for library per se, but I do not want to have the exit onto -- onto Cherry Lane for the very same -- the very same reasons. It's just -- it's too much traffic. There is already enough traffic racing up and down that street as it is. I have got a small two and a half year old child and there is cars going up and down that street, I can't let my child out in my front yard in the daytime, because of folks thinking they can f~ ~' lk 1/Y! r 't .k ~ I tJ. fi~ p[~~: '~ ~-. 4 ~~~ j ~ ~: . 4 is '+~~`: :~b~,t~: y~, D'~- x J x:: ~'i r L b ~ Ll ~ K dam' ~~ ~ ,;~ f mo l~ YS I '' j. ~ ~. t='N ~. K r~ ~ ~ ti;' i' +t. _~ ~ ~ 'x~- ~wg`f,. t~ X"f. p ~ 1.1~"i , x '~. ~ ~+ r M1~' r r }~.p'- 7 L ;, ~= j ~~ rte, r .= a `~ s "~ ~~s Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 30 of 43 get -- take ashortcut -- shortcut to nowhere. Again, I'm not opposed to the project, just don't want it to exit onto Cherry Lane -- onto Leisure Lane. On Cherry Lane would be fine through the existing building right -- through that existing building right there, that would be fine with me. ~~, r> ~->- ; ,~; _ -. ~a~` =~_" Moe: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Charles Fellows. Charles Fellows? Okay. Thank you very much. Terry -- is it Layton? Layton: Commissioners, my name is Terry Layton. I live at 1811 Leisure Lane, which, as was stated earlier, is the property just to the north of that library's current parking lot and the proposed one. I, myself, am in -- and my wife are in favor of the parking lot. We had a meeting with the library awhile ago and they showed us a preliminary -- we, for the most part, were in favor of the design. Some of our requests that they addressed and they agreed to comply with I have a concern, because in the staff report it addressed that there was no imgation problems and our yard is fed by an irrigation ditch that would be going through the new parking area and they said they would take care of it, but staff said that they didn't address it, so I'd like to be on record that that would be taken care of. Like I said, I am in favor of the parking lot. Their design I think is nice. They have agreed to have a six foot buffer against my property line, so the headlights are not shining in my bedroom window, which they all angle right there, but they have -- with that six foot buffer. Another question I addressed to the landscape architect at that is all those trees look great, but when they did that last time on the properly right there -- well, actually just to the north that the library owns, Idaho Power -- well, it's just the current property right here -- they put all these nice beautiful trees that they agreed to last time and about five years later Idaho Power came and cut them all down with neither of us having anything to say. So, somehow we have to address that problem, that they be low growing trees or something. And as far as the traffic, of course, I would like it if it didn't go onto Leisure Lane, but if that's going to be their only access, I would much rather have that be a controlled environment and controlled by them, than if -- can you, please, put that picture up that was the overhead. Currently -- on, no. The overhead one, please. Yeah. That one. Currently this is their property and you can see, as addressed in staffs notes, we have a five foot curb right here. Well, these guys all parked on this private property and we have very limited access here. So, if it is their property, hopefully, we can -- even though they have taken down the signs that the library put up there, no parking, we can somehow control that as well with this. So, if we can exit here and that's where the Commission agrees, that would be great, but if not, we -- I would like to see that somehow controlled as prior property. And is there any questions forme? Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Layton: Okay. Thank you for your time. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you say you had one? 'r. T ~ ~ x r - " .. .. Y M, ~ " ray . ~~: ~ ~ F ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ~' ~ j 4 ~~ ~~r s r ~ ~"~ ~ r ~.` . , j tat s ~'~f ~~- tb~ ~ -. f.., . , ~~Y~j:Y'. n.,' d.~a , ~;:, , i :-. 'fie`: 3 ~~~t ~ ~~ b. f~ ~ ~ v ! F 3 .15~:: h. . } ~. + ~ ~ ~, { .~ t ~ry lj. L iC..4~'. I' i'r 1,. LC Y+'. "q JA w~j_ ~ 7 t'f t ~~~' Yz 4 T J. 2Y N ~.ti 5 ~•~ } ~ .~ €~ k y? ~ ~~ jy~ ':C F '~I. P'.:~a~/'. ~a _ i ' _ . ~ ~yti ~~.t J F F .~ S t~ t ; ', • ~ ~ a ~ ~ fi j ~ , ~~~: : ;. , <, ~, xa } °a Fy _. ~. ,ry. ,~ ,~' r~ ~u, rx~ y~.l: i4-{ ~~~` ~.v . ~axx~~' ~ n, , ~ ':V ~. '`__ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 31 of 43 ;r ~ Newton-Huckabay: I said I have none. ~ Moe: Oh, I'm song. Thank you. Tino and Janet Sanchez. ~h Sanchez: My name is Janet Sanchez. I reside at 1929 Leisure Lane, which is -- the w. other picture. At the very end of the Leisure Lane. And for -- speaking for both my Y husband and I are right here at the very end of the lane. We have no objections to the library's plan as it stands and as Mr. Layton mentioned, the library did work with us previously, showed us their plan and answered all of our questions and concerns. The only concern we have with the current plan is the recommendation by staff that Leisure Lane become a public road for that section and we also supported keeping Leisure ''' Lane as a private lane and private property. We currently have an easement clear to ~~r ~~-~ Leisure Lane, which was a bit confusing. I thought in the staff report it indicated that it was a private lane to a certain point and, then, there was an easement north of their `~;r property. The easement does, indeed, go all the way to Cherry Lane, and we support keeping it that way and not making it a public road. Concerns with that are as everyone else has mentioned that the traffic that's on it and controlling that traffic and just changing the signs to say it's a public road, instead of a private road is going to encourage more people to come down and use our road and give us less control over y~ what happens with that road. - Moe: Any questions? s: .- Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. That's all that signed up and pretty much everybody that's in here, so -- so, no one else. Questions? Comments? ~~ Rohm: I think it's appropriate to close the Public Hearing. We have heard all the testimony we need. -~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: Rebuttal. `~ Rohm: Oh. Yeah. I guess rebuttal. ~f~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, before the applicant has a chance for rebuttal, everybody seems to be in agreement that they don't want Leisure Lane to develop from a private a~ ` street to a public street. Why is it not feasible just to take the access off of Leisure ' ` Lane, if the library agrees to -- to eliminate that access, take the access to the south to the piece of property that they bought that already has access to Cherry Lane and -- I mean it could almost sound like the library is asking -- they want their cake and they want to eat it, too. We don't want to develop Leisure Lane, but we still want to drive onto it and we still want our through access to our parking lot. So, is it feasible to not +=~ ~ have access onto Leisure Lane, put that south access onto the parking lot and access ~.,~ that parking lot through the west and the south, rather than the east? 4<~~; I 7,;~r ':: ~ ~r r;~ x ~~ y c L ~~~ r;~ x - }.. :~ h ~c ~r'~~ Y}: i~µ~ ~~~ s1 ` - NN ! l - ~ . ' `' y ~ ~ { V S ~~v~..~~.~ .. r.- x b `~ s~ i `~~ t ~ 1- J~ ~~,y,,, :. 7Cf; ~e , i+s'~ s~; r< k44 F ~ :,. Y~ ~,~, F V.a1 ~.=. 4' , r ~ a ~ Q~'4, r ~ ,~ ,~ `:~ ~ ~e~ = w a~ris 1 ~ 5. w e - Syr ~P L`7 i T ~ '~ lY 4 ?lK' ~ - :' ` ~~ ~~k ~ ~ ! L ~ ~ C ~ Ci._ ,. V„ .., ~ _. l ~ t Mh hY'~S. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ O June 5, 2008 Page 32 of 43 ,_.: ~L ``, r~ ~~~I x~'` ~;' ~~: f <~ ti!" -' Moe: That would be a question that the applicant -- Newton-Huckabay: That would be my question is what all the -- if the library doesn't want to pay for a public street, neighbors don't want a public street, where is the middle ground? That was -- Moe: Very good comment. Would the applicant like to come back up. Daniels: Sonya, if you could go to that aerial again. Thank you. The library district is not opposed to doing minor improvements to Leisure Lane. Of course, fixing the potholes and everything else that may come along with that. And so that was the intent of this project, because it is part of the library district's property, is that they would come back and they would, you know, repair it to a little bit better condition than what it is now. In regards to the -- in regards to the site circulation, currently the library has got -- they have two access points here, here and here. The sign for the library is back over in here, so the primary entrance for the library is here. As people come in, they look for a parking spot, they are kind of doing this circle, they will circle the building and, then, we have an exit that comes out here. The intent on the design for the circulation is that we would maintain the same circulation as they have now and maybe we can flip between the existing parking lot and maybe that new parcel as well. So, the intent is to have this as the main entrance to the library. People would come up and they would realize any parking that may be available here, if there is not a parking spot available, they can merely loop around, come back, either loop the building, or loop the building back over in here. So, that was the intent of the design. So, as far as having mass congestion of cars off Leisure Lane, that was not the intent and I think that with proper signage I think that we could limit the amount of access on Leisure Lane from the new parking lot. However, the library district feels pretty strong, because it is their property, they would be maintaining the road that they are allowed some sort of access onto Leisure Lane. Obviously, the neighborhood supports this as being a private road. The library district, as well as the neighbor, they support this as being a private road as well and that's the way that we would like to see it done here as well. The irrigation -- I believe there is a lateral that runs north-south in here and we would, obviously, make that acontinuous -- I don't know if it's a lateral, but it's a ditch and so we would definitely address any irrigation that flows through the property and we would pipe it accordingly. I'm not sure what the -- what the deal was with the Idaho Power cutting down these trees, they are, actually, really nice trees. They were nice trees. We would provide trees in there that would be slow, low growing, and so they would not have to be chopped down by Idaho Power for whatever reason, I assume because they were too tall. And so we would try to maintain that across that -- across that irrigation. So, with that I could certainly stand for any questions that the Commission may have. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels? Mr. Chair? F ~ r 'E: j~ y't' ~ t ' 7 ~ 1 _ .. i r"~ ,' ~ ~~!! r( y~~. ~ j ~' ~~ ~' .~yP'S'$b ~ ~_ ~~~ -_ k" \~ t~,~ , ~ ;-i ~ - M1M1aa .j' e i -~ ~a _ Tjy fk*• p ~ I.y 5 i [y r.; ~~~1 *'L T.} x.'~ f - fi~ r r,.}~i ~~5~t~.r,.; j~~~r ~ .. ?( % n yyvr,, , ~ ~! . ~' . z~M1- ~~ $~` f0. '. C{'.i. k ~ PP h~` T R ~ ~~ ~ 7 ~~ ; ~ -.. }~yva ra~. {i ~ r'X ~~ . :.Y '~ t7,,.i3~: 1-~:`.f .;l ti`4 f rY ~ n a i ~ ~, St~-- ' r l„.5ti~ s~' ~' ' Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 :' Page 33 of 43 Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Daniels, on your plat drawing or -- you showed a potential access to the south. There it looks like it's somewhere around 37 and -- parking lot stalls 37 and 38, is that -- Daniels: Uh-huh. r Newton-Huckabay: And if that access to the property were you have your offices on the south, you also have access to Cherry Lane through that property; right? Daniels: Through the south property. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: I don't know -- I believe there is a driveway -- there is no driveway to Cherry Lane. There is? Yes, there is. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Why do you have that just depicted as potential versus an actual? Daniels: For here? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: Well, currently the library district occupies this house in here and they have offices. They have some parking around here. We want to have the opportunity and the flexibility to connect any parking that we may have in here to certain days. So, it's a matter of just trying to get your parking lot a little more continuous in here and so maybe they are not using this Cherry Lane as much, because, as you know, with Leisure Lane, this driveway -- this neighbor's driveway, the entrance into the library and the other entrance back over in here, this becomes pretty busy and so -- Newton-Huckabay: That's a lot of curb cuts. Daniels: I'm song? Newton-Huckabay: That's a lot of curb cuts. Daniels: That's a lot of curb cuts. So, the Idea is that this could potentially come in and we could utilize this parking, just to make it a little more contiguous. For that same reason we would want to take the access off of Cherry Lane, but I think it would be a little more convenient for this parking lot to some day to be continuous, because the library district does own both pieces of the property. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. ~ , ~ti _ r e '~+ ~ ~ r t w , 1' a*.'4 ;'1 t .y C i ~l+'? Fir .:'1 tti .:. .:~ fr~l ` ~ '~. ,u k y a~~~ ,~' -r .,. .. ~b ,. `~ r ~` ~,~ 1 j ;4;µ: } ~~ 4~: ~ , . ~fk4f ' ~~ ..~. C a r.. f :ti ~ ": ; . ~ ~ ~~ 4 y y A (~ 4 J ~ ;(~~:~r. H~J ,.. H (, i ?~C 1 ~i~. ~ ~~'~`9 a. .Y ~ ~: ;~:' ;`~ + r ~r r s a`~ ?;; ;; Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 5, 2008 Page 34 of 43 Daniels: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: In a long winded way? Newton-Huckabay: It wasn't the answer I was looking for, but I'm not totally certain what answer I was looking for, Mr. Daniels. Daniels: Just tell me what you were looking for and I'll tell you. Moe: Are there any other questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Rohm, you look like you're searching for something. Rohm: Oh, I just was trying to find -- I don't know. The public street, I think that it would be better being a public street, but I can certainly see where everyone from the audience wants it to remain private and so I don't know where to go with it myself. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. <-:~ Newton-Huckabay: I'm kind of Commissioner Rohm, Imean I -- I have a hard time with putting those kinds of funds to the library district to pay for a public street -- Rohm: That nobody wants. • ";, Moe: Exactly. ~'" Newton-Huckabay: But I don't know that --Imean we have 45 parking stalls in there ,: :: and we are going to figure half of those will exit or enter onto Leisure Lane once it's known, maybe? So, you're routing -- I think I'm in favor of leaving it a private street with improvements. ~,,. r , <; ~~~' Moe: Because we are still in open hearing, I guess I would like the applicant -- I have ,z.; got one question for the applicant. Basically, what you're looking for to have access to ;~` Leisure Lane is just because you want access, as opposed to closing that in and ~,~ - j4 making sure that all your traffic is going back towards the parking lot -- or the library _, x3 itself. Basically, having to go back to the west. You're parking there and, then, you're ~`~`: going back out west, as opposed to having any access off of Leisure Lane. } ~: . t~' ~~. Daniels: Yeah. Mr. Chair, the -- hopefully to answer your question, is that we do have .s ;~.- one exit out of here, but in the event we have, you know, a large venue happening, ~_ ` which -- which may happen, we want to have the opportunity to have that overFlow 3?- parking come out at two points onto Cheny Lane, rather than just the one. Because, as V _ . ~t ~y'i> } h` ~ yt n}`r5 ~SY'J: A * r ~ 'Aiff' ,; `'tC ! p. 4 4 5 wfl~,_ y ~~ ~ .~ > .- .~ t ~'` ~,~ ~ - S ~ ~ 7`,k .k _ `~} n. F9~~`~ ' } ~ k. r.~:-. r.r ~ ~ ` ~?~ ~~1 F' .. ~ r~: ksE i . ~ a tikes b , a - % ~ ,' .,. ~ ~ + w "', ~ z, r u 1•ry Y+,~~~. # ~. . ~rN f'~Y ~ ~ i A ~:'. f lnr~>. . 4 ~~ (has :., ~ 1 + .~'~ . ~ :X~ ~ ~~~ ~'~ ~ - .T' q'o r. ~~ ~ c~n ~Sikk i L T ~' _~~ l~ ~.4 ~. ry t 1 f r:. i.i ~^ h'S4' ~:~. k, ~~' ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~_ June 5, 2008 Page 35 of 43 .~; you can see, with all the parking, it can become very congested and I think very unsafe ~~~ for everybody if we don't have more than one exit point onto Cheny Lane, so -- ~'r Moe: Thank you very much. ~r•s. ~ ~~ _, Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Is it appropriate that that would be an exit only? A right- - ~' out only or do you have to do right-in, right-out -- or right-in, right-out? Somebody stop `•'~~' me if I'm out of control here. ~. ;: ;. ~^ Rohm: Well, about the only thing I would say to that is the existing residence as it :~~ currently exists don't have any limitations to ingress-egress. I don't think there is a r~: Grr:t right-in, right-out currently and I'm pretty sure none of them would be in support of not being able to access from the west, I guess, so -- t-'> ., Newton-Huckabay: No. Just onto Leisure Lane. Rohm: Yeah. That's what I'm saying is -- ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Right-in, right-out. ;` Rohm: Yeah. Right now it's not right-in, right-out, it's full access, I would bet, and to ~~= limit the existing residence to a right-in, right-out might be as much of an annoyance as making it a public street. ~~ Newton-Huckaba Well I wasn't talkin Y about the existin residence I w 9 as talkin 9 g ~~:I about the library property. Rohm: Well -- but they are all affected by the same thought process. Newto - n Huckabay: If you could only go nght-in or right-out into the library parking lot -- Rohm: Oh, I thought you meant out onto Cheny Lane off of Leisure. Newton-Huckabay: No. No. No. ;'~ Marshall: It would have to be a left in, right out. 3,;, Newton-Huckabay: If you did aright-in, anybody who lived on Leisure Lane heading south could go into the library. If you did a right out -- Marshall: Excuse me. May I? ~~~ Moe: Yes. Marshall: Mr. Chair.. ~k~ ~~ } ~ ~iiL~~ it t. ~ ` c i r ~ ~~ ~~~ '~ r,'~ r ~ i' M.. ':k ~ i M .. !F ~ T ~ tK ..r ~ •~~! . F. ~', .h -'C L~ L~ t ~ r ~ x `.. ~ _ c ~: ., a . 1k ~i -t. ,w 3 um '„~f ~ ~ ; s ~ Tf c~ ~ ~ i ?~ • 4~ c ~ ~ r ,2 s t ~, hk ~~-- ~f~' _ - s ~F . .r ~~ Syr - ~~~wi~3. Y ~ ~ ~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 36 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: By all means. ;:,: ~~ ~Ar ~~ ;:~: Marshall: Aright-in would have to come from the north. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Rohm: That's what she's saying. And so the only access into the parking lot off of Leisure into it would be from the north and it wouldn't congest the traffic -- Newton-Huckabay: Beyond the library parking lot. Rohm: -- beyond the library parking lot, but you -- Newton-Huckabay: In theory. Rohm: -- but you could exit out of that parking lot and take a right out to Cherry Lane. That's -- that's not a bad idea. You see what she's saying? Marshall: Yeah. I -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh-oh, I have created a -- just a moment, please. Marshall: May I ask for some clarification here? Newton-Huckabay: Certainly. I have a pointer now. Marshall: Okay. Please -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, you want me to clarify. I'm saying that if you were coming from the north it would be a right-in. If you were coming from the south, you couldn't. But, then, you might -- this is what I'm guessing, it's going to create a bunch of people up here wanting to tum around. Got you. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Scrap that. Moe: But, at the same time, that brings up another point that I'm struggling with on whether or not we keep it private or you go public and that is you have made the statement that you are looking for another egress point out of the parking lots out of the library, so, therefore, that private lane is going to get wam out a lot faster, basically, than it would otherwise. You go ahead and you develop it back into apublic -- you're going to have a better road system. You're only taking it to the north side of your property -- of the library property, so I find it strange that the neighbors don't want a public street to the north side of the library, simply because it will be a heck of a lot better road. Marshall: Mr. Chair, just asking because of the cross-access easement and a lot of homeowners associations having private roads, everybody having access to that road is required for the maintenance of that road or, in this case, is it different, is the library only ,A h <.