Loading...
2008 08-07• (~~E IDR IAN~- ~J u MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tom O'Brien X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: Approve D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-014 Request for Transfer of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04- 029) to continue operating a daycare center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool. by Michelle Hutchings -1258 E. Cougar Drive: Approve E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 1 of 4 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. ;. ~ ~:°v . ~ ~`~ E ~4 .~Y3t z . L y 1 ~ s~;.x , u. ~ ' y S' S TF~T,~~ hlH ~ ~ ~ ~~ v ~ r hfni '~~4 '~., .f ~ _. { .. ~ ~y3~Y s -a.:m f c, r• F ~~~ ~ '~ y ~ ~'t}s~- ~'" r p~ r ~Y1 ~~ ~ F ~ ~ w, ~ z n- v ai ~' 3-,f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ S~ ~: ~ ' t ~~ ~ Y . 7 , ~ ~y ~ r _ A 3 ~'b~T ~ 'i 4 ~ • . ~j Si ~. rn~ i~ 1 ~i' ~q r`~y,A- uy~i ~ mot' 1 : ~ ['1: 9 ~;~ ' ` ~ ~ • ~ ~ L ~~ y ~ f S 1~ , ~ t`] ~ t ~~ I i ~ ..y.r} '.~ , = _ _ ~:-: '' r ~ .~~° a l ~ ' ~ -~~ a F.: ~ P' ~~( ~c 4~ ~ Y ~~ ac,~ i~~ ' ~ ~ 4 ~~ ~ y~ s ~ .r ~" „y-h. ~ 14 { ~ +yS~ u ~ n ! ~t~J~~ ` ~ i F-l 'h~lF~~+i r ` , a~~ ~ .: F A'!M1 -~~~y ~ r ^<.~ ~1[~ ~ !~ ~: s w:k r~.'~S~ .+ J 1. a ,.F; i • HUB Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation - north side of E. Broadway Avenue between E. 2"d Street and E. 3`d Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue): Approve F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP OS-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O T zoning district for City Hall Parking Facility on E. Idaho by City of Meridian Planning Department -SEC of Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue (33 E. Idaho Avenue): Approve G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.71 acres in the O T zoning district for New City Hall Parking Facility by City of Meridian Planning Department - SWC of Main Street and Broadway Avenue (641 N. Main Street): Approve 4. Public Hearing: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kennedy Commercial Center /Western Electronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman- Treasure Valley Business Park I LLC - 1250 W. Overland Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting ~ 5. Public Hearing: RZ 08-003 Request for Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC - 1250 W. Overland Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting ~, 6. Public Hearing: CPA 08-006 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential (9+/- acres) for Kartchner by Richard Kartchner - 4325 and 4315 N. Ten Mile Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 7. Public Hearing: CPA 08-001 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property by Janicek Properties, LLC - SWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 8. Public Hearing: CPA 08-003 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use -z ~'' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 2 of 4 ~~; All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. :~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilfies 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. , s i»r H4~?~'~~ - :~s~ e 7 r,? +~i 16f ~` 1 t 5 ~~ C v ~£ ~ M w~~L~ r F., ~` _ t ,1 ~. -S( 5 ~ ~ f ~7 ~{{ ~ ~ ~ F t ,N~ '~'i",«1" ~ s , .: 7~ k :12 .nf ~: Ii__3 1 Y': L ~. ~ ..,k a. Yf~i` ~ y} S ~~ Y :. '; fi ~~~~ •~, F` } Pte. '. ! t Y' h ~. c.L- ~ ~= f ~ t ~} ~4~f ~~ _ ~ f ~ ~ ~i ~ l~ .p~ Ixlf ti ~T-~, .. l.. .. R ~ ~ ti 3' 1 _~'~ID ~ kc' ~f ' c ~ ry ~ t e /~ >^ 1~k~ ;~ `~ ~ Y1}~'i .. • designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Community for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Commercial by Primeland Investment Group, LLC -west of North Ten Mile Road and north of West McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-004 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies - Northwest Corner of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 10. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 72.67 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.52 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (64.04 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to September 4, 2008 Meeting 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-009 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg Johnson -south side of Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 12. Public Hearing: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, LLC -south side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately '/4 mile east of Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 13. Public Hearing: CPA 08-002 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 14. Public Hearing: AZ 08-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of ~. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 15. Public Hearing: CPA 08-008 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 3 of 4 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 888433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. x F ~xFwl~'~'" .~M-;+`'y ~iP6 Sir t,+ '~~ t Y , TtiT~ ~ ~ . F 1~, r J ~I; r ~ '~"~ y ~. l ~ ~~k ~~ ~,~ ~ c ~a ~ ~ ~ 7 ~~~~ t~ ~ ~~ t ~'ko~,r h y11' _ ~. F;~ ~~ ~1 i ~j , It i Y c r r ~'. ~ ] Y ~+' f p ~ i~ ~ } r ~ t3 3 h {1~ ~ 5~~~-~pi Q ~ ' '7i y. Jt /I ~. ~1.F~9,Y t1 17y' ~} ,rK ~ .:' ~ _ ~s., ~' ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~~y~+~~} t yk~!~, ~ vy r Q~ ~~K ~~~. f: ~~ ~ ~r~ ~ x F~~ g ~' .~ 4 .7. T =. ~~ ~ h ~ ~~ 1; for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Corner of Meridian Road and McMillan Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 14, 2008 Meeting 16. Public Haaring: AZ OS-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited OfFce District) for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road: ~ :: :» ~ ~tif` ~...:..:.`_ :..:: .:.. ~... :..:.::_ , ....... ..: ~~:. ~>>>~ .0 = Re- Notice Public Hearing for September 4, 2008 Meeting Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ' Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r ~. ~ ~~ ~ y~ ~ ~~ ,, ~ ~' ~T , 3 . ''Si ,' ~ ~J': } d ~ t ~¢ Y ~'.rf~ y pt k, ~.' ~ ,~ '~ ~ ' F ~Y'~4t~nY~ . r~ i ' ~~ 1 ti~ ~ r~ ~'~ ~' ~ ~ ti i r 5 ,C fi~"~aY Gi~~ ~ -t ' ~ '. r~ 1 4~t? ~ v r ~~~ ^ ~ V l 'T f$ti"'~-e. $ Y s ~ ~y~ 111, y. ~'~:Y } i r~ r T:~ ~ . 5 I kk ~. 7 ~i v~' ~'f T'T i ;' # R, ~~ .. ~ H Y "~ 4 ' F ~. Y ~h ` yR. ~ ~~ r B ~ F ^ ~ , ,~ ~'~ ! ~ n k ~ ~~ xe ~}. t ~ ~ ~ '~ _i y t V ,0.l y~ ~T ~;' (`~ ~ } ~. u~~d r ~kr~~'~~7 ~ r` w ~~ R ~ ~ ~5^ Y ~, „ ~~~T P },,,;` ~ ~ ~ ~ti ~xC~ ~1 Vii`, ~ c{M.x 5~ t} ~ r C a i i ~.. f~~~ ~f1 ~~' ~ ~ q r '~ .~43;~ 1 _ ~~ '~ ' ~ ~k ~ ~ a ~`~~~ k ~ ..,. ... _... ~ ...c ,. .. ., ,. ~~ t~ `:,~- ,~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~`~K E IDIAN~~-- =~-~ I ~ REGULAR MEETING r .:~ ~~ AGENDA City Council Chambers `~'~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ^~; Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. ~:; Irv 3,jp `Although' the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ~~ ~~ 3 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: ryes Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay ' '"~~ Michael Rohm Joe Marshall ~' David Moe -chairman ~ ~}~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: - 3. Consent Agenda: t ]i ~~~ ~~ '~ A. Approve Minutes of July 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning . ~~< Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~, y; 08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a :y.' ~< convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per ~i -.~;~ ' ~'~' requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust '- -`~: Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~, tom= 08-014 Request for Transfer of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04- ~f~.~~~ 029) to continue operating a daycare center from an existing home ~~ in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool by Michelle h' "~' Hutchings - 1258 E. Cougar Drive: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP - 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit. for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the bowntown Meridian Design =~~ Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The ' ~> Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 1 of 3 r ~ ~'~~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, `' ~~' please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ;a,~ «. `~~> ;~.. ~: ® • HUB Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation - °`~ north side of E. Broadway Avenue between E. 2"d Street and E. 3`~ - Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue): F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP z;=~ 08-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O-T zoning district for City Hall .Parking Facility on E. Idaho by City of Meridian Planning 4~, Department -SEC of Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue (33 E. - Idaho Avenue): - G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP _ `-"`' 08-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility r, ., that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.71 acres in the O-T zoning district for New City ~E~~ Hall Parking Facility by City of Meridian Planning Department - SWC of Main Street and Broadway Avenue (641 N. Main Street): ' ~f~~;' 4. Public Hearing: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59 ~. ~ acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kenned Commercial Y Center /Western Electronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman- -y, Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC -1250 W. Overland Road: 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-004 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies - Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: 10. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 72.67 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.52 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (64.04 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-009 Request fora Comprehensive Plan f"'~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to ~~'' High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg Johnson -south side of a , ~, i$~: Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity Road: u~=.. -`~: ~ 12. Public Hearing: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan ~~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use ~~~~1 designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community ~: for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, LLC -south _,~;t:; ;~~, side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/ mile east of Meridian Road: `` ~ 13. Public Hearing: CPA 08-002 Request for Comprehensive Plan [~+~~~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use `` designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to `''"`' Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - 1 NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: a~ i s: ~-~ '~`~~~ 14. Public Hearin AZ 08-010 Re uest for Annexation and Zonin of 3.75 ~~ 9 ~ q 9 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning district for Eagle and Victory by `'` ~'~ Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: ;~~', I ~ '`' 15. Public Hearing: CPA 08-008 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road: 16. Public Hearing: AZ 08-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office District) for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road: (This item is to be Re-Noticed for September 4, 2008) Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 3 of 3 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 O#fice at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. S :`. ~, 41r:- h Y'~ 1 4 _ fYi; Y f~ ~ ~_ 1 j' k~ } (., J ~ ~. a" " _ 4 ~ k ` ; ,Tf (~~ ~, . s-' ' sxz» ~; -, ~; ,, . ~:-.' ~'~f . a ~. 4 ~4 .~~~s ~~ ~~- ,r :,. Y _. ;,, c. ~ rr? , .~ `; z' -~4;: ~ ~:: _ ;,. ~ ~, ~= ~:f-r! Y ,; h~z ~ "~. .~ '. Pte: ~ o E IDIAN~%- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, August 7, 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: ,q-rpp~p~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~ ~+_ A. Approve Minutes of July 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~p~v~e. B. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~~ ~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: ,~-p~raY~ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-014 Request for Transfer of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04- 029) to continue operating a daycare center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool by Michelle . Hutchings -1258 E. Cougar Drive: ~~~ra ~,~ E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit. for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 1 of 3 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. `lt1 ~ ~~ -,F ~~; Y s ~ ~. { .. 5.~ 4. •. ;~ .* 0 0 HUB Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation - north side of E. Broadway Avenue between E. 2"d Street and E. 3rd Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue): ~~p~~~ F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O-T zoning district for City Hall Parking Facility on E. Idaho by City of Meridian Planning Department -SEC of Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue (33 E. Idaho Avenue): A.i~P~ ~,~ G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.71 acres in the O-T zoning district for New City Hall Parking Facility by City of Meridian Planning Department - SWC of Main Street and Broadway Avenue (641 N. Main Street): ~~pPO ~e_ 4. Public Hearing: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kennedy Commercial Center /Western Electronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman- Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC -1250 W. Overland Road: -~,-~; n~ p~ b U c Ff~ hq °~ ~~H Sf ~ `~, ~D~OS 5. Public Hearing: RZ 08-003 Request for Re one of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC 250 W. Overland Road: ~,d~.~nuz p~r~U'~ ~~~h9 ~ AugNS~ ~`~~ aDoB 6. Public Hearing: CPA 08-006 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential (9+/- acres) for Kartchner by R'chard Kartchner - 4325 and 4315 N. Ten Mile Road: ~ ~ ~Do ~bn+~ n~ p~ b ~'c ~ea,~-i ~5 -~ ~u9U5~ ~ ~' 7. Public Hearing: CPA 08-001 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property by Janicek Properties, LLC - SWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard: ~' on~h~nu-Z Pu b1,~~G 1~edu'%~'~g ~"p ~y ~ ~ ~ Y. a Ova 8. Public Hearing: CPA 08-003Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Community for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Commercial by Primeland Investment Group, LLC -west of North Ten Mile Road and north of West McMillan Road: C a ~--('r~Yl t~ ~lti~J I.~`G ~~' ~ ~~ '~ ogvli f ~f S~' ~~ ~®~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ';~~; , (: `' 1'^, ~$.~; ;'~= ',_Y._ L ~~. t ~« ~, _ =t~~. ~~ -t -::~:lf ,~: ,y,; `3:.:z- r4 ~~ f: R1 ~: . <~ ~t z ;~ ,;-, ~~ ;~~ r _::~.~, ~; ,~; t ~~.n, r ';., ~, 9. Public Hearing: CPA 08-004 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies - N rthwest Corner of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: ®(~i Y1u~ ~lr`G f l't~ ~ ~'~5 a Sf /~~ ~O~ 10. Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexatlon and Zoning of 72.67 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.52 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (64.04 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: ~~/1-~`nU2 ~N6G`c ~f-ed.~'l`rt~ ~ ~~(~~ ~ o?f0~' 11. Public Hearing: CPA 08-009 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg Johnson -south side of Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity Road: Corrh'nc,~e. ~r~~,+C ~~~"rig ~b ~~~ a~ `~; aDD~' 12. Public Hearing: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, LLC -south sid of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/ mile east of Meridian Road: r~ -~' /Lf>~ f ~~4`c ~-~~c-r~''~. y ~ buy ~s~ /~~ ~OD~ 13. Public Hearing: CPA 08-002 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: ~ Yvrc.~ /rJµLv ~t G ~le~/ti `/~ {a ~ Llt~ ~~i oZDO 8 14. Public Hearing: AZ 08-010 Request for Annexa~on and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: r~r1.h ~'~-mac.. ~l~D .~-~ qvt s f `~, ~D (~ ft 15. Public Hearing: CPA 08- 8 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and cMillan Road: 16. Public Hearing: AZ 08-009 Reques for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office District) for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan - --- - - Road: This item is to be Re Noticed for September 4,_2008~J - --- - -- ~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - August 7, 2008 Page 3 of 3 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. ;~j: ~. `sty, v ,z y ;.~:~x,. '., •i~ti~ )~(i.~ . ,. 1 "-` t{ ,r ~, ~ ~,, ''; ya .r -, _~.~':'.M.': K t ~ ~': i(: ,J `~ ._.. '.(ir~a a `•!iCt .,3,~ ~~;. t ~'. broadcast Report Date/Time 07-19-2008 05:52:05 p.m. Transmit Header Text Cltyof Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5 "x11 MayorTammydetrJeerd Keid~ Bird E IDIAN*~-- ~~~`~`~Jl,` 1 ~ ~ ~ ® Charles Roumree Aavld Zaremba clTV a>: IwERlolaN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEAIIIEN'r PUBIJC ANNOUNCEMENT t NOTICE IS HEREBY t3tVEN pursuant to Ste Ordinances of the C1ty of Merman and the t.evvs of the State of 3daho, that #ee PtarrW9ng and Zourhrg Comndssion of the City of McAdrsu7 w1N hold a public hearing at the Meridian City HaU, 33 East Idaho Avenue, MaridleW, Idaho, at flee hour of 7:88 p.m. on Tfnusday, August 7. 2008, for tite purpose of revlewhtg and considering fire application CPA Q8A03 of Ptfineland ilaprt~et tdroup, I.LC for a CompWahensive Ptah Amendment to modify lira Future Land flee AAap by changing the land tree deslgrretion from Medaun Oensify Resktentiel to Mixed Use - CotnmunNy for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Comntee~al generally located vreet of Nortle Ten Mite Road next nortif of ityest MdNlQarr Road. More pertlcular dessxlptions of lira above k7(annat~n are on frte in the Planning O~arbrtenf, tt$tl East yvateetower lane, Suite 20Z, Meddtan, ldaito and are available for inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Frtday, from 8:00 a.m. Do 5:00 p.m. Codes at the above applications are avaHaHle upon r~uasl Any artd ap irderested persons shall be tl8ard ffi said public hearing, and the pui~ic Is welooma and invited to submit testimargr. Oral testimony may ba 0rrd6ad to three (3) minutes per petttore. Wrtttan materials nosy be aubrrnlted seven (/) days prior ~ the above hearing date so that all 9nieresfed parties may exaWdrre them prior to the hearing. Ali rrtatarials pneaented at pukdic meetings she8 become property of the Ghy of Meridian. Anyone dBSitkrg aC.CINrHttOdatiOre for disabtif8es related ~ dorxrrnents aredlor hearings, please contact the GHy Cleric's Offf~ at 0884433 at least 72 hours prior to fire puMrc Wresting. DATED this 1st day of July, 2008. ~ ~` ~b B~T+ - JAYCE HOtJMAN, CITY Cl.ERf£ y r'l~~r set ~~~~;~'' Pogo r art Tn+~l Pnnnc Cr~nnAd • R Tetal Peeps [enflrmed ~ 1dd No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 309 3810160 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:08:45 818 1 EC HS CP9600 002 309 8989551 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:02:16 8/8 1 EC HS CP21600 003 309 2088848723 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:02:13 8!8 1 EC HS CP26400 004 309 8886854 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:01:53 6/8 1 EC HS CP28800 005 309 2088985501 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:02:29 8!8 1 EC HS CP31200 006 309 8467366 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:01:58 818 1 EC HS CP28800 007 309 8950390 04:45:21 p.m.07-11-2008 00:02:47 8/8 1 EC HS CP19200 ~~'. ., ;~, ~y'Y r .,r, .~,. _ _ _''~ .. - :.. ~ rA,l. _Y`~. Vii, - ~.~: ~~ :";;. ~~-~~ `~ i. ~ `Y' i :5: ~. M¢. +:., .tJ . ,' _3~~ .- k~'~i, 4Y' T i1 ..~f. ~a.~: r~' Broadcast Report Date/Tlme 07-11-2008 05:01:10 p.m. Transmit HeaderText Cltyof Merldlan Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 3 k~. t .L ` K~ V ~~ ,?:~ 1: ~,, :;> ~=:T s;~, s r~ -cry. This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5"x11 " P.4ayorTammydpWeerd E IDIAN-- ~'r~~atul~n Keith Bird Clfdrles Rotlrtlree ®~ ~ ~ David Zaremha CrrY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT t NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant io the Ordinanass of the Criy of tWerid~n arrd the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Ptannktg and ZoNng Commission of the GHy of Meridian wail hold a public hearing at the Meltdian City Hatt, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Maridtart, Idaho, at the hour of 7;1t8 p.m. on Thursday, August 7, 2008, for the purpose of reviewing and cortsidertrrg the eppttcation CPA OS-tlttti of Richard Kartchnar to emend fl~ Canprehans4ve Plan Future Land Use ilAap to c~tange the future Iautd use designation an 19 erase of land from Mined Use - Waste Water Treatment Plan to OFfice (2+!- acros} and Low LZansity Residential (9+1• acres) for Kartchner located 4325 & 4396 N. Ten Mile. More particular desuYtptlons of the above Mtormatian are on 81e in the Planning pepertmeM, 660 East Waterlower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho and era avaHabte for irrspectian during regular ltualneas hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:~ a.m. to 6:t)0 p.m. Gopies of the above apppcalians are available upon request Any and ail interested perssms shelf be heard at said publlo treating, end die public is wettatne and invited to submit testimony. Oral testimony meY be Amitad to thnae (3) minutes per person. Written rrra~rials may be submitted seven (7) days prior to the above headttg date so that all interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. Ali materials !assented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdlan. Anyone desiring accommodation fw disabilities reteted to documents andlor hearings, please contact the Gity Clerk's Otflce at 688.4433 at coast 72 hours prior Do the public meting. NI`~IIg111 V rpppy ~ATEa this ~o°' of July, zoos. ,,,.~~c ~ +, .~ ` ''~o JAYC E L. HOLMAN, CIT1 CLERI B)~L = 7 "~~`~,T`t9~R~•,~~ 'wNi ~ ~ Page 1 at i r~i,. I Total Paces Scanned : 1 Total Paces Confirmed : 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 001 310 3810160 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:01:02 111 1 EC HS CP9600 002 310 8989551 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:17 111 1 EC HS CP21600 003 310 8848723 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:00 011 NIA -- HS TU 004 310 8886854 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:00 011 N!A -- HS TU 005 310 8985501 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:00 011 NIA -- HS TU 006 310 8467366 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:00 0!1 NiA -- HS TU 007 310 8950390 04:46:09 p.m.07-11-2008 00:00:00 0/1 N/A -- HS TU '~~, J}.`4F. ~~~i :f t ~~. .~, , ...~, ls~ i ~ }~ {,~: •;' !i: . }~ I~.{~yy~ 7 ~k~ ~'~7:I: _ ' ~~~ ~;'h:tl: w+F~; r~xt`% ~ . ,.;: Date/Time Local ID 1 Local ID 2 ~', ~" ~.:3 t,.A -. s. :~ *, ri ~:~,' s t: ~ ~} ._+,, ti.~_. ;, ~ ~i P. { -;r.;. ~;~', ~~: y i _, ~.;:'` ~ broadcast Report 08-04-2008 06:05:07 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne Z This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " MayorTammydetNeerd Keith Bird E IDIAN~-- ~`°u~tt ~e~ ®~ ~ ® Ct~vtd Tar aemba CITY of MERiOtAN PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT /NOTICE IS HEREBY t31VfN pursuant to ttre Ordinances of tl~e City of Me~tdian and the taws of the State of ldaha, that the Pterming end Zoning Cornmisstan of the City of Meridian will bald a public hearing at the Mariapan City Watl, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian. Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. an Thursday. August 7, 2008, for the purpose of revieuving and considering the application CPA 08-807 of JR, LLC for a Comprehenshre Plan Amendment to madNy the Future Land Use tNap by changing the land tree designation fmm Medium Oerrefty Residential Tn Mixed Use -Community far apprmdmately 10 atxes for Zamxaws Chtnden generally located south side of Ghindan Boulevard, approximately'/. rn1~ east of Meridian Road. RAore parucular descdptfnns of iha etxrva infonnation are on file to the Planning -apattrnent, t380 East Wafertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho and are avaiiabls far inspection dtging regular business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Copies of the above applications are eveliabia upon request. Any and all interested persons sha8 be rteerd at said public heartrrg, and the public is welcome aIM invited to submit testimony. Oral teatimorty may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written materials may ~ submitted seven (7) days prior to the alxrre hearing date so that ail Interested parties may examine them prior to the hearing. Ail matarfa~ presented at pubic meetlngs shah became property of the City of Meridian. Arryone desiring aax,mmodatton for d~a>»lfties related to doarmsnts arxNor hearings, please rbrrtact the City CtarKs Office at 888.4433 at least 72 txrurs prior to tho public meeting. C}ATED this 30 da of June, 2008. JAYCEE L: HOLMAN, GIN CLEFF~ '~ ~ t!t Page 7 Or i Total Pages Scanned : 9 Total Paaes Confirmed :226 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 375 3810160 03:35:15 p.m. 08-04-2008 00:09:38 919 1 EC HS CP9600 002 375 8989551 03:35:15 p.m.08-04-2008 00:00:00 019 1 -- HS FA 003 375 2088848723 03:35:15 p.m.08-04-2008 00:02:08 9/9 1 EC HS CP28B00 004 375 8886854 03:35:15 p.m.08-04-2008 00:02:11 9/9 1 EC HS CP28800 005 375 2088985501 03:35:15 p.m. 08-04-2008 00:02:49 919 1 EC HS CP31200 006 375 8467366 03:35:15 p.m.08-04-2008 00:02:70 919 1 EC HS CP28800 007 375 8950390 03:35:15 p.m.08-04-2008 00:02:08 919 1 EC HS CP28800 ~3: .,~~ ,~ ;~~s ~~ Vii. ~', • ~' °:;~:; ~~~; ' F ~?: 4s •,r ~~~~i~k ~s /~. t.~ _, -, ~.i ~. ..'~_ :_ .a ~ ~ ~~{ 5... ..-'t -'r~` }i'I ~.5: , ip°,. ~a ~g ;.; v; z ~: iL~. r ~~~ ;t: a~~ t~ >' ..,{: ~„: ,~. '~.~ ~~- ~~ ~. ,~: f ~kG . '4' ~rs f 1'+4 V«~a ^: ~. o • Meridian Planning and Zoninn Commission August 7.2008 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of August 7, 2008, was called to order at ?:00 p.m. by Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Chairman David Moe, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Tom O'Brien and Commissioner Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline, and Dean Willis. It®m 1: Roll-Call Att®ndanc®: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Michael Rohm X Joe Marshall X David Moe -Chairman Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 7th of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and ask the -- like to go ahead and call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to cell roll, t. please. It®m 2: Adoption of th® Agenda: Moe: Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. At this time we will take it in order as it is. Can we get a motion to approve the agenda? Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve the adoption of the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Cons®nt Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of July 3, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: .. r~ `,~'p ,~ t ~ 'Y ~A4y ,; <, r ; x ~._ ~q-. ~'~?E ;~< ~, ~ r ,; _>:~% 'b,. ~' `' {~ ~~ -~ r.- p„ ~~,. ~~; ; ~- r;•. :,;r _. ~~:~. ,.~ ~,:i,;:,:try , ;L;. ~~a~ _ 1 Merman Panning & Zoning ® O August 7, 2009 Page 2 of 89 B. Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 08-016 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust GroveiMcMillan) by Maverik, Inc. -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: D. Findings of Fact -and Concluslons of Law for Approval: CUP 08-014 Request for Transfer of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04 029) to continue operating a daycare center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool by Michelle Hutchings -1258 E. Cougar Drive: E. Flndings of Fact and Concluslons of Law for Approval: CUP 08-020 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the QT zoning district for Th® HUB Parking Facility by Meridian Development Corporation - north side of E. Broadway Avenue between E. 2"d Street and E. 3~ Street (200, 226, 234 & 242 E. Broadway Avenue): F. Flndings of Fact and Concluslons of Law for Approval: CUP 08-018 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O-T zoning district for City Hall Parking Facility on E. Idaho by Gity of Meridian Planning Department -SEC of Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue (33 E. Idaho Avenue): G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-017 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Parking Facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.71 acres in the QT zoning district for N®w City Hall Parking Facility by City of Meridian Planning Department - SWC of Main Street and Broadway Avenue (641 N. Main Street): Moe: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Marshall: Second. ~~: _, Mt -.(_i*~. 3r'. -< ,, :. ~; ~. b'-~ .'i~ t~ ~~_ ~:~;. '. '~~- , r.;; ~~., '~.r1 ,y. ~.: ~.~;: ~.: . ~` f,~ ~a :{ ~~ ,~:: ~, << ; t ~'~~: ,, ~:::y~ ;. 7 ct+ N??'A.: ~~`. Meridian Planning 8 ZoNng ® e August 7, 2008 Page 3 of 61 Moe: It has been moved and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Now, if we could just keep going with that speed we would be in good shape tonight, but I don't think that's going to happen. As a matter of fact, before I open the hearings, number one, I would like to let you know as far as on the record this evening we will not open any hearings beyond 11:00 p.m. tonight. When we get to that point we will probably hear the one we are at and, then, we will call it a night, basically, and staff is going to explain a little bit'more about tonight when w® get over there, but I just want to make that known right now, so we are not all here until the a.m. hours. Okay. The next thing on the -what I'd like to do is just Idnd of give you a description format how tonight will go. I will open the public hearing and, then, the staff will give an overview of the hearing. After which they are done, the applicant will have 15 minutes to review the project as well, giving additional testimony in regard to some of the findings of the staff report. After that time there are sign-up sheets in the back for any of the public that would like to speak tonight. Each person will be given three minutes to, basically, give their testimony. After all the signatures have been taken care of, I will ask, then, one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak. If there is anyone else, just raise your hand and you will be more than welcome to come up and have your three minutes. After that the applicant will, then, be given an opportunity to came back up and rebut any testimony and give further explanation from the public comments. Item 4: Public H®aring: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for K®nnedy Commercial Cent®r / W®stern EI®ctronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman- Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC -1250 W. Overiand Road: ft®m 5: Public H®aring: RZ 08-003 Request for Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Comm®rcial Cent®r by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC -1250 W. Overland Road: Moe: Having said that, then, I would like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-005 for the Kennedy Commercial Center / Western Electronics and for the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I get into the details on the subject applications, I did just want to remind you it's in all the staff reports for this evening, but just a quick refresher on state code and these Comp Plan map amendments. You are only able to forward on a recommendation to the City Council once every six months. So, if you're ready to forward one on tonight, you need to be ready to forward on a recommendation for them all on to -- at the end of tonight. We just received two late letters from folks that are later on in the agenda, Items 13 and 15 just asking to be continued to the 14th. So, if you accept those letters, there is no way we are going to make it through all of the items on the agenda this evening. So, I guess !-' 3rkw','. -.. ~ ~<~'. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 4 of 81 we will go ahead and have the hearings, you can certainly deliberate, ask questions. I would just ask you to not make a final recommendation on the projects, you can even ,; '' ~~' close the public hearings if you don't need anymore information, but, please, don't make ;: ~. a final recommendation, because if we do, again, we have to be prepared to make ~~ - ~ ~ ' recommendations on them all, so - Moe: Caleb, before you start, should I go ahead, then, and open the other RZ OS-003 as well2 Hood: Sure. ~, . ~Y. Moe: In that case, then, I will open the public hearing .for RZ 08-003 as well. Thank i ~ ~~'F ~~ you. Hood: So, the subject property is -contains 33.5 acres of land. The property does not include all of the area proposed for rezoning. I'll get to that in a second. The subject property is everything in gray here, with the 45 slashes through it. The area that`s in this . ;'r area is proposed for rezone as well. It's all currently zoned I-L, but there is an existing '`"a~ Westem Electronics building on this site, which no rezone is proposed for at this time. It's located, as you can see, on the north side of Overiand Road between ka ~?~ I-84, Meridian Road -Meridian Road would be here. Linder Road Is here. So, approximately halfway between those two arterials. To the north of the subject << property, again, is the interstate. To the east, as I mentioned, Westem Electronics and, then, Mountain View Equipment also has the property further to the east. To the south , Overland Road and there are existing rural residential properties. You can also see the iE , Freedom Storage facility located south of the subject site. To the west are vacant properties, zoned industrial at this time. The large property there is zoned industrial. ;x~ ~ :.~~ The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, to change the land use designation on 33.5 acres of land from industrial to commercial. So, as you can see on this slide, it's currently all shown as Industrial. This is, if approved, what that same area would look like, the red commercial. A rezone is ~" also requested to amend the zoning designation on a portion of that area. 27.17 is the ' area contained, again, on the undeveloped area around Westem Electronics. And that u~`-` request is, again, to C-G. So, general retail and service commercial. The rezone, of `" ~ " course, is contingent upon the Comp Plan amendment being approved as the zoning is ~, ~~_~~- `' ~ -hinges on the change on the future land use map to the new designation. The applicant states in their application letter that if approved they Intend to develop a portion of the property with a 35,000 square foot adult education and office facility and rent it to the University of Phoenix. The current I-L zoning of the property and industrial land use designations do not allow for education institutions in the UDC. Just a real quick history, too. This site was approved for Westem Electronics and other future uses in 2001. It did allow some non-industrial uses with that approval, such as day cares and offices, but did not specify education facilities. A preliminary plat was mostly recently ~~ # ~ `' approved by the City Council and this Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded on a recommendation for that in 2007 for 11 commercial lots. So, this site plan should look real familiar. You all looked at this preliminary plat here less than a year ago now. The ;,». ~~; ~~~ r `: S `~ 1~ ~~ t ti ~~r'?