~ z ~_; ,~ s . ~ ~~~_~_. ~ r r '~, e; ~ T ~4 r~ f -: ~ '~.; _~Y' ~- ~ fir. ri ~ ~,r j € t+XLt ~t , t~ n "~ d ~ ~ - f ~~ ~ r~ r l~ F ~ LL 1, Y N 1` k~r,~.~~~P ~ x ~ ~ ~ .. _ v . ~,k'. µ 5 ~ 1 ~ d i r.-' ~ ~~ S r ~ S ~'~ ~ ~~~~ , `i ~ » y~y. .V ~ j-1 ~c ~~" j "".". F~ r~ . ,~ ' ' f ~ S K N~~. •/y~ r tiA ~ F )!~ `.F..~tr ~ ~ ri F` I _ '~' S ~ ~~ d„llt1., ye~Q Sa. r.~ .t:-: 7~jf~1• L _. a ~~aa"v }! ~ u. ~':, F wYr,. ,,,,. ~~ ~: ~,. e: G 'q .. ~,<<"' ,_ 4'~. 41: ~: -; ~1`=: ~~~ ~., ,,_ 5 ._ :~ ~~. ~; Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 5, 2008 Page 37 of 43 maintaining that section of road? I mean who is responsible for the maintenance of that private road -- Newton-Huckabay: Everybody who lives on here. Marshall: Right. And, therefore, it's seems that the public section of the road up to this point would make sense, where the public would maintain that road and, then, privately it would be maintained after this point. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- and that's where my comment was, Commissioner Marshall, that if they don't want to make this a public road and the library doesn't want to pay for a public road, which I'm not sure I would necessarily support, then, I think that the library should get up this access to it for public use, because, in essence, that's what it would be. You would be allowing public use on a private street without the benefit of -- you're putting aburden -- you're putting the public's burden on everybody who lives north of this property, including the library who owns it. So, I don't think they should get to do that. I don't think the Library should get to put that burden on, but I would be in support of -- you can keep this a private street as far as I'm concerned, but you can't use it for public use. So, I would not be in support of this access. Moe: You'd close -- you'd close off the access. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Moe: That's what Iwas -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, you exit here and you exit here and that's what I was saying, you exit to the west and you exit to the south, and -- unless if you want this access for public use, then, yes, I think you should have to pay for the benefit of public use and not burden the neighbors to the north. But it sounds like the library wants their cake and they want to eat it, too. And they want public use and they want access and that's where I think we have our conundrum that we have to solve, either this is a public street up to here, so you can have public use, or you don't get this access and you can put your access right here. Is that where we are all going with this? Marshall: Absolutely. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: You're welcome. Moe: Sir, the testimony has been taken. Thank you very much. Do you have another comment? Daniels: I do, actually. The --Iwas wondering if you could go to that aerial that shows where the property boundaries are, Sonya. Thank you. As you can see, this -- like I ,, 9 p rt - r~tfl,,;. }~~' ; { t ' t ~` ~~x~ ~~.: S- r; t ~ `, ~ y t+ ~ ~ ' ~... vn a ~ '~ v >'~ L1' K'8.-. ..y _ 1 3',~. ~ i _ ~r w f ~ , ~ Y ~~ .. ~ ~ 1 ~~( y ~ 1 4 ;i-4Mi$~ . to } ~~..Ry. ~~+~. ~1'{ ~! ~FI~ ' ~' j S ~~ j F 3'F iti ~ } -, b t` i,t y ,~ y~y E i b ~Jr G~ ~~ ~~C ` ~ . A ~ { " ~ ~ ~d n~ ; y :,: k c'C ~ ~i4f- tr ~~ »q .. . !' ~ ~ ~ t {x r ~ ~ ~~~~ r Mt 'ale ... ~- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 38 of 43 said before, it's a very unique piece of property. I'm not sure why it is the way it is, because none of the property lines where the residents are up here or anything like this, to where the library district cunently owns that part of Leisure Lane and so we kind of felt that there is a little bit of maybe entitlement to utilize their own property for access onto Cherry Lane. And with that I guess my question would be being this is a new ~~,, parking lot, if it did not loop out onto Leisure Lane, what would be the difference of not accessing it right here. To me this is a little more safety, whereas if we are forced to have another access onto Cherry Lane, we have got this existing curb cut in here that the library district, I would assume, would -- would be entitled to use as well So, what we are really trying to do is make a little bit safer environment to where you're not having traffic at this point, this point, and that point. Newton-Huckabay: But you haven't given up that access. '., Daniels: Here? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Daniels: Not in this plan. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Close the Public Hearing? Marshall: What I -- I would ask you is that I understand the thought of entitlement to the piece of property, but seeing how it's across-access easement for everybody that lives beyond there, who, then, is responsible for the maintenance of that? _~ Daniels: You know, honestly, I don't know if I could answer that, because of the way the agreement's written for Leisure Lane and a certain percentage of the neighborhood >F: association participates in that. I don't think I can answer that tonight in a good way. could make something up, but I wouldn't be right. But I don't know. Marshall: My concern, then, if you can understand it, is that we are, then, putting an undue burden on all of those people that live behind there for public access to that parking lot to maintain this strip of road. If, in fact, they are helping to pay to maintain that strip of road. ~' Daniels: Yeah. I see can the point. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much, sir. Rohm: Before -- I have one question that just came to mind. I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: Welcome back to the hearing. Moe: Commissioner Rohm. .~~. f ;' .;;~,;~ t ,s } ~ ..~ o Z ll v iF~' ~~ ~~.. ry aiY . ~ • ~ , 3 ~' . . a Y },. J ht S',.".~.. t1 ~ cry 1 ~~ ~ ~ w; 1 I ~ t s"" ~ + ,~} t7 H V I~~ ~Y ~# .w. ~ '''~ .Ga L ~ k j , ~ C~ ~ ~ J :'.C~' . '~k ~~~ ~•}.Pk q. , ` s~ ~~~. n, ~: f~ .. J "~5!~ .. S;~'c ~~"9 YRv' ~ Q "N: ' S ~ ~ "' n. ~cE .S fir: „1 t ~~ ' r~ ~~~ vow ~.,~ -~ _ n~ t a ~r ~ #' , 5 ~-"lid` .,_~.f 3 ~~~~1 ~ ~ Fly t Ge f ~~' '~ ; 8 1 t .. t5 _.~ .. S .....r `_ Meridian Planning i£ Zoning • June 5, 2008 Page 39 of 43 Rohm: Well, I have been thinking. What my question is is -- is if -- if you had an either/or -- either develop the road to -- and dedicate it to Ada County and have your access from the parking lot onto Leisure Lane, as is in the staff report, as one alternative, or no access to Leisure Lane off of -- out of the parking lot, which would be your preference? Daniels: To be honest with you, I think I would probably have to take it to the library directors to answer that. I don't know if I can make that decision for them. Rohm: Okay. Well, I think that this Commission is kind of leaning -- if you have one, you got the other. If the road's to be utilized, it's going to be a public thoroughfare, as _ our recommendation on to City Council and that's why I asked you if you had your chance which way would you prefer and you're saying you'd have to go back to your board? Daniels: That's correct. Uh-huh. Rohm: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair, if I may. Moe: Yes. Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Did you not earlier -- if -- I'm trying to follow up here -- make the comment that you felt that making the improvements and turning that into a public right of way was somewhat cost prohibitive based on the resources of the library district? Daniels: That's correct. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just real quick. Moe: Yes. Hood: If, in fact, you want to go with what Commissioner Rohm just offered up, you certainly could put an either/or in the condition or if you want to move this forward tonight, not knowing what the library district may want to do, you could have a condition that says either you construct this as a public street or you -- I mean you can craft, a condition that way, if you so choose. I just wanted to throw that out there as an option if that's where you guys want to go. Rohm: Good. Thank you. '"Y Rh . ~.~-. ~"~ F -, •" ~~ s f ~ f~' f t `1 f ~1 ~ ~~ ~~ r ~ \~' 1 , .y T {~ r~? ni ~'~ j' S Q~~f~ T '' ~. ~ '" aeo.~k~ r '~ 2 ayv~~ ~ ~ i w ~ ~~r f 4tj, , , ~ ~~ ~~~ L ' :~ 4 4k-*~ ~. ' ~' ~ ~ `. + ~ y. i ~ ~, ik..i-. ~ S ~ ~ i~F ~~. P' ~ .~] *N ~.. Y 1• _ .r- '~ J is-~`T~' .>r. ~ rl`; ~~ f i b~\ J.. ~ 4~ _, 2Y4 .. li _" r . ` xSf i ~ ,~+:~ r. d 1 r .T y fl w', ~ ^_ YS ~ J .1 x r"-i ~ , f ~., ~ ~ ti F. Y ~C ~ 1 '~ ~ ~_» _ e i ~ )s~ k~ r -~ ~' ~r ws,' ~ ~' s ~'~`' Meridian Planning & Zoning • June 5, 2008 Page 40 of 43 r, ` `: <t •,, Moe: Well, having said that, I guess a little bit more discussion. That's what I'd like to see happen. Because, quite frankly, I understand that the cost involved to make that a ~~-. public street, there is a cost to bear, and, therefore, I mean if they can do without the access, then, I think that they should have the opportunity to do that. They would have ~' to get that resolved prior to City Council, so that when they -- before, then, they can tell ;''`" them which way they'd go. k:~. ~. w. ;." Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think it would be a good opportunity for them to talk with the neighbors, too. And -- I mean there is -- with a private street you have the situation where you have a lot more stake holders per se than you would normally have on this ~'``i, type of thing and I want to make sure that the owners of Leisure Lane and the library, as one of those owners, all understand how they want to move forward, so I don't recall ?, ever drafting an either/or recommendation to City Council before. I'm not opposed to it, "` though. Provided the attorney doesn't step in and say, no, don't do that. And he's ever =1~ silent. - Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think there is anything prohibiting you from doing that. Ithink -- I guess part of me says that part of your charge as this Commission is to give your recommendation to the Council and an either/or really isn't V:,~ that. But you certainly have the ability to do it. There are some unanswered questions from your discussion. You certainly can -- as you have done on other occasions, allow "' the applicant and the parties to take your information you have had tonight and come back in two weeks to see if some of those issues can, to, then, help you be able to make a decision that you all feel comfortable with and, then, if you still feel at that point that there really is an either/or -- and I would say there are occasions where you have said a specific recommendation and maybe just not quite as pronounced as this where you would have really one or a second alternative that are wholly different. But you certainly have sometimes given some options to the Council, but not one quite maybe _ as dramatic as one from column A and one from column B, so -- Rohm: Have we closed? ~; ~ Moe: No. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I might say we could continue this as well. Moe: Well, that's what I'd like to find out from the applicant if he's -- would the applicant come forward again. Mr. Daniels, based upon what -- the discussion we are having here, would you like to have the opportunity to get with your folks and present the request that Mr. Rohm has brought forward and, basically, continue this hearing until the 19th of June? Rohm: It would have to be July 3rd, because -- ;_r ~. y~ _ ,:a" ..~ t _~~. ,,;. ~` - k '; ~ { t '/• t : ip ~ ~ uA ~;; ~ rn 1 _ ^" .A ~ ~' kk,n.. - Z7[~r j r1. ~.1 Yi;,n~f~ R » .> ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~jy^ .; ~ A ~~ r~ ~~ Y t - 0 r~. k ~ ~'- T L°i +~' srt~ ~i ~ k~~ t f _ _ ~- ~ ~K _ ~ W a, yy l ~Y _ 4..1r 4 l , ~ t , y 4 ~~: ~:~_.. . I ~~f , 3 ~ M~, r L.,` ~ ~ ~ ': ' f,4 1 ~ ~ 'A' ('.. ~i'~r ?~Y 4L il+i .~1~ ~`a __ ~" '°'' was . ~-.uo a .i .`Y. zl !e'. ~~. ~,.;-' -, ~~4 ~:; :~, _'+> i _;> ;; ~. ~-., :~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 41 of 43 Moe: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. July the 3rd. Excuse me. Daniels: Is that the only option? Moe: It's that option or whoever makes a motion here is going to tell us what -- what we might be able to do. It's either going to be one or the other. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Daniel, if no one else does, if I beat them to the microphone, and my recommendation is going to be to eliminate access to Leisure Lane. If my motion will carry I don't know. Daniels: Yeah. I think any opportunity that I could have to meet with the client and maybe give them -- give them the options and discuss that as well. One more thing that I'd like to maybe bring up real quick, if it's appropriate, is currently there is -- there is a dentist office in here and he has got two access points onto a private street. I believe he brings in a lot of the -- a lot of public as well. So, it's one issue that I have really brought to the table as far as -- as far as the public accessing Leisure Lane. There is no access onto Cherry Lane, also, to Leisure Lane for him. So, I'm not sure if anybody's got an answer for that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: That's a fair statement and I wasn't sitting on the Commission when ~y that office was approved and I would ask that same question, how they got -- got that -- those two easements. But we can't undo what's already done there, but we can, hopefully, eliminate making the same mistake twice or correcting them. ~ Nary: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I mean I don't know the specifics of that. I did have a discussion with the counsel that represents that dentist office about -- ,. about some of the issues around this particular parcel, but they certainly have an F;;. easement there, but that's really relative to the library. They are asking this an annexation. Those are conditions -- those are considerations that the city could make at this time as to where the accesses can be; what type of access that can be done. So, whether or not he has an existing easement and the right to use Leisure Lane to access his business really doesn't matter for this Commission's decision or the Council's on whether or not to allow access for this addition that the library wants to do. So, you can bring it up, but it does not really matter. c~~ Rohm: Thank you. So, are you going to make that motion to continue? w ~ h~: ~ l r-~ 3 . ,~.. ... .. ,_ .. ~ ,. r. -,r 4 , 7 `.v.*SiS~ ~ Y iF` V ~y w f; t ~4~1 .i ~~~ 4 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, L ~'~. s~yf '~ P - I ~~ fij} . l~ S.', ? ,tip '1nf ..Z Y ' ,+i 1+ 1 ~ I .. , _ t `? j fr ~ l ~ _ 1. ...~.. ;. d h i., ~ 1 .~'~` ' 3~ ~ '~i ~ j.. C~ 1 ~ r e r F ~ ' H ~ 9 %rt ~ ~ t 3q t - r t ~r~~.~, y 5 i:. ;a ~. .~ L# ~. ~~:: ~ S l L ~ f~,~xyY. i ~ Y.l '• ~ 1 f~ .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 42 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Sure. `'.: ~ Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. ~'~ ~ Daniels: Thank you. ~, ,~~~ Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move s'~~~` to continue file number RZ 08-002 to the hearing date of July 3rd, 2008, for the following ~ ~ reasons: It gives an opportunity for the applicant to discuss the potential options of not {; ~. ` having access to Leisure Lane or converting Leisure Lane into a public street and also continuing some discussions with the other owners of what is Leisure Lane as it's designed to be. '::;; ; Rohm: Second. µ g tl:k~~ Moe: There is a motion to continue AZ -- excuse me -- RZ 08-002 for the Meridian ~==<: Library Parking Lot Expansion to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of July the 3rd, 2008, to discuss the access to the parking lot off of Leisure Lane for the }_.:~ ~ public street at Leisure Lane to the north side of the property of the library. All those in favor? Opposed same sign? That motion carries. That will be continued until July 3rd. ~ ~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~ .~a ~ Hood: Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. We had one of -- a similar motion recently ~~~~ and I just want to make sure that everyone in the audience and the record's clear, that the maker of the motion was intending that not only the applicant gets to speak, but any of the property owners down Leisure Lane can come and testify again at that hearing on -, any new information that they may have regarding the subject application. Correct? '~'~ F Newton-Huckabay: Yes. hT ~ ' ~,.. ~'~ Hood: Okay. Thank you. ~;; ,_; Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 08-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of r 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 ` (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of W. McMillan Road ~` "' and N. McDermott; and near the southwest comer of W. McMillan Road ` and N. Black Cat Road: ~~ { Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 08-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots and 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district for Oakcreek by Norpac, LLC -east of N. McDermott Road, west of N. Black Cat Road, south of Chinden Boulevard ~~ & north of Ustick Road including the southeast and northeast comers of ~~ ' ~<~~ t ~ , 4 ~ C ~ ~~ - t _ ~'~ ~v ~~ :;4 ~ ~.~ '~ ~ t ~y 5Y 4- _ ~ 4 1 ~~2 y5 ~~~: Ate! ~~%!"~' x . ,g ..ia F 1 T~, ~ ~ ~~: ~l.- x 1V::. i ` h y h ~'~ ~e~ y jp r ~4'fF!` N 2 .. n~ ~~f.. .. - r '~ ~ l: ~ .~' !,' ~ ... r 4~,'..: f ~ F - ry V ~ ~ C ' ~'V~. ~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ :~ ~:.;: ~:~ ~ `~ ,. ~~4 Y ~Z_. .. ~i~ 4 1 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ _ ,ti f ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ } c 4~ ` ~ <, k ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ti r" - ~ f d v j r ~+ ' (fir. ~ " ~~ i 4` 3 { ~ ... 1 Ea3 ~ ' }~ 3 h t~ (gyp :4 . 4 - .-ylj.. ~~.~r; ~St ..~'l t'Y~°V~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 5, 2008 Page 43 of 43 W. McMillan Road and N. McDermott; and near the southwest comer of W. McMillan Road and N. Black Cat Road: ~"•~ Moe: Thank you very much. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 08-004 and PP 08-003 for Oakcreek for the sole purpose of continuing those hearings to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of July the 17th. Rohm: So moved. ~,:;~ , ~'`~ Marshall: Second. ~,;; `~ ' Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-004 and PP 08-003 for Oakcreek. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E'=~ Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. E;, Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) MOE - C ATTEST: ~' I ~ ~ I ~~ DATE APPROVED '`~~. _ ~ ; 0 AL JAYC L. HOLMAN, CITY ERK ,~ ~`'~~ ~INT( { } " hk dr,-f if.]: Sra,~ , e i w~" ~ ",~' { . t r :. t I i ~ L Y , ~ ,~„y" G ~r r ~aTL~. ~y~ ` ; N ,~ ~~- ~ rrt3a. s ~ _ ~ M Y k ` ~ 5." _ ~~ t yi'. ' h F i ~'. _; 1' '~~. ~2 "?. s ~; ~ '~ t ~ . _ i < s ~;: - r ~~ ;. w. ; ryyy' M~'4 r~~r'l ~ - ~~~ L ~ ~, W'. ~ .4-~ ?. ~-Sr, ~ - t I p a~ f ~` 7 T biy ?-a`~j 7 f 4 ~ ~ ` y J v~'tT' ~it x~ ~ ~... 1 ~~ i ~ ~ ~...z t,t ® • ~: _' -fi'«. I ~~. ~~ June 2, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ r~ ~ s~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: E' '^ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: -; ~,:.: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: `'~ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Merldlan. ~ , r ` rk ~ ~k . ~ ,~ k 1 .~~ i V ~ ~ d-s~ -'~=r; r ~'. ~ ~ ' +'P J f,~, S. U^~~ ~T~" ~ ~~ i, '~ Y fi; S~ fk , . ~ X r ~ ?fk ~ f i33' j ; - '''"' YYYYYY''''' ~~ t ~ 3 may, ^ 1 ~ ~ ~ .T. ~ .f 1 tied +w _ ~.~ S., ~, ~ e~~_ ~ ~ " ~~~ ' ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '1~%t Z.d~ T' ~. ~ •A r+ ~? .! d~ . c 3 .._ ' _ 1 ~~ 1 <a F, !. 7 ` .~ ~~ } ~,~.'