°.. - - - , ~,+_~ Meridian Planning &Zoning August 7.2008 , Page 5 of 61 '~ ~i~~~ site plan that the applicant has submitted shows one access point to Overland Road at the east - at the east property boundary. So, there is an access to the existing Western ~+' Electronics business. And there is another access proposed with the subdivision near ~_< the west property boundary. Also, there is a private street - I think it's Tech Lane - that, basically, is in the middle of this property that was approved previously by the city. t{ '- ~:~ The conceptual site plan shows how the property proposed to be rezoned may develop ~~''~' in the future. Two three story office buildings, consisting of 66,000 square feet each, ~, ~ ~~ along with a two story office building, consisting of 45,000 square feet, and a two story education facility consisting of 35,000 square feet for the University of Phoenbc are _ depicted along the frontage of Interstate 84. Four office buildings, consisting 39,475 square feet. One bank building, one restaurant building, and one retail building are also depicted internally adjacent to Overland Road. Total square footage of commercial ~ uses shown on the site plan is 270,475 square feet. The total number of structures ~. ;: shown is 11. The applicant has submitted cx~nceptual building elevations for the north proposed two story education facility. One, two and three story office buildings. Single n ~~ ~ story restaurant buildings. Retail buildings.. And the single story bank. All the building materials depicted on structures consist of brick and stucco, with a variety of accent materials, such as stone, CMU, timber and metal. Staff has reviewed the proposed ,f, ~~ elevations and building materials and believes they represent high quality design and materials. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed and has included fi,, that as a DA provision, which I will touch on here in just a second. Staff believes that a ~' development agreement is necessary for this project to insure that the site is developed ~~ substantially in accordance with the proposed conceptual site plan and building '' ~_ ~ elevations. A couple of the DA provisions proposed by staff in the staff report include - k-~ and I will just read this. This is provision number two that currently says: The detailed site plan and building elevations submitted with any CUP and/or CZC application for the site shall substantially comply with the conceptual site plan and building elevations submitted to the city and with a requirement of a subject development agreement. ~° Construct a minimum of eight and a maximum of 14 buildings on the site. No footprint ~s~°' for a building shall exceed 20 percent of the square footage shown on the conceptual s :~,. site plan. Further, no building shall exceed three stories in height. The applicant shall comply -and onto number flue. It is a pretty standard one. It says the applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions -previous conditions of approval for the site for the preliminary plat from 2007, and the final plat from 2007. The the CUP from '01 , reason I read that DA provision is on Tuesday, August 5th, the applican# submitted a written response to the staff report. The applicant is proposing to change the language ~' in DA item number two regarding the site plan and elevations. I want to just pause real :;,.~; quick and make sure that everyone did receive a copy of that a-mail. Okay. Basically, ,4~= ,t t =~ the a licant is re uestin rester flexibil' rn the number of buildin s Where the DA PP q 99 ~Y~ 9 talks about a maximum of 14 buildings, they have proposed up to 35 and a maximum of total square footage allowed. They put in a number where staff didn't have one before at 570 square feet total for the development. And they have also added a restriction 324 , that no - no single building exceed 80,000 square feet. So, those are changes to that - ~~ that DA provision number two. Staff is generally supportive of the applicant's proposal ;.;~44 ,F i to modify that DA provision. 1 do want to make the Commission aware, though, that the ~~ _` -the 35 building request is substantially different than the site plan that was submitted 9 J~ 1; ,t,_ `i ~m - :~ ~ -. :6 7}~Y~. ~' ~'. .. t'~l' ;~ . , ~,: -,~~-, }- ~; i; ~ ' p:' K~ ~.,, ,;, rfHt ,+4f -~_ ~}~ ,~. r, +'? .I ~~.~- ~. ~ ~: ',;4;. ,.. -~~ z ,;_ ~,~ ~.~ `N ~~_ <a,, ~s;° ~~~,. Meridian Planting 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 8 of 81 and reviewed. So, if there is up to 35 buildings on the site, it certainly isn't going to look like the site plan you see in front of you. So, it's hard for me to envision that. Generally, our main concern is that it's not a bunch of big boxes. So, I'm not overly concerned that they may all be 5,000 square foot buildings, but I did want that - to call that out to your attention that it's a pretty substantial change from what they have shown to what they are requesting in the develop agreement modification. The highly visible locafion of this property on Interstate 84 makes this property a good candidate for commercial use, rather than industrial uses as currently shown on the Comp Plan future land use map. Staff believes that the location of the property is optimal for commercial and not industrial uses and as such will provide a more attractive building facade adjacent to a major transportation comdor into the city than buildings likely would. Additionally, the commercial use and zoning that already exists on several of the proper4es to the east, would help provide for a contiguous string of commercial uses along this section of Overland Road along the interstate. So, let me go back to that map real quick and just show you -again, we are here with the industrial. It really does group together some more commercial properties that currently exist farther to the east. So, staff Is. recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit - excuse me - the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone as presented in the staff report with the changes proposed by the applicant in the e-mail dated August 5th. However, staff is recommending that these applications be continued to the hearing date of August 14th, as we discussed earlier, so we can forward on a recommendation on all of these at the same tjme. That is the end of staffs presentation. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, come up and state your name and address for us, please. Andrus: Richard Andrus at 251 East Front, Boise, Idaho. I'm also here with a couple of the representatives from DBSI, the applicant in this matter, Russ Merrill and Allen Durrant and we will also have some representatives from Metro Commercial Properties and the University of Phoenix if there is questions that could be directed at them. That's, really, the element of the project that kind of got the ball rolling on this application. Oh. And just so you're aware, I'm not going to take the 15 minutes. I agree whole heartedly with what staff has said up to this point. I think they did a great job on it. And just a duple points of clarification if I could. The property here was -- as Caleb had mentioned, was Comp Plan for -zoned for industrial and there is a unique set of circumstances with a Conditional Use Permit that didn`t allow the University of Phoenix to come in in the industrial zone and looking at what kind of Comp Plan changes have occurred within the past six, seven years, in addition to what Caleb had mentioned to the east - to the west of this project the Ten Mile plan was- just completed and there is a significant portion of commercial just to the west also that was included within that area plan. So, it just makes sense for this entire area through here to be changed to commercial. Just to highly -quickly highlight those changes that we discussed in that a-mail, DBSI doesn't have a problem with design review. We support that. As far as the development agreement, we are fine with that. We unden3tand the ~~: }~P ,: :m~ y Y ~[_W~!Y ,r.;::,, s ;~A~; E i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 7 of 81 city's looking for high qualify development here and that would allow the city to make sure that that interest is protected. We would ask that we -that the Commission consider those -those changes and recommend them fio the Council. If I could just explain a little bit kind of what's envisioned here and why the 35 buildings was used. Something similar to what's been done with the EI Dorado business park where we have these small individual units with -with ownership within the -within each of those small units. That's kind of what's envisioned here. We realize that's a departure from what was done with the earlier subdivision and in dealing with the square footage, in talking with staff k was indicated that, really, the city's concern is that there would be a large format building that would come in and there wouldn't be any oversight and so we actually proposed this square footage language. I believe the prior language had tied it to each individual building and the reason why we have proposed a total is because even with the numbers of the buildings that staff had proposed, the eight to 14, if there is any change in -between eight to 14, we could quickly run askew of that 20 percent change that staff was recommending. So, we went with a total number and, then, a limit on the largest size of each building and that's really an explanation for why we felt that language could work for both DBSI and the city. With that 1 think I'll stand for any questions, but - Moe: Well, I guess I do have a question for you. In fact, before the 14th or at the 14th, I guess, I would like to see -can you give us a site plan showing us 35 buildings of what that would look Pike? We are going to want to have some idea of kind of what you guys were thinking to put 35 buildings on that site. I would at least, anyway. Andrus: Maybe that's a question I could actually direct it to one of the repr®sentatives for DBSI and maybe we could discuss the number, why 35 was used. Merrill: Regarding the - Moe: Name and address also. Merrill: My name is Russ Merrill. I'm with DBSI. And my address is 8330 Dorado -- Emerald Drive, Boise, Idaho. Moe: Thank you. Merrill: And the general thought on that - we are -currently want to have the flexibility on this plan to address market condifiions. This was a preliminary site plan we had drawn up and we have been in discussions with a partner here in Boise about developing more of an EI Dorado type site where we have the small 2,500, 5,000 square foot individually owned office buildings that you see being used by professional firms and such and what we envision on that is where you see the four central buildings lined up in the center is recxanflguring that with those smaller buildings. The 35 is somewhat of an arbitrary number, because we haven't drawn up the site plan that would show that. I imagine it's going to be considerably less than that. Probably somewhere in the range of maybe 12 to 15 of the smaller of5ce buildings In that location - In that ~~, 6W .~ , i Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Pegs 8 of 61 '';r area, while maintaining the larger, more high profile office buildings along the frontage ~:~`.T of I-84. So, that`s what we envision with that change. Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Well, at this time there is no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like ~. - ~ rs? to come forward . No takers. Oka . An comments Commissions ~i Y Y ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. ~~ Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: In the proposed language that the developer has here it says that yj:} `? the developer shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit to construct less than eight and greater than 35 buildings on the site. I would rather see that since they don't have a site ~' ~'~ plan and they have even said it's an arbitrary number, you're talking about a _~{ substantially large amount of buildings on there. Pd rather see that, that they would °~ a-.: have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit similar - I'd feel comfortable maybe up to 15 "'` to 20 buildings going that route and anything other than that I'd like see a Conditional =' Use Permit, because I think you're going to start #o have traffic flow issues. I mean EI ~~'°~ Dorado has public streets running all through it. So, I'm a little concerned about this as we don't have any public streets running through this property to what there is and such ~:~`:;~~~ to move people befiareen that many buildings. And so I'd like to see that at - compr7sed '~~ ~ at 20 or under. ,Sw, ~ Moe: I think that's a fair compromise, as opposed to trying to have a moving site plan and whatnot. I think as long as we can regulate it a .little bit, that would probably be the way to go. ~<: ~ Newton-Huckabay: Generally supportive of the idea of the total square footage for the ~~:;; entire development, though. I think that's probably a more appropriate way to address `.