~ r ~~~ s r: r ~ a f .: )Yi ~ t ~ rc.k ~ ~yy~ S rY aT M~. . :. ~ k .ae { f j '~` `' ,~' ~ r a, ~r } x ~ ~.. ti ~ ~~ ~, ' I ~ ~ ~ , x~{; L~ i ~t , ~ ' ( ~ ~; a p~~ ~~ ,~ , 1 ate' ~"'~' .~.. n LJ ~~ ~'~.~~=. _ ~. ~.'~ June 2, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of May 15, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Clty of Merldlan. u >~ ~~r~'_ , c ~ fr ~~~`-,.r 1 , ~t ~ t ~ ~~ ,qa s}: F ~ ~' ~ "~~ _ . , _ ` ~ ~~ ~ 1 k . } ~ ~ ~Y 5 I' y:k 4 '~ ` r ny it ~y ~ .y ~ 2 Z ~?.:. _ y~. i r n w. r "~aa~ } ~Fy.; s" ~ r tk 'r' t f ° r~f. i ~ R ~ y ~ t 3, {~ tt ' ~ y C d4. ~ , . ~y ft y ~* .. tp t IL ; ;;,.SS ~T~ h '~. Tf { f " ~ ,, 3 , Y ~i!~' ~ H ~ t ! 1 T r }r, COMMENTS Phone: A, i v y `.1 ff June 2, 2008 CUP 08-0 l 0 r ,,: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 '.~ ~ APPLICANT Randy Rodes ITEM NO. 3-C r.,.- ,,, <, , *'~''' REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit to operate a church from an existing building in an I-L zoning district r ' ` for Vineyard Christian Fellowship - 936 W. Taylor Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: rp6 (.,a CITY ENGINEER: s.'- CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See AtFached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ,,,p ~=~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ `~ ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ' rt. i~ 'x / CITY WATER DEPT: r CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: r ` 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. r L ,k'1 F` ~`~ .,y , - ~~. yLL - E rr~ A rS` ~ ~~' ° ~' ~1 K ~ a ;:,ay ~.~ ,. ~. ' 9 Y~ ( r ~~M3. fly- r~ ~h //4 , y ' S a ~ r ? R_ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ r I i ' " ~ . 'F C x ~ 4i 7 o-' ~ ~ ~i1°` $;~. H R' ~K 4 ~y -~f 4i 7 xS F v -k ~ ;j t fit r ~ ~ _371" - E:~~ ' ~ ' ~i ~ ~ , yr t ~, ~~~ c ~ }4 ~ r. -.£" 1$ y c 4 ~. ~7' N r 0~ f ~ R_ ,ate i, t ~ x! '. 4'c.: SL G'r' >l~~i ~ ~~ SAY 3 0 200 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ I ~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS - ~ ~ ~ IDIAN ~;''; LAW AND ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' DECISION & ORDER ~_ In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Church from an existing building in an I-L zoning district, for Vineyard Christian Fellowship, by Randy Rodes. ~;`;~; Case No(s). CUP-08-010 yy':.q~; ~'~` "`I For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: May 15, 2008 (Findings on the `_ `~' June 5, 2008 agenda) ,, A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 :~;, incorporated by reference) ~~"< 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 incorporated by reference) x, 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the 'r<:~: ' hearing date of May 15, 2008 incorporated by reference) ~.`J I B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use -_- ;, Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503}. '_; ~~~' 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified f-,YS..;~., 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 4 '''. ~'I Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, `', 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. '`' `~k'~~ 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. ~, : i ~,: ` ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S).CUP-08-010 Page 1 ~a ,, ~~ i'` ~ a7L~~~ grl l t l s k pU S,W 4 `~ 1{f i~ ~ hh L ~ ' { ,:Y K ~ ~ ~~~~~ F H ~ f ~ 'Y' Jy~. f. ~ ~ + rt{ +~ C ~ ~ _ _ V....- i _ ,+ :.i7 f ~ ~tT rA,a-d~~"- 7 " ~ E {ir~ ,R ~ C ~ .C ~ , _ T ~, y rn~ S 2 C• '~ ~ ~ ~~~~ #~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l F o.: r - ~ 'ti T ~U h-r r; ~: i ~ r : gin, aW rr . _ ~ +~ ~ r:~~ - ~ - ~ ..,_ _ iY y~ ti p _ K~. ~4x ~.,~' _ ~ } f' c _ , :4 , ~' I, ~ _: ,,; J,i(Y:o tt?^"i' 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not r4 : ; 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 r party requesting notice. s.~~~_ ~~~: 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report ~_' ;: for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition ~~ `- i of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order ~~T_:.~ ~~~<h~° 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 F~;;' .. ' adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan, attached in the Staff Report as Exhibit A.2, is hereby conditionally approved; and, ., ~ ~; 2. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the ~~."`~' Landscape Plan, attached in the Staff Report as Exhibit A.3, is hereby conditionally approved; and, ` , 3. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 incorporated by reference. ~~ D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits ~S iC~ ~ 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 r r4, 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 f_ '- CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~' ~.~~ ~ CASE NO(S).CUP-08-010 Page 2 ti ~~ ~w ':' r ~t ° ~_ t ,~ a µ -^ z, r ~~ t ~wh~ F'f .1<e ~~~, c J c~ - ~. 4V 41 .t.~. -~ - i"3 _ ~~1 c _ tY i 1 (. '~s J t ~l ~ d Y7 S . l x~ . ~ ;~ f !~ ~ x A ~ ~~ iv h ~ F ~ ~)k ! ~~ - r~ y r ). r,~ ~ ; .~ yds. , ~ ' ~a`~) * ~-, i~ ~b ~a'f ~~. _ I b,~t _ ' ~y t .~ ~~ - - .. 1 ) "'i ~ - ~ ~ : rt 1 ~ ry l~. _ .ter.... '~+ > E }} V~'. v. $• Z ~~ - iw R ~ ~ ~ ! t °a ~ - 5.h ~1 'Tft'. r 1 ~'~ ~ ~ `Y'4... ! I . IAA" -;u 'm ~~ ~~ i ,~ ~~~ ~~ t i - r •_ , ,.. ~~ ~. • time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008 ' ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S).CUP-08-010 Page 3 ~. . ,x ._ , . t < ., k ;--! t F.aY..,, ~ ~~ •-. i ~K i ~ i ~- @ l bW • . ~ ~ ,. Y_ . '±~k .'fyl .t ~M ~Sj t r J7~~ i~~; A y~' ? 1 '~" ~ a t '~ s 5 k wfi ;_- ~!~- <tq ~krr,r ~ - . . ~~. ~N . ~~~ ~1 ~¢; as.: , i, r Lai ~ ~ °a ~ "+~" ~~~, bti 1.'}~ C ~~,.: r 4 t r yy .t: ate ~ (':' Z wY Gi~+ v •n. ~ z~~rd V.'~'. S k 1 '~ R Y~ ~ ~ 4 r. L.x., n ~J 0 By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 5~~ day of , 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED_ ~L~Gt~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED_!aCeL,.~.yQ,/'V'~ COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED ~`' CHAIRMAN DA ID MOE i Attest: `\`~~.~~,~~ ,~.,~~r'' ? ~o 's J Tara Green, Deputy Eity lark z ;. ,A ~~~ Copy served upon Applid'~}44~~~~apnm~~l~epartment, Public Works Department and City ~rrr~- n~~~~~ Attorney. By: Dated: ~O- q- o~ City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S).CUP-08-010 Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN• PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 15, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN,--- FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner I Q A H ~ (208) 884-5533 _ SUBJECT: Vineyard Christian Fellowship ,:.., ~'`' • CUP-08-010 ~~~ - Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Church from an existing f ~ building in an I-L zoning district, by Randy Rodes. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST r.. ~' ~ "~ The Applicant, Randy Rodes, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the operation of a 4t ~- Church from an existing warehouse building in an I-L (Light Industrial) zoning district. The site consists ~~ ~., of 3.8 acres and is located at 936 W. Taylor Street. Per UDC 11-2C-2, a Church or place of religious worship requires CUP approval in an I-L zoning district. The subject site is currently developed with a 48,960 square foot warehouse building. The ~'. applicant is proposing to lease 7,200 square feet to operate a church from the site. The remainder of the space is leased to the YMCA. At this time, the applicant is only proposing interior improvements and change of use; therefore no additional site improvements are required per the UDC. However, Staff has },~T!" reviewed the submitted site and landscape plans for conformance with the UDC and found the site conforms to the parking and landscape requirements of the UDC. Furthermore, in approving any F y. conditional use, the Planning & Zoning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions, sureties and safeguards that are more restrictive standards than those generally required in the UDC (iTDC 11-SB-6D). . ' ~ 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION _ Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends ~~~ = approval of CUP-08-010 for Vineyard Christian Fellowship, as presented in the Staff Report for the #~; hearing date of May 15, 2008, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 15, 2008. At the public `~'`~ hearine. the Commission moved to aAUrove CUP-08-010. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearine: i. In favor: Rick Beckman. Chuck Jones, Mike Ford ii. In opuosition: None iii. Commenting. None iv. Written testimony: None " v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting_on ~ulication: None $~~~ b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Exterior modifications to the existing warehouse building. c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. The Commission modified Condition of Approval 1 9 to requiring ~e ~ licant `+~ submit a CZC, not AUP, for daycare use on the site. '~' ii. The Commission required no exterior modifications and had Condition of Approval `~`'`~' 1.8 stricken. f f,. Vineyazd Chrisrian Fellowship -CUP-O8-010 Page 1 , k r:: ', ti. ~ ~. `~~, 4 t :. i~. fi -'- 1 q~~" p~ .y~c ~: 6 ~'~ :~-~ ,,art', 1 h T y~ b't~?f S r ~ t ~ ~ >, rl ~. - t f #~k R f ~ ~ r " _ .,~ y k ~ :.'-: ~": _ J a~ h ~~~C" ~ti 'r4 ~ ~ 1a_ } t `, " ~y.~ ~~ ~,.H ~ _ 'FiZ' ~ ~ ~, 'icy:. ~ i t. 3 ~~ -;~-,_ x ~: qx a Lk ~ yN4.,,:wS?. ~' ~~ Ty r~Ya t ~~S ~ > sya~+- >y rt~ ~ ~c+,'~ c -~ .. ~~a~a J~7 ` 1 ~ ~ H-L ,~ ~*~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN®PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- 010, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 15, 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 June 5, 2008. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP-08-010, as presented during the hearing on May 15, 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 June 5, 2008. Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 08-010 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: 936 W. Taylor Street Section 12, T3N, R1W b. Owner: SJL, LLC 4414 S. Gekeler Boise, ID 83716 c. Applicant /Contact: Randy Rodes 211 E. Carlton Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 d. Present Zoning: I-L (Light Industrial) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to operate a Church within an industrial district. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: "The congregation is in drastic need of more space and desires to relocate the church at 936 W. Taylor Street. Most of the building is already occupied by the YMCA. The church would be leasing approximately 7,200 square feet of the south end of the building. The YMCA and the Yanke Family have given their approval for the church to operate from the site. We believe moving to a larger facility would enable the church to have greater impact for good in the City of Meridian and the life of our community." Vineyard Chrisrian Fellowship -CUP-08-010 Page 2 ,; f%n ~~ ~;,~1: y:; ~ i ~. . 1 ~~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11-SA-2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: Apri128, 2008 and May 12, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 18, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 5, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant tenant space. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is zoned I-L (Light Industrial) and mainly consists of industrial uses with residential development across the railroad tracks to the north. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Tremont Place Subdivision; zoned R-8 2. East: Industrial business; zoned I-L 3. South: Industrial business; zoned I-L 4. West: Industrial business; zoned I-L d. History of Previous Actions: The site was developed as a warehouse facility with the approval of Yanke Warehouse in 2005 (CZC-OS-128). A conditional use permit (CUP-06-001) for an indoor recreation center (YMCA Courts) was approved on the site. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Existing building already serviced. Location of water: Existing building already serviced. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: N/A 3. Floodplain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: I-L (Light Industrial) 7. Lot Size: 3.8 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 7,200 square feet (48,960 square feet for the entire building) 2. Hours of Operation: Primary -Sunday 7:30 am-2:00 pm; secondary -office related duties normal business hours. g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: Based on 1 space per every 2,000 square feet of gross floor area, the Vineyard Christian Fellowship -CUP-08-010 Page 3 x~. f ' 1 ~ '`, ~' ~ , f. ~~ ~1 i srr '~~`. ~ ~ , n iy Jy i~'. ,~ +y ~f < <~ _ € r ~ t ~ y J, ~ ~ ~~ ~: a ~ A - ~~"t a ~~. - ~ ~ ~En'Y ~ . .x x~ ' rs ,~ ~ ~ } + 1 ~ ~ N ~~y ~~ ~'. ! . f ~ y h } 1 ~ ~ ~ yam' p;~'~~.`: ,. F~ ~~x }.1'N ~.'~p~, ~5.~ _. - ~~ Y,. r ~r:g{ . ,i , ~ ~ 4 , ~ti 1 ~ r ~Y .'y ~ Ny x ;.~. ~ +41 1 t . r ~, ,. f ~ ;~'t` ~ i ~I~ a~ r .. .. 'm ?;, sib CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 r " .: UDC requires 25 parking stalls. 2. Parking spaces provided: 184 parking stalls h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this site is taken from W. Taylor Street. No new access points or streets are proposed or approved with this application. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On Apri125, 2008, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. "' I 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ;~- ` ` The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Industrial." Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Industrial land use category "includes areas that are ', designated to allow a range of industrial uses to support industrial and commercial activities and to develop with sufficient urban services. In light industrial areas, uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, and incidental retail and office uses: ' ~5=~~ F' a 1 1 Staff fmds that the request generally conforms to the stated purpose and intent of the Industrial designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the subject property in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service is extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Fire District. - The subject property is 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). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (Chapter VII, Goal IV) Staff believes that the proposed use should be compatible and not conflict with existing uses in the area. Vineyard Chrisrian Fellowship -CUP-08-010 Page 4 ~_, 1j ~ r ~- r. ~, f,,~ ~, ~; u- J~ M. .. }r ~.~-.~a: Mme. '.~ 1 s ~1 i "r ~. ,t { 1 L n ~ > a ~ '~ ,~ ti; 5 .1. ! Vs .~ yh! ., Lr + T~h 1~: ; . ~ r s1 . A~~. r l 3 ,. i ,b. ~~. ~. {. t~~' h .y, p F J~~ }.~ T ~7A ~ . , . -. ~ S.M~~~y3~: ' S L , ~ d ~~}: e~p f x { ~~~ 1 } ;ice t ,,+ `i•~. w`~~... i. qq r '. r "t'~.' a r j { - } Y. y i~V ~ c lk V 17-' . ~ A. t%? ~, C`~i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIIQG DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 • Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6 (page 26) -Permit new residential, commercial, or industrial developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final u,,; ~ , approval and development is contiguous to the City. The subject property lies within the boundaries of the City of Meridian and is provided with ~`'' City services. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action item 5) { The landscaping approved on the site is in conformance with the UDC landscaping standards ~~_ - ~~~ Said landscaping should be maintained in accordance with the applicable standards listed in ' UDC 11-3B-13. k`' ` ` 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 Industrial Districts: UDC Table 11-ZC-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and ~~~_' ` conditional uses in the I-L zoning district. Churches are a conditional use in the I-L zone with the ~.,:,.-, ''" " Specific Use Standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6 (see Section 10, Analysis, for specific use standards). b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the I-L district is to provide for convenient employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. In accord with the Meridian comprehensive plan, the I-L district is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or ` objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed ' s ~~ structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this district. '" 10. ANALYSIS ~: ` ` I' a. Anal sis of Facts Leadin to Staff Recommendation: Staff is y g generally supportive of the - proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: CUP: Per UDC 11-2C-2, a "Church or Place for Religious Worship" requires conditional use permit approval in the I-L zone. The subject site is currently a vacant tenant space in which the applicant is proposing to conduct church services for up to 300 patrons. The applicant has ~~~' submitted a site and landscape plan with this application; however the site and building are not ;~L. changing, only the use. Therefore, no additional site improvements are explicitly required by the #~., UDC. Furthermore, Staff has reviewed said plans for conformance with the UDC and found the site conforms to the parking and landscape requirements of the UDC. Specific Use Standards for Church or Place of Religious Worship per UDC 11-4-3-6: Schools, child daycare services, meeting facilities for clubs and organizations, and other similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction, worship, s~ government of the church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the F'~' extent the activity is otherwise permitted in the district. At this time, the applicant is not proposing any other ancillary uses other than those associated with religious worship. If r°~, in the future the church wants to establish child daycare services on-site; then an CZC should be filed with the Planning Department. ~~~ ' ~` , Vineyard Chrisrian Fellowship -CUP-08-010 Page 5 ~: ~ JA 1 ~~'~ f v ~ i ~: , ,. r ~~ :=,~- .. ~ ~ y ~f.a.. 5 i ~ aye 'C ~ - 1 J xt~- ~~.._ ~ 4~~` f -~t 1 ~, ~ , jY.. ~~' F ~ T. y~f ~~4 ~ ~ ~ t ` } ' Hy ~. .r4 4 4 a - u ~ ~ ~~;_ ~ ~ d a ~- v .~ s~+t ~~t_ _ S - ~ '~ ~~ `~: _ ~ ~~ . . ~' ~ rr ~ v~ ,~ ~. ~f z . 2 #y we_ .? ~ ~.a,~ ?~ [r z"c C 5 '~"Y ~ , v~f 7 ~ ~ P ' rr .e.'.ix -,~q ~ - ~4 5t ~f ~~..~.`rj ~. i c 4 ~ 7 `~. t `y~ - ii~ j i _ _ a ax ~} ~} 1 Jf~e~• 6 ., r r~ r r~ ~. } } T r +rrk: ~tl'd~ a~tr ~ . ~}.~.~- t t ~?k'. ~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 Access: Access to the site is taken from W. Taylor Street. No other access points are proposed with this application. _~_; ~ ~ 3'j *+' 1 ~:;,,a. ~;' .- Parking: Per UDC 11-3C-6B all industrial districts require one space for every 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. The site is currently developed with a 48,960 square foot warehouse building and provides a total of 184 parking stalls and is well above the minimum of 25 parking stalls required by the UDC. Based on the ratio of parking per square footage, staff has calculated the parking ratio on the site to be one space per 275 square feet of gross floor area. Currently the building is occupied by the YMCA. The church is proposing to lease 7,200 square feet and to conduct services for up to 300 patrons. Furthermore, the Church and YMCA will share parking for the site on Sunday afternoons. However, staff has concerns with the amount of parking for the site because the City does not have parking requirements based on the seating capacity for places of religious worship. Therefore, the Commission should determine if the proposed parking is adequate for the use proposed for the site. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the proposed use as stated in the application are Sunday from 7:30 am to 2:00 pm. Typically, other church related activities occur during the week including but not limited to office duties and church gatherings/meetings may occur during normal business hours to conduct routine church business. Furthermore, the applicant has stated the YMCA, which occupies the remainder of the building, opens at Noon on Sundays; however the services for the day are expected to be concluded prior to the YMCA opening. Staff is supportive of the hours of operation for the site and is proposing that this be a restriction of the use. Elevations: Photos of the existing building were submitted with this application. At this time, the applicant is not proposing any exterior modifications but has included a floor plan for the interior layout of the tenant space. On the submitted floor plan, the applicant is proposing offices and classrooms to be located on the east side of the tenant space. Therefore, staff is recommending the applicant provide some exterior modifications to the building to address the front facade facing the public street and provide additional windows with awnings to provide natural lighting for the proposed office space and classroom space. Staff is recommending two windows be placed on the east side of the building with decorative awnings in the vicinity of proposed classroom number 4 and office number 3. In addition, the roll-up door in the southeast corner of the building should be removed and enclosed with similar siding and provide a window with a decorative awning for proposed office number 2. Theses exterior modifications are conditioned in Exhibit B. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11-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 CZC approval from the Planning Department prior to establishment of the new use. All improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. :. `~ b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-010 for the requested Church use in the I-L zone for Vineyard Christian Fellowship, as presented in the Staff ~" ° Report for the hearing date of May 15, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in a Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B. ,~ ~`~; ,:,>- ?,°;. The Meridian Planningr and Zoninsr Commission heard this item on Mav 15, 2008. At the uublic hearing, the Commission moved to ao>prove CUP-08-010. Vineyard Christian Fellowship -CUP-08-010 Page 6 w n ;, ~t ~. ~.. ~ F r~ s,wr,i ~ 5 Y , f ~~ J t h ~;~ `fir ~ ~ k ~; (. L L~ J 7 ~, ~~~~~ S ~ k ~' ~ . ~ 4 -k < ~ 4 ~ C ~ ~ ~~~ c ~, ' ~ `: L ~ '~ f f }j , : Il 3 . ~ N/:.~ a~ j YY. ~ ,. kUr~,r;~tl. r ~`~~ t L4 ~ ~{ Pi1.i?~~ ~,l '~ ~ ~~ ~ r y ~4 e ~7 ~.. ~'t ~.~ . f R ~ ~ ` f~ i ~P<. '~ 4 S fi E . } '? ~i y`G `~ ~ ~. . y . ~y, ~ ~ ; : i 3 t . r y ~i~ Yfi „~ y "1*: ~ ~~ a ~,~ s ~' ~ ,~ . w .: ~.4,4 ... .... .. i ; 'tS'~". '';r _: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING•DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 913' `O o ~ .o ( N N ~N P ~ ° ~ 0 1~ ~ 830 I n R- _ __ -- ---- - - O N ~ M IAA ^ ~ ~ ~ !fl M M a- ~ a- 1+1 O~ ~ O O~ pp ~ ~ ~ O n a0 c0 n ~ M N O ~ ~ - w 801 802 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 91,03 ~ 951 ~` `~~ I ~ L-O / R-15 B ~ 1021 ~/ n°i ~o ~n rn ~n w .-. ~ O` ^ ~ n ~p et N N ~ uY L-U °' °' ~ N n 702 JS .o .o ~ R-15 ~- ~ ~ R ° ~ ~~ B A 1291 n I W _ ~ ~ N 588 ~ 685 ~ ~ R~JT UNION PACIFIC RXR 348 1100 936 724 690 I-L 26a OR ST N 155 152 48 C-G 1220 - --- __ _" v ~o ao cMy M N ~- .- ~- iN, a ll 95 9g c ,~'i~~ 123 148 ~ 184 ^ M 202 ~ 230 v 212 849 739 184 124 702 a 725 ~ 84 ° 658 850 U ~ 44 650 ~ WC-G_ _' ~ ~- - ~-- ~~ Sys L-O 2 ~ 20 M 948 ~ 41 ,e 938 ~ 71 ~ C-G Rl 97 ~ 641 939 117 120 ~" - ~ ~ /1 180 ~, ~ !a i 190 ~ ~ ~ b b O - L-O a a ~ H~ '~ ~b°~ 211 N ~ Exhibit A Page 1 ~~' ,,'.~. a`' _ ', ~~= 1 £_ ,.r.. '~ ~~ ~:'` ~,~';; ~, •' ~1. f. i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAG DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 2. Site Plan II~ m a T 8 NS~! ~~~~ _~~~ ,~~ 7 ~4~~i ~ m.~ ~~ ~ Exhibit A zG ~F E ~, __ e%"~~~~~}~,_ 9g~~»~r~~g~ ,fir°~w`~ R x ~ ~ B ~~ " ®~~ Da ~ ~~~~ m9~~~a ~~~~~ ~~~ sa q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~qp~p ~m~ ~~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ A c 3~c ~g~~! ~~F~ F ~~€~~e~~~x°i~~~~~~~~~~~ ~_.ee~~~~7~~~1~ !~ a~9~ ~ ~~R~~~~~~~ ~~ add@~+~~vyauortg~so~ ~~~~~Ea~Bq~d~~~fl ~e~~fi~~~~~~ ~?~g~g~ ~p.~~~~~ R~ •~~ ~€~~~~ )~~ ~~ 6 Page 2 ,,` r . d ~ T' 4 ~ .. ~~ k~ !, -w D ~ r (~ FF ~ y-y ~ ~ ~ '~,~1'.°V, ~ 1 .~~. g~; ~~ T? y` f~ ,j t ~ ~v ky~ykr, i rt T~ ~' 1~- ~t cY ~tr V ` ~ .i `i ti ~' ' t 4 .~4 - x 1~ d.. %, ~ ~ ~~; stn,' T t c ~ ~ _,~' ~ ~ Y '~' Sf r ~; S • ::1. ".L 1 1 Y ~ A ~ ~ q i~1i j47~ ~~. _ Fu'y': 7 {~ ; f tH ` n4 f 'iR: ~ i yW & x YY ~ .T- R ~r ~y'~, , ~~ 1 ± ~~„ it ~ 4 ~ ~f .. ~ ~ a~+ f ~ ~ ' -. ~ :) :X i ~ 4 { ;. t ~ ~,' ~y ~#` < ~~~ w _ ~ ~.~ R8° ~ ~~ ~~~5~ ~p: ! ~ - _- ~Eg i ~~ e"-$~ 6~~ _ ~:$ ~~a .~~ ~ I _ ~" _ ® _ g~~- a~ - ~ 5 ~a~ C~~ ~$ ~ ~+~ ~n ea a~~ ~~~ - __ ~~ - - -- ~~~ 9 - - ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~R ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,, '$ ~ ~ TAYyOR AV[ aa k ~ i ~ • A~ 5 ~~ ~~ z asuce wes'e~onse Pac3lity ~ w ?~~a s^r, ~emuuv, m e~ raa~t ~ss~, eRm~ ~°ir,~~'°' wabm~ -~~ ;k;i ~-' ' f-~~ ~ a.~ ~~. .., q a'' , ~` • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF. REPORT FOR THE HEARTIQG DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 3. Landscape Plan w ~ I. ~~ c~~ 8 a ~~ p EtBe, D ~ ~ ~ ~° ~~~ ~ ~ ~ Ni~ 'E ~ 6'` ~~~~ {~. '~~~ ~~ i e ~'~ ~~1~ 1~ ti ~~ ~ lie a ~ ~ ~ F ~ S J ~~ _ s gi ~~ ~ F ~ ( S ~l i ~ ~~~ ~ ~ F ~ ® ail ~n~<~ ~ ~~~ ~ P v $t ~~ 9~ =1 ~ ~ ~ boy fp .+ ~ 0 4®~a~~ ii Na°a~ Yanke VlVarehause Facility Tt1 W TAYLOY Sf, ~7AN, ID ~E L1. ®Patrlclt Mssecpn Arc6tkei~ r seater-esw•~ar®~oaa~ ap4m~w Exhibit A 9~mL ~~t N g W Page 3 ~. ( 3 °. ~`, N] ~ i ` y f s it ?~ (1 :~y' ~ 7 ' ,.4 Y , ~ Y ~ Z ~ y~ ~ 1 r; '~ ~ d i.. ~i - ,~~ ~ ' ~~ ~ y ~, ~, ~y,j ~_ ,,; ~s ~ , . r t ~' ~~° Lk } r t ~~r ~ ~`i ~ c ~ ~ ~~' ~ z A ~I a ,vk ,.~. t . ~. n .F .ri ~`;~. ~{ L }y YN. ~'}~' 'Y ~ n ~ i tl } J y 4 _ 7 -~.'. !~ 7 C ~; r ~~yh yi Y'k'~ - i j ~ F a :~'. ~` t t .. f{ . C.g. .. ~_ .. ~,_, ~_i'. ~~..~ ..,.~1 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~ARTNG DATE OF MAY I5, 2008 4. Floor Plan ~~ c ~~~~ ~~ M O O ~~ J W 7 CD -°~ Exhibit A ~, ~~ g~ m i Page 4 L , ~ ~,~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~. y .~ ,`~ ~;, r /f '~~~)i .;~' ~ (^F +i i M1~ Ky L Y Y ~ y /S Y~x~'$ Y ~ ~~y ~ ~ S ~ { rC ~ ~ {~uy~ f f. 'y~- k ~y f!y tt F.~! ~. Y; u:~3:~ S ~ t f ; F C k y ~ P~ ~ 1 ~y~r' ~ ~ y , u ~ t ~~ ~ x ~~' .~ , ~ t~ ~,~~ .r~ L 1 S .C TII}F - ~~ - 1 4 h'j`: t ~ ~~ ~ ~ S 1,~ ~" y'~ ..~ ~ p ' f t ~ 4 1 ; fi~a A ,~ k ~ ~>, vs ". 1 l ~s t E -!1~ ~~ - - ~ ~4. x P. ~ - ~ _. $~ y{' l~fj.`i'~'~::~ ,_..~i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 5. Photos of the Existing Building t ~ ~ :A - - a .-.srn+ s ~~ .nt - _ rh - z ~, a=.~---- ~" ~ __ ~ Exhibit A Page 5 ~. r. ~ Y .~•~ ,:~ ~ ¢~ Y ~ C yy y~, ~~`{~i _` 4 ~ y. :t ra~'~ '~'~ y G , Y ::.'y. .~, t {~n e = f b ~!n'd. h~~~. ,r. .~ r =~ta ;` ~ ~ - .:. ,•v ~ ate? per}, ~,~'~,?? ~ v ,- . }, sue:; -:. _ .~ t` s t~ ~ ~ ~ ~;,~ ~ :, ;. xti:: ' ~ ~r t > _ a '.~ } F~, ~ ~~ ~' ~~ir ~ . ~. r s +,k~ } l ~ Y Y ~ fr {~ +4r _ h t <~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S .,. '. t i~ '~^ .. f,' fT ~ { 4 K ., ~l F i , g~.. ~ ` ~t ~h ~ ~ , .r '4'~i u + ~ ~ r1-~- Y ~ r-~ . ~ '_~' .. - , .~ • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 ~=~~" B. Conditions of Approval ~;,~;~ 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~_~,~~;,. 1.1 The site and landscape plan included in Exhibit A of this staff report is hereby approved by the Meridian Planning Department. 1.2 Any future uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian <<.': ~''il ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.3 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-010 are complied with, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning Department prior to commencement of the new use. 1.4 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 imgation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.5 No new signs aze approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a sepazate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.6 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. 1.7 Vineyazd Christian Fellowship hours of operation aze as follows: Worship hours -Sunday 7:30 am-2:00 pm. All other church related activities occur during the week including but not limited to office duties, church meetings and religious studies may occur during normal business hours to conduct routine church business. a~ rY 1.9 If/when child care services are proposed on the site; the applicant shall submit an ~c~~esser~-x~se 1 Certificate of Zonine Compliance application for Planning Department review and approval. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public Works has no concerns with this application. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 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. 3.2 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems and fire alarm systems), processes & storage practices shall be requires to comply with the International Fire Code and International Building Code. 3.3 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.4 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. Exhibit B r _ - r_~.• r~~ .h~ c'~ ~ - yr ~ ~ 7~ ~ `= i ti }i'a - ~ ', zS~' ~ r Y tr "C ~ D ,. ~~ - S } `~.~ Nt .~r { ~ s ~ s ~ s~`'+~ ~, is lit a S i r~, 1 .-..'x~ X t M1'k ~ it .~.. t ~c ..`" .. 1M 1 L ;v;-. n~ } ~ ~ ~ ,, n~ v~~~~ r x t ~ I .~ p Cam. - .~ J r V 4 ~ry t~ '~yy ~y '~ L ~ yy~ ~ i4 S.i~i: ~r ~5~ ! ~ Ls1r .. i. f •~ w, `£ - ~ ~e e o CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 15, 2008 3.5 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). 3.6 The applicant shall place two "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs at the northeast and southeast corners of the existing building. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 ACRD did not submit comments on this application. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF MAY 15, 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 fmds that this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed church on the site. 