~ that. Any other comments, Commissioners? ~ O'Brien: I agree with what you say. I was going to mention that, too. I think that 35 is - is abig number I think #o go into without really seeing any kind of a site plan. I don't ;r: ' know if they mentioned what type of businesses would be going in there - in that. !s -~~ that important to consider? !-~`i ='~i Newton-Huckabay: Well, you're going to see anything that would be approved -it's a `~~, C-G. :s~; r,~,. ~' Moe: Yeah. ;~ O'Brien: Okay. ;~,,t', Newton-Huckabay: So, you could see any kind of commercial. T ::4 ~~ S'.S J__. .-. ~~i+: .w, "}~. r.- ~ ... t S..s a ~'. _ , 3 ..1 t T ~ :t„ S; Yt }. f '. YY t . 4:~ t~ £' f {y . ~-: { ~, ` t.. . .y~ ,,.'. Z,` ''Gz :.9y:,; ~~ ~, . ~~-~ t . L ~; ..s ~ _ ~. :4.:- F'!?~ •.i:zn ~r ~ ~, ~~ >~~~~- ;~, ~F+ ,t ;,, ~. ~.:x, };::. ,~, ~~'"_; ~; 4i s o Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 9 of 61 O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further. Moe: Okay. If there is no other comments, can we get a motion to continue? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, shall we state our changes as it we were making a motion and continue? It's -it's been six months. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, you have some options here as I see them. I mean I'm not quite sure if you totally want to pull back ofF the table the applicant coming with a si#e plan that showed 35 and IF you guys bought off on that saying, okay, this .is how it could happen and we are satisfied that traffic flows aren't impeded by 35 buildings or if you just want to change it now, you certainly could close the public hearing, make -you know, make it clear that's where you're going with your motion, but you can't make that motion until we are ready to move all these forward. So, I hope that made sense. So, you could leave it open and have them come back and address that. The only thing you could cmme back and anyone could testify again -you do have options. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my preference would be to agree on the number of 20 or less and close the public hearing and continue It. Rohm: If we just close the public hearing, you can put that in your motion at such time that we move all of them forward. That works for me. Marshall: Agree to that. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 08-005 and RZ 08-003. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-005 and RZ 08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue CPA 08-005 and RZ 08-003 for the Kennedy Commercial Center to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 14th, 2000 - Moe: That will, actually, be a special meeting on August 14th. <:~? 'w.: ' ~:x, ~~ :.:~: } ; ~~t~. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning august i, aooe Page 10 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. A specially scheduled meeting for August 14th, 2008. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-00 and RZ 08-003 to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning on August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: CPA 08-008 Request to amend the Compr®henslve Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designa5on on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential {S+/- acres) for Kartchner by Richard Kartchner -4325 and 4315 N. Ten Mile Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-006 for Kartchner and ask the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I should have mentioned last time, these first three agenda items - I'm, actually, Oiling in for Sonya tonight, so I particularly wanted to mention that with this one, because there is a pretty in-depth noise and odor study that was analyzed by Sonya when she wrote the staff report and i did not have the time to - I read through her analysis in the staff report, but I didn`t go through that document and try to make heads or tails of it. So, Scott Steckline, I believe, is a little more familiar with that, so any questions you may have regarding that study, I think he's more prepared to tackle those than 1 am. But I did just want to put that disclaimer out there that I'm familiar with these, but not as intimately as Sonya is, so - Kartchner -this application varies from the last application in that it is only a Comp Plan map amendment. There are no annexation, preliminary plats, development applications submitted concurrently. So, it is only a change to the -- a proposed change to the Comp Plan map. The subject property consists of two tax parcels located at 4315 and 4325 North Ten Mile Road on the west side of Ten Mile, approximately a third of a mile south of McMillan. The parcels contain approximately 11 acres and are currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the north of the subject site are some single family residential properties zoned RUT and R-2. The R 2 is city subdivision, Drawbr+dge Subdivision. To the east is Ten Mile Road and commercial offices and Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. They are kind of cut off that area. You really can't see them. Zoned L-O and some R-4. To the south are rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west are - is agricultural property zoned RUT also in Ada County. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by changing the land use designation on the subject 11 acres of land from mixed use wastewater treatment plant to office and low density residen~al. The office request is for approximately two acres along the frontage of the property and the low density residential would be, then, the remaining approximately nine acres behind the proposed office. This prop®rty, as I mentioned, is currently designated mbced use wastewater ,r~~ . ;~; ~ '~ ~` `,;t` -`z f,;i r ..k <~. '`r ~._ '~pipp, ,:., t.. t~f F i l~ ~4. s ~~ r ~1 'h >,~. :~ ~; ~; :} ;;~.~ if ~ , ~N~_ ,~~~. K;1..'. Meridian PhanMng & Zoning August 7, 2Q08 Page 11 of 61 treatment plant. The following standards apply specifically to mixed use wastewater treatment plant designated areas. Light professional offices, flex space uses, including light warehousing. No new residential uses will be permitted. Existing residential will be allowed to remain. Limited small scale retail uses, mini storage uses, are examples of uses allowed in this designation. This site was designated as such to reduce human exposure to odors and noise generated from the nearby wastewater treatment plant, which you can see the city-owned property is right here, the subject property is highlighted in the green there. So, it's less than a thousand feet away from the wastewater treatment plant property. The applicant, as 1 mentioned before, did not submit any development applications, but they have submitted a conceptual site plan with some elevations also shown on that site plan, showing how the property may develop in the future. There are 17 single family residential building lots, four office retail buildings. You can't hardly make those out at this scale, but, basically, four office buildings in there and a common area lot. Access fio the site is proposed from a street that runs approximately right up the middle of the property out to Ten Mile Road. A stub street slash cul-de-sac is proposed at the north property boundary for access to the rural residential property northwest of the site at 3417 West Elk Bugle Lane. So, that would be this home right now. No stub streets or pedestrian pathways are shown on the south or the west of the site for interconnectivity. Further, there is a private street easement that runs along the north boundary of the site. That's actually where that home previously mentioned on Elk Bugle takes their access, as well as these properties. There is - I believe the aerial shows it a little bit better. Let me jump back there. That red line kind of goes right over the top of it, but there is a shared access private street right up the north property boundary of the site. That will have to be vacated in the future when a development application is proposed in this area. Two story residential buildings -elevations are depicted on the conceptual plan submitted with the CPA application. There weren't any conceptual building elevations shown for the office buildings. Without an annexation and zoning application and subsequent development agreement, the city cannot require the applicant to develop the site consistent with the submitted concept plan and elevations. If the subject CPA is approved, the site may be developed entirely different from the plan and elevations. So, that will hold true for all these this evening that we only have a Comp Pian map amendment proposed. We don't condi~tlon those. There is no way to condition them. This is the owner's -applicant's representative's best guest at how they intend to develop the property, but as the market changes or shifts or new property owners acquire the property, the site plan could look entirely different. So, I just wanted to put that out there as well. So, the City of Meridian had an odor and noise assessment prepared for the wastewater treatment plant in 2004. The assessment was prepared by Carollo Engineers and it was intended to assist with evaluation of development proposals in the surrounding area. This study designated a buffer zone, approximately 4,000 feet, around the wastewater treatment plant properly line. This buffer zone is in the area that the study determined is affected or may be affected In the future upon expansion of the plant by odors and noise created by the operation of the wastewater treatment plant. I have a bunch of slides in here. I'm not going to try to bore you with.all of the lines. Basically, in a nutshell, there are two levels that are talked about in the study. Level one is kind of some intermediate mitigation and the impacts that it would e i. Meridian Planning & Zoning < < ~ ~~ August 7, 20Q8 Page 12 of 81 have on adjacent properties. Level two would be some pretty stringent improvements that would be -that would be put up on the water treatment plant site. These could include air scrubbers and tall walls and other things to keep odor and noise basic~ily _ contained on site. Right now there are no plans to make the wastewater treatment plant ~ `' a level one or a level two facility, but those are what's evaluated, basically, in the - in .~. that study #hat was done and it shows, again, basically, if you're assuming - I think it's „~9 ~ ~~. seven DTs is acceptable, your nose -the human nose can pick up things at seven DTs. So, there is frequency charts, as well as duration - or -yeah. Duration, frequency, and levels, of course, that are expected based on current conditions, future conditions, and if the plant is Improved to level one or level two standards in the future. I do want to read ~` a few of the excerpts from the staff report. At level one the subject property is shown '~~~ have a peak DT of between 26 and 50, with a frequency between 40 and one - 40 and ,µrs ., 160 hours per year that are greater than seven DT. These levels exceed the accessible level for odor control. Upon expansion of the wastewater trea#ment plant to capacity - ~'~ w ' "°~ right now that's planned for 2023, but we don't know exactly when we will get there to capacity. If there are no odor control devices in place, the subject property Is shown to have a peak DT of between 37 and 64, with a frequency between 98 and 250 hours per year that are greater than seven DT. These levels far exceed the afore-mentioned levels of acceptable odor control. As I mentioned before, our wastewater treatment } ,,~~ plant has not been rated. It's not required to be rated and it's neither -it's even at a , lesser level than the level two or the level one, so -noise levels weren't evaluated in -~:' that study, but certainly noise from the process can have an impact on adjacent ~`''~ properties. Because the odor generated from the wastewater treatment plant and the area of the subject property exceeds the odor control performance standards noted in ~_- the wastewater tn~atment plant odor and noise assessment, staff cannot support residential uses In this area. Staff does not believe that low density residential uses on this property are appropriate, as the property Iles within the mixed use wastewater a: treatment plant designation and is within the area affected by odors and noise . ;_ sE generated from the wastewater treatment plant to the southwest. Further, staff believes ~~~¢ that a mix of commercial uses would be more appropriate in this area, as allowed under the current/future land use map designation. Staff believes the existing designation is the most compatible designation for the property and that new residential uses should not be allowed in this area at this time. Staff does not believe approving the requested CPA to change the future land use designation for this property would be in the best interest of the city. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the subject application. As with the previous application, we are not asking that you make that recommendation "~' this evening, though. That Is my presentation and I will stand for any questions you ~'~ _ ~..:,~, may have. Moe: Are there any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. _y~", ,~. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant Ilke to come forward, please. ~; ~+ ~ ~.., ,, `.k - fi ~ `~• q n~,yS,~. A S°Yd~ i~!"' .~;: . ;~~~: , 4, `';ri t, 11 ii S[ ;~'~ ~~^ ~,~x ~~_ ~;; -~~- x,: -~7 ~; t,~, ate i µ~ :. ~;; ."`,z ~j ~., ~:-,: 11-'? `+F• :r;: Meddlan Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 13 of 61 Kartchner: My name is Richard Kartchner, 4325 North Ten Mile in Meridian. First of all, I guess I'd like to just state briefly that the main objection of staff is the odor and noise problem that they perceive to be a problem on this piece of property. Caleb, could you do the -show the aerial for a second? Hood: Is that one okay? It's the aerial. It's just got those other lines on it. Or do you want me to go to the other aedal2 Kartchner. Yeah. The one with the satellite. That -there we go. So, I think any other - many of the other comments or their concerns about noncompatibility with the surrounding area are -are not a valid argument. As you can see, there is all kinds of homes here. These are the kinds of homes that we would propose to put in the back half of this property. And even the existing homes south of this are similar to the kind of homes that we want to put in. AN of these people, including ourselves, would like to protect our -our property value by providing homes compatible with those surrounding us. There are homes -many homes like this over here in Drawbridge as well. Also, the proposal to put commercial in the front of the property is very consistent with what's happening on this side of the street and when the Ten Mile Road is increased in width and whatnot, then, that will become even more compatible with that kind of use and our proposal is to provide a buffer between this commercial and the residential, so that it is acceptable to all of the people that are here that are in the area presently. These people have no more desire to have the kind of use of the land that the treatment plant designation allows, which is storage facilities - I don't know. Auto -auto-type things. Commercial, industrial type use that we don't -nobody here would like to see that and so we are providing an alleviation of that problem on this piece of property. Now, if can talk for just a minute about the noise and odor. First of all, I'd like to eliminate the concern about the noise. Even the staff report on page ten indicates at the bottom of that page, if you want to turn to that, that noise wasn't even considered in the evaluation, because all of the reading of the noise were taken on the wastewater treatment property and those levels are so close to acceptable levels based on some evaluation of other sites, that they don`t think 'rNs an issue either. So, the only thing we are really concerned about is odor and I have lived on this property for the last 20 plus years and have never experienced an odor problem there. Now, I can't say never. Some calm summer evenings once in awhile we get a little drift of it - of some of the plant odor. But, essentially, it's anon-issue. You have never had complaints from this subdivision of odor from that treatment plant. The city has never had that. Now, can we go to another one of those -the -yeah, the line maps. Now, you do have problems down here with complaints from people because the prevailing winds go like this from north -from northwest to southeast and so these odors, whatever they might be -and they are sometimes excessive -blow into this subdivision. They don't blow up this way to this subdivision. So, the odors are just not a problem. I think that the evaluation of this study -and it's a fairly thick study, as Caleb has suggested, was done -hasn't been done carefully and applied directly to the land use here. There -this is our property right in this little square here and as you can see it's between these two lines and there is many many homes in this area and down in this area, way down into here, that are in that same category and because of the prevailing winds you do get some ?:, ,;~,- ~~_;:_ ~5:. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 14 of 61 complaints here, but never any up this direction. And, in fact, we are outside of that area of concern. One other item I would like to mention in concem in regards to the odor is that these levels #o - to simplify it, the level -the dilution level of odors in these areas have -are based on a subjective evaluation that's a computer model. There has not been one measurement of odor, because odor is so objective you just can't measure it. And so they assume there is going to be some sort of throw or diversion of the odor and, then, put it in a computer model and, then, they overlay it on the land and so what we have here is an evaluation based on the computer modeling and it doesn't mean anything unless you have got some actual substantial information and that information I have given you, I guess, is that it doesn't exist this way of the plant. If there is - if some of this in#orrnation - and I assume there is some relevance to it, of course - is acceptable, then, when '03 comes along - '23 comes along and the plant has been expanded, they are going to have to do some sort of treatment of whatever they do, because the odor levels are unacceptable for the kind of use that the treatment plant has designated. So, whatever they do, if they expand the plant, they are going to have to do some odor control or you will be outside the acceptable levels of odor even for the commercial use designated. That said, I still don't think it's a problem, even though there will be treatment and some mitigation of those odors, that those odors are not going to be affected by this parcel. So, I would entertain any questions, I guess? Moe: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. First sign up is Brent Rasmusen. Rasmusen: Brent Rasmusen. 4315 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho. So, I also live on the property. My property is the one under consideration and most of my information has been said, but odor is, obviously, the biggest hindrance right now to changing it. I have lived there for 18 years and have never had an offensive odor there. And only occasionally, once or twice a year, been able to even know that -notice it. And both my wife and I have obtained a copy of the study that was done and went through it quite thoroughly and we are outside the limits, like they are saying, of the prevailing winds, make it such that that particular property is outside the -the range and a lot of other houses exist within it already that were outside the boundaries of what the city has done. So, I wanted to just reaffirm that I don't think the odor is really a concem, because I have lived out there and haven't noticed it. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: No. Moe: Thanks very much. The next name was Beth Rasmussen. From the audience she passes. Again, that was all that was signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak? There is no one. Any comments, Commissioners? Rohm: I have a couple of comments. Moe: Commissioner Rohm. ~, ~~~;; ~~: Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 15 of 81 Rohm: This kind of reminds me of -- of a new development going in adjacent to farmland where they are raising cattle or growing beets and in the past what we have done is we have said, well, you know, this other condition existed prior to your application and we have always made It a - I don't know about always, but we have traditionally made it a part of the plat, that if accepted that they put right on those lots that it is adjacent to property that's been previously developed and the potential is there for the added odor or something to that effect, but allow them to continue with their project, full well knowing that that could be an issue. The one thing that the applicant did say that makes sense to me is that the prevailing wind does come out of the northwest to the southeast and there are subdivisions that have developed that are probably insolenced by the odors from that plant significantly more on an annual basis than this property itself. So, I guess my thoughts are I kind of agree with the applicant's comments. Moe: Okay, Mr. Rohm. Anyone else? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple questions. Moe. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: One, I'm curious what kind of factor is put into the calculation to account for wind in this odor study, because It does seem somewhat uniform as it explodes out from the center and if it does even have a calculation for wind. And then - we will answer that one first. Thanks, Scott. Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, as Caleb stated, we did a study in 2004. I just wanted to clarify, just because they are in between these two units of measurement doesn't mean they are outside of that area of impact. What it is is it's from area 100 to area 50. In the book -give me Just a second. What that is is a dilution content. So, they are, actually, in that area of impact. They are not fully absorbed by it, it's just it has a longer duration time to threshold from area 100 to area 50. The other factor I wanted to make was over the lasts three years we have been doing some plant upgrades to the Meridian wastewater treatment plant. We aren't currently sanctioned by DEQ for noise and odor. This assessment is for the year 2023, with the impacts of new clarifiers and digesters; we might potentially have some noise and odor factors heading north to these properties. For the noise, they did do most of their assessments within the wastewater treatment plant and that Is computer modeled, as the applicant stated. What they did with that computer modeling was took the duration dilution to time from how far it went from a generator within the plant to the fence and carried that out without obstructions and that's how you get your set ratio for it. In the report they do not show a wind current factor for noise and odor. What they do ~~; N~;; M~idlan Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 98 of 89 is they projected out off ofi a computer model also. The other factor that the applicant had brought up with the developments around the surrounding area, these were all approved before our study was done in '04. Had we had that study done before we would have not allowed residential components to go in this area. I know that was kind of long winded. 