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 fmds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Light Industrial. The property is currently zoned I-L, which complies this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 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 character of the area. Further, the Commission believes that the proposed use will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Because the business is currently served by the above- mentioned public facilities and services, the Commission finds that the proposed use will continue to be served adequately by those facilities and services previously mentioned. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the Applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. Exhibit C .1 ~`: i'' .. r t C ~ ~ ;:. ~ { v~ .. l`-`T s~ w ~ ~r g .... - ..fit y. ;....uk: F k ~ ~~. k ~ ~ ~ ,r. ~} ii ~ 5 r ' - ~t~is ! te r _:. ry ,n ~,~ F ~r •~ ~ i `:;? ~ 5 .x - ~1w. _~ ,3 Rf t't+~. ba - ? ~ as~ii,ry-'. ~- •` i e F y E ~ 4~ ti~. Y .:~ f ~ ~ . - Y ; ~~ ~ . . I M~ t[a,. il ~~y; ~~ 4 ~"~IY. " l ' _'lVVf G - d ' y L -. L', = ern ;$ ~'- i L C~ :...~ ~ tR , h .a ^t F; ;;~~- = 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 , ~ 4 4 3k ~ ~~~ i H~; F1 + • . 111. G =s r ~ r ~, ~: • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~G DATE OF MAY I5, 2008 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, the Commission 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. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fmds 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. .,, ~-~,' ; i _~: ~> ,. ,'" .~:-. Exhibit C t M'~r . ~ ykf -:} 1't5. 4 ? ~ ~ r;;~;.. ^T Y ~. r .ifAfc C ~, ~ r ~ . , i o- a"/ ~.`7 ~ rn .. ~ %`~: . rat f ~ ~ 33 .':r ~+~. i 4' `~ ~ ~ ` .'- ~ ~ t~~^ ~'. ~, _, i:!- ~ `4~~ u .ti'. F~ r x' ~ n t L ,~ q .. # F A :.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~P ~: L ~.. ~N FK. ~;_ v ,` r 'fi +`';u 1-0~ _ S ~ r s ,~ ~.'~ ~ ~ h ~~~_ F ~ Yfi f h ~ ~ ~', ~ ~. ~-r `~M AZ 08-001 ~~ June 2, 2 08 ~ f. MERIDIAN P ANN G & ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT 1 - - Development ITEM NO. 4 .REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008 -Annexation and Zoning of 9.06 acres from the RUT & R1 zoning districts in Ada County to the C-G zoning ~fi district for Overland Village - 3330 E. Overland Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~~.`: CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: ,~ ~' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Updated Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY ~: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ ~ J(, CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~/~ ~~ v" v I- F, CITY WATER DEPT: F, .• : CITY SEWER DEPT: 3' CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: E ,~~` ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: '~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: r' INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: - r OTHER: , Contacted: ~- t3 M p S O`J Date: ••',3 Phone: 3yv~ ~ `T ~~~ Emailed: piyi. Q (~ •0/ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 1 IK'r' / 7 N~4 ` ~ m+g" ?f. ~. - ' +~ ~ i-' +.L. ~~ r~ - ~~~ ~ { 4 r'. y ~~ ~~*~ ~ t Qty' f ~ 4 L# ~' ! ~~~ '~~ + , ~'~ 7 r~F. E 5 x Q F ~ ~~ Y t fiJf ~, ~~ 7 '{ - F r' ~, :, i ,~ ~ ~ , ,k '. t1 ~e t' }' y F'~r'tt:. rs ~t~ ` tt 1.. ` .'I~ l 13• ~1~ ~ ~ •~~ ' Y h'~` i Y r~~ , f f~ V ~ b - - ' i L•. - /. ~,Y ~.~ r.; ~ 1 r z ~ , ,,~,.. ~~ ~Y ~~ ~ ~d f i ~ ,~ ;, June 2, • P P 08-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT Cottage Investors, LLC ITEM NO. Jr -.REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008 -Preliminary Plat with 6 residential building lots and 1 common lot in an R-8 zone on approximately 4.7 acres acres for Maxfield Subdivision - 3295 E. Falcon Drive AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report ~~ ~~ rvvz~ '~ ~~ sue/ n~ ,~-~ °~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: - OTHER: Contacted: ~~g~ Date: ~~ Phone: '" ~~ Emailed: ~. Staff Initials: I~Y'Y1~ Materials presen ed at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r ~~~ ~:~ r y ,- x~ .~''. r_ , 1 ~,~ri x ~ Yr, t±Tq _ ~ F Y it S 'ylu 't ~ T - ~ s~ } r ~4 tdM lJ i h( ., + +~ / ~ f ~ . ~~ :- t` r ~~f ~r ~t !' s a '~ aw ~ i ~ ~~ ~ t - . .t.~y.? +. ~ ~ ~~ 1 k+~ ; ~~ t ~, ~' t ~ % 3 ~ :~. y- Y ~~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ t~l ~ - n ~. 4 ~ :. (... 4 J ' ~~:~- u k~ n a °cas %°~` ~ ~ .. i ',! ~,F Y {h ~ -.. ~: Z s L ~ ,,r. em _ ~.x l '~! + f . ~ 4p v Z'~-' ~ - ~ ~. i~.. ~~ 0 `~`~ June 2, 2008 CUP 08-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 ,, APPLICANT Cottage Investors, LLC ITEM NO. 6 ~;~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from May 15, 2008- Conditional Use Permit r`` approval consisting of Assisted Living Facilities containing 5 buildings with 15 beds in an R-8 zone for the proposed Maxfield Subdivision - 3295 E. Falcon Drive ".{~; AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See PP Packet ~~YFi CITY ENGINEER: ~~,~ ~, „ •;.11i CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY ~~ ~ J~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ °~' CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~~ _;>~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: % ~ ~--~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ,ys J. CITY PARKS DEPT: ~:;~'- MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: r-. , 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 Clty of Meridian. ~ ~ . ~;' r~ ~ h e +`"'~~. e ~ ~ ~ { r. + M ~ ~~ ;~$ _ Y4 '~-,' f ,.nne~~~r~t 1Y ~A'~~ .. _cJ ~ aY ' x~ 't ~y'-y ' ~ ~~.~. ty'~ i-, 3t i. ~' 4~~v +~ , a t ''~~~ ~r ~ ~~ 5 i„i L ~? . ~ ~Q, Y ;;j k J kr ~~ 7 4 ~ '. . ~ ~~ i 4 .~ F.~r~ ~ iF :~µ.,~ ~ ~- ~~ t 4a r Y6~- t ~ Fit F~~ ~' ~~~ 7 s _ n ~.i. - v t k - t ~ -~~y., 7 ,#F ~,~ ~ t ~ er ..~. Y ~ ~,,.{~" yy ~~ FIB 'tiffs j ~~ ~~ uc- ~s r.~,Slr. ~ .~~ W = ~~ n . J u , 2008 AZ 08-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT Denise Alter ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 0.92 acre from Rl to R-2 zone ~' for Alter Property - 2741 E. Leslie Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~ J 1~~~ r° C CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ C~ CITY WATER DEPT: ~ n 1I ~ J' CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ~~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ~"' Ste' -" ~~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting /See Attached Applicant Response/ No Comment by ITD Contacted: ~~_ ,~ ~~-- Date: Phone: ~n ~~~~ 7j,~, Emailed. p ".~ ~•~ ~~~G_GC~cLa SS . ~~P" Staff Initials: ryy~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. "i r ~,; ~ ~._ ~ k, ~,~:- I ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~. ;;: r. June ; 2008 U RZ 08-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT Meridian Library District ITEM NO. S REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 0.55 of an acre from the R-4 to the L-O zoning district for Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion - 1727 N. Leisure Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report ~\ac CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: '+. IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: L~~ ~ ~~~ ~a`° ~k' OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting/No Comment by ITD Contacted: _~~, % ~S Date: Phone: ~3`Z ~~~~5 A~3 Emailed: tD~~i'~ ; •p ~ ~~m~l~-~ ~~~aff Initials: ~Q~, i' v Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. ~.. IY~~~~ ~ ';yi- ~, t 1 'rk y, €t t ,S ' ' ~ ~ y . Y ~ -- h`~ V 5 ~~.' ! Y ~ ~ ~ ~~ k `'1 ; 't ~~ 7 'k; SC ~.ra a[i ,.. b ~t FJ{ ~ VR J ;\~y?~, ~ f• ~ 5 7 ~ ~ ~~ -~ ~ ;1-~; ' ' `~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ X z 4t•~j . ` ~ s w ~-:.~ } ~ t~' ~ ~ k y .~, k~~,,~ tT ~~ ~~ t ~; +ti ; .4 ~ ~ ~~.~. ~ 4 _ gt! F{~.._!~tk M- f e ~a~ :- 4 4 ~ r "s t r~ yy ~r~ .:' . h ' 0. t~ f ~ Fes, 7 Y r. ~' r 9 } ~^ ~ > r. „, Y ~ , n~a~x. 3y3Ab2 rS LOd "% June 5, 2008 AZ 08-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT Norpac, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation 8, Zoning of 318.74 acres from RUT to R-4 (69.72 acres), R-8 (192.20 acres) and R-15 (56.82 acres) for Oakcreek - e/o N. McDermott Rd, w/o N. Black Cat Rd, s/o Chinden Blvd & n/o Ustick Rd, including the SE & NE comers of W. McMillan Rd 8. N. McDermott Rd; and near the SWC of W. McMillan Rd & N. Black Cat Rd AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: '' ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: I7 `:F:'ii.. ~.. CITY BUILDING DEPT: f::' I CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ~ '~`"~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ' ~ ` MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~~,= . "'f' SANITARY SERVICES: f~-< ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: "' it + SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sig~~ Contacted: __~~ ~C Emailed: ~-5.~io~ f~ a/1~ Materials presented at COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See DRAFT Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments , Posting / No Comment by ITD ~ Date: ~p "' Phone: Staff Initials: . rbllc meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian. ~,,, ....._,_......v,.,.,~., ,~~. _ r~~,., r '~ r aih- 5 ~~~ _ -. _ ~ ~ H 4V ~'" } 2~~ i i f rrr~~~ ~ j,,,9~ '~ l ~ N, t j F { ? 11"~ k L ~%~" ~ t `~"" . - ~? j . ,~ S..~rr-f5 ~~~ 1 ~~ f - R .... ".ti ,i.-0.tw ~ ~? e- ~~r yC.'~ ~a ~ ~ '3. ~~. _ ~.. r ~ _,~r ( x S r - ' F~ r ~. 1 ~ ~ ". ~ ~ ~ "~y ~ t~ °~ .. , ~ '; ~ ~yi. i. iC e ~ti~ June 2, 2008 PP 08-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING June 5, 2008 APPLICANT Norpac, LLC ITEM NO. 1® REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 139 lots including: 118 residential lots & 21 common lots on 30.72 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Oakcreek - e/o N. McDermott Rd, w/o N. Black Cat Rd, s/o Chinden Blvd 8~ n/o Ustick Rd, including the SE 8~ NE corners of W. McMillan Rd & N. McDermott Rd; and near the SWC of W. McMillan Rd 8. N. Black Cat Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: ~ ~ b /`~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: , ~~ CITY ATTORNEY ~i ~ (v- ~iD N l~ W CITY POLICE DEPT: ~I~ ~ , I CITY FIRE DEPT: 1 CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: 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.