1 apologize. Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. On the dilution to time, what is getting diluted? How are you measuring - Steckline: Basically, what they -this study that we had done -- I apologize - for a level one to a level two -and keep in mind the treatment plant is not rated at a level. We are not required to by DEQ. What we wanted to accomplish was to stay ahead of the grade curve and be proactive as opposed to reactive with the treatment plant. From that, basically, what is being diluted is like you can put a muffler on a diesel backup generator and that will muffle the sound, kind of like Caleb has said. An attenuator wall that blocks the sound from going. But we have a couple other things on plants - on our plant that we can't -can't noise reduce. Like we have a dog kennel that's in a faciUty there. Newton-Huckabay: Right. I guess I'm talking about what -how is that - so. the dilution to time is for noise, not odor? Steckline: Is noise, yes. Newton-Huckabay: So - Steckline: There is also for odor for our -for our digesters. There is -they had a study. It would be about 2.8 million dollars for the digesters, to have those to the point of where you would not have a DT at the fence line. We currently don't have that budgeted at this time. Newton-Huckabay: And we will or will not in 2023? Steckline: It - that's a question for the Public Works director. I'm sure we do have money budgeted, set aside for plant upgrades. We have gone through a lot of annexing other properties into the north and to the west that will be dumping into that wastewater treatment plant. We also have two other wastewater treatment plants out at McDermott for those surrounding areas, but with development kind of being spurred down right now, we are allowing other developments to flow to our Black Cat wastewa#er - or wastewater treatment plant until that time when those developments can build those treatment plants out there, so - Newton-Huckabay: Okay. You're going to have to - I'm sorry, you're going to have to keep - Steckline: Sorry. I know it's - ;, ~5,. :~'~., Y~ • r. ;. ,.y,~c ', Meridian Plannhtg & Zoning August 7, 2008 Y Page 17 of 81 Newton-Huckabay: No. You're going to have to humor me on this, because this is stuff .' ~ I don't have a total grasp on. So, this computer model here on this slide, that's ` ,~ measuring noise? That greater than seven DT is noise is what you're telling me7 Or it's , ' some measurement of some chemical compound of odor? A ~~ 4~~ Steckline: I apologize. We have seven slides. This is for level one for odor control. Go to the next slide. This is for level one for frequency control, which is noise. This is if the _ punt has set aside the funds to do the noise and odor, which has been outlined in this book, for controlling methods for a level one at the wastewater treatment plant. Go ,w~ ahead to the next one. This is odor control for a level two and, then, the next slide is - odor control for level -- or, excuse me, frequency control for number iwo. This is the x ~~ R ~'~ y' slide that the applicant was referring to. This is the most stringent that we have for our ' ' ' 04. So, this was four years ago at plant capacity with smaller study that was done in digesters, smaller diesel generators. So, yes, he is outside that area of impact, but now 4: with the growth of the treatment plant and not even being a level one or a level twro, if we did the study today, those areas would probably grow even further. ~ Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. ;::f~: Steckline: That's why we are asking for you to recommend to keep that boundary that $t ~ we have set and abide by this book for the noise and odor control for the wastewater treatment plant designation. ~_ Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. :-" ', ~ Steckline: Thanks. ~: ,,, -T Moe: Mr. Marshall, do you have anything? Marshall: I don't have any questions, but I have to admit I -- I think a lot of work went into not only the odor and noise control studies, but an awful lot of work went into the Comprehensive Plan and that area was set aside with the idea that that plant would be ,. ;~; expanding in the future" and that when it does oftentimes you get people that will come ~_'`~R~ in and complain to the city at length that we have destroyed their property values and everything else. And that would be out in the future. I have no doubt that the applicant rL ~ _' ~ ` is right, that there is probably no odor or noise problems at this time, but I moony about the future. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I want to comment. 1 do have an issue that this analysis doesn't account for wind. I mean ignoring that is really looking at an analysis in a ;~;~ vacuum, because you're always going to have wind, you're always going to have wind patterns, and that - I think that's ~- I think that that's an Achilles' heel and understanding as well as I can this, that I think without some kind of a wind factor in that -- in that ~` ~ ` ~~d equation to calculate these boundaries, I don't really think you're telling yourself a true a;=: :~;~ `'*k Lip - ~ t`J'i4 ~.Irr Meridian Planting 8 Zoting August 7, 2008 Page 18 of 81 story. But, then, also I'm sure that a lot of money - I know a lot of money was paid to a lot of very smart people to do this analysis, but - Marshall: Again, I agree that there may be an Achilles' heel there that when maybe something that should have been factored in -- I don't know, to be honest. I rely on the experts. That's what they do for a living and that's what they are hired for and, again, the study is about the future, not right now, and that's what bothers me. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Moe: Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: Pretty complex issue. I like the analogy Commissioner Rohm made about knowing that there is an issue there for a subdivision or before buildings are built - before residential buildings are, built and on the same -the same token, the increase in usage of the plant downstream is going to -- I think going to provide a true measure of - of the issues that will come out and if I was to buy a piece of piece property on the sole word of previous owners that sunvund the area, even ifi I sign something, there is going to be I think potential for complaint, either against the city, against the previous homeowners, or something that may cause a problem and Ijust - I think that the true measure right now -- that's the only thing we have, we don`t measure the wind, which I wish we could, but I think that would be helpful. But right now the only measure we have is what study has been provided and later on, iF things -when things change, i -- we don't have that crystal ball to say, yeah, there is going to be a problem, no, there is not going to be a problem. I just don't think this is going to work. I just don't think it's going to. Rohm: I do have just one additional comment. Moe: Yes. Rohm: The property to the south of the wastewater treatment plant has come before us on a number of occasions for redevelopment and we have consistently not allowed development that -that circumvents this same type study. I don't know that we have referenced that specific study, but, basically, the wastewater treatment plant was there first and adjacent properties can only be developed based upon their compatibility with the existing wastewater treatment plant. So, that - I guess there is more than one way of looking at this than just the fact that it would a nice redevelopment to protect the - the properties of the existing people in that vicinity. But we also have in the past kept other people from redeveloping on the south side of that same plant. Just throwing that out. Moe: Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ~<~::, ~~- :y,; ;~ ,;> ~ti :~ .r ,: ~- ~. ~. ~~: ~~~ -, ',, >*. _ h . ~ Y;> . ~: r, :~' ~_ k'er ,';~ .- ,i }~:_ ~~ nR4;...' o Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 19 of 81 Moe: Newton-Huckabay. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I want to ask Scott another question. Can you answer my question why there is not a wind factor in that study? Steckline: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, I cannot. I can speculate a little. I think when the study was done, the first preface in the book is that the surrounding areas that they looked at were all farm -farmland. I think it might have been even a taxer study at the time when they accomplished it, opposed to if we did this study to today's standards and today's date, I think you would find more stringent areas in there, but as far as factual evidence in the book stating why they don't, Idon't -- I don't know. I don't know if it's something that they can calculate or if they can factor or how exactly they would do that, to be honest with you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And odor is measured primarily on perception, is that how I'm reading this and understanding it? Steckline: That's - Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, it's dilution to threshold. In other words, it's basically what -kind of what Caleb had said is the human nose, how it can be - an odor can be detected and with the study that they did from our digesters, figuring out from the point of where the digester is working in relation to the wastewater treatment plant, how that travels in lime - or in feet per second to where a human would be and how fast that reacts to their -their sense of smell. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Steckline: So, you're also going to have a dilution factor with wind. I think with as much time as we have spent on the odor section, it's more of a noise problem. I think we are going to be proactive in the future with the wastewater treatment plant, because odor is more offensive. We are definitely going to take care of that. It's the noise. With the construction that we have going on right now, we have got cement trucks and construction trucks woricing out there all the time. Also, with the mechanical mechanisms that we have working the wastewater treatment plant, too. Your most offensive thing is going to be the noise. Any complaints that we generally get from DEQ are for noise, as opposed to odor. Moe: Well, that just shoots my theory all the way down. My biggest concern, quite frankly, was the fact that the DT levels and such and whatnot, when they go to expand this thing, based upon the study and whatnot, they are going to be 37 to 64, you know, peak levels, you know, that would be a way greater level and, therefore, it's going to be more offensive, you know, as this plant expands. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. ~~kt ,~T' :,, ~~~ y ~: ~;.:~;: :~:. f ' ~G~~ ,.x +l~ ,~,,~ z: _~' =;' r~: f k}!' x.,. ~- >:: ~ 1 <h- ~~u; r F pt2ti~:_ R`;?it ~Yi -:. 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2006 Page 20 of 61 Moe: That is a big concem with me and, no, I don't know that !won't put something on the plat saying, yes, I understand that, but, gee, t still want to build here. Yes, Mr. O'Bien. O'Brien: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I -just to add to that. And I agree with that. I live about a quarter mile from a feedlot and the prevailing wind, which is south of me. The prevailing wind right now is usually from the west, but if those -one or two Instances during the summertime when the wind does shift, oh, wowy, you sure know it's there and it's very offensive. If I - if I was to build in this area, and even if I signed whatever, I fear that as this thing increases in noise and odor, that the value of the homes are going to go down and I fear for the homeowners of the future, more than anything thafi this is going to get worse before it gets better. The waste treatment plant Is always going #o be there, the feedlot will not, so I had my concern. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: 1 just have one comment onthe -because there is no development agreement, approve -recommending approval on just the land use map in such a controversial area - we are going to get ourselves into trouble on that. That's going to come back. If I were to recommend approval of a residential development in this area, I would want apretty -pretty high level of comfort about what it was going to look like and the - I think I would want to see a development agreement with that and I think the - I think that the applicant's being extremely optimistic that they will be able to build and develop that subdivision the way they have it planned out. There are a lot of places to build homes in this valley right now and not very many of them are next to a wastewater plant and those are some pretty - I think it's very optimistic that -that that's not going to be a detractor and so I would myself - I agree wi#h the applicant that when -what little base of knowledge I have, the study is flawed. I think the wind is a key factor. I live in north Meridian and I agree with you on the odors. I think that -that from a perception level that they do blow -- blow predominately to the south and all those folks who live in Bridgetower probably go, hum, wish I would have known that before I moved in. And so I - but I am not comfortable just making a Comp Plan amendment recommendation. Rohm: I think that's going to be the consensus of this Commission. I think you have well stated it. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I think we have discussed this - Newton-Huckabay: He gets to rebut. Rohm: Oh. Go ahead. Sri,, s Meddtan Planning ~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 21 of 81 Kartchner. I do get a rebuttal, I guess; right? Moe: Yes. Kartchner. I appreciate your cont:em. But this is our property and we feel like this is the best thing for that piece of ground and we are willing, without any problem, to put a statement in our selling agreement that notifies these people of this question. I'm a professional engineer. I have had this study for awhile and I have studied it. I don't want to shed any iii light on those others that have stated this, but I also don't want misinformation given out. All of these graphs here are odor only. They have nothing to do with the noise. The noise is a different section of the study. Frequency and dilution, DT levels, is a odor measurement here. And this frequency issue that we are saying may be a problem here is 185, maybe, maximum if there is no treatment. That's eight days out of 365 days. Very small impact. So, also prevailing wind is an issue. The fact that this odor measurement is done without any uninhibited movement and there are trees. If there is a development made there will be more trees, more buildings, more stopping of any kind of odor migration that might go that way. So, we feel comfortable in being able to develop this land as we have shown it, withou# - without a problem. And maybe not today or next year, but soon. And so we would still request that you honor our request to have this changed and be able to do what we need to here. I understand that your job is to evaluate these things and I would expect you to be able to tell people south of the plant that the prevailing winds make it pretty stinky and maybe you can't approve that space. But north is a different story. Completely different story. And I would expect you to take that into account and do what needs to be done for ordering the city in that way. We think this is a very good use of the land in that area, as I have stated initially. Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. Rohm: Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I want to understand - I just want to make sure that I fully understand the implications of - if this Comp Plan amendment were approved, this would, then, be zoned - or have the future land use designation of office and low density residential, which, then, ff the applicant were to find that they could not develop the property, they could apply for a step up to R-4; right? Hood: Let me jump in there real quick. R-2 and R-4 are both consistent with low density on the Comp Plan future land use map. So, if you're looking -- i# they requested a step up, they could potentially step up to an R-8. We have even looked R 15 before. I don't think they'd probably do that, but there is potential without having to go through this whole process again. ~~ -, S' :~; ~ s`~. ~. ,., -~ ~ ; ~~ .. ~,, :~~: ~~ ~ ,: ;~,~, _ , Nli'r_ e ~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 22 of 81 Newton-Huckabay: And you can apply for that step up on the short plat - or you have to come back before us. Hood: It's done with annexation. Newton-Huckabay: With your annexation. That's right. Okay. Boy. I still think I -- I don't disagree that potentially residential is a good use here, but I think approving this just as a Comprehensive - or a Comprehensive Plan designation, without a development agreement, I think is a risk I'm not willing to recommend to City Council. Moe: Any other comments before we need a motion? Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chait7nan, move that we close the public hearing on CPA 0&006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue this CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. ~;r~~ Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of August the 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. It®m 7: Public H®aring: CPA 08-001 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mbced Use -Community for Janic®k Ten Mil®/ Chind®n Property by Janicek Properties, LLC - SWC of N. Ten Mlle Road and W. Chinden Boulevard: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-001 for the Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property and ask for the staff report. • ~> r~ • t ~~ ,~~ ail "..., 'F._' Meridian Planning & ZoNng August 7, 2008 Page 23 of 61 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is my last one for awhile. I'll tum it over Bill after this one. Again, this is Sonya's staff report and 1 will make the presentation on her behalf. The site is located on the southwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road. It's a 15 acre property currently zoned RUT in Ada County, as you can see on the map. The adjacent land uses include to the north State Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and rural residential properties in West Wing Estates. And they are large 75 percent open space that was platted with that subdivision in Ada County. To the east is Ten Mile Road and agricultural property. To the south is agricultural properly, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada County. I think the next slide -this slide maybe shows it~ best. The current city limits for Bainbridge -the Bainbridge development currently do this. I believe that the developer of this subdivision still owns this property, but has not came into city for -- for annexation or development right through that property. So, that's why it says ag on those sites. But it's under the same ownership as the rest of the Bainbridge development. So, the subject property is currently designated medium dens'Ity residential on the Comp Plan map. The requested mixed use community designation allows up to 25 acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area, and residential densities of three to 15 dwelling units per acre. So, the applicant is proposing to change all 15 acres -approximately 15 acres from the medium density residential designation. The yellow. This is all medium density residential. To the mixed use community. One of the brown shades on the map. All the land surrounding the subject are, again, designated medium density residential. Staff believes that the map currently depicts appropriate future land uses site for medium density residential designation. As with the last application, the applicant has not submitted any development applications or conceptual building elevations, but they have submitted a conceptual development plan showing how the site may develop in the future. The plan shows one multi-tenant retail building consisting of 12,808 square feet. One bigger box retail building consisting of 50,180 square feet. Four retail office buildings, each at 2,853 square feet, fronting on Ten Mile Road and 39 multi family residential units in the southwest quadrant of the property. Acxess to the site, as you can see, is depicted from one full access point onto state highway at this location and one full access point to and from Ten Mile Road at this location. So, those two access points create this L-shaped road, the two arterials. No stub streets or pedestrian pathways are proposed to adjacent properties. This site is located on the comer of two major arterial streets. However, staff does not believe that the design of the site shown on the concept plan sufficiently demonstrates how the proposed mixed use development will compliment adjacent future residential properties. Again, there is no pedestrian or vehicle access shown to any -- any adjacent properties. Staff believes additional transitional uses are needed at the perimeter boundaries, probably at least one, if not both of these areas more residential should occur, because we are looking at residential, again, when this property comes into the city as well. Further, the UDC specifically prohibits access to State Highway 20-26, a major transportation corridor when a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed. For these reasons, if the map is approved and the site is eventually developed as a mixed use project, staff will not support access to Highway 20-26. ITD also does not support access to 20-26 from this property. You should have a letter from them in your packet. Yp=.l_,. .., ak ~ > > '~' ,. ~w ,;.;: i ~:, ~,->' ~xs ,d,, =7 ~~;,, f~; s ~~~,~a,~~g&~~~ August 7, 2008 Page 24 of 81 Access to the site should solely be provided from Ten Mlle. Stub driveways or streets should also be provided to adjacent properties to ,the west and south for future connectivity. Again, because we try to limit those curb cuts to arterials and collectors, the existing Comp Plan designation for medium density residential makes the most sense. This could develop with medium density and usually medium density subdivisions, although they would probably take it if we gave it to them, it's certainly not contingent upon an access to a state highway. So, the site could develop without that need as residential. If something similar to this - we do see -you might as well count on there being an associated variance application with it, because there is the proposed access point to the state facility. So, staff is not supportive of the proposed mixed use designation for the site and does not believe that commercial uses are appropriate, because of the location of the site adjacent to Highway 26 and the associated lack of access and the residential nature of the rest of the surrounding area. Staff is recommending denial of the CPA application and that's the end of my staff report. I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Can it get any hotter in here? Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the Janiceks on this particular application for a map amendment. I need to give you a !'ittle bit of history on the property, just so you kind of have an understanding of how this particular parcel came into this configuration. Caleb, could you put up the vicinity map? Yes. Thank you. Initially, the Janicek farm consisted of 220 acres. They sold 205 acres to Brighton and that's what you see, a ,,~ portion of that 205 acres was annexed and approved for a preliminary plat as Bainbridge Subdivision. In their initial negotiations with Brighton they had a provision in their contract that stated that they wanted to retain this 15 acres here at the comer for the possibility of some future commercial development and that Brighton would provide some assistance as far as submitting for this type of commercial activity when they submitted the remainder of the property. Well, at the time it was submitted showing all of the parcels as residential with this commercial comer, the staff was not supportive of it and said, you know, if you don't -the Comprehensive Plan states that's medium residential, you're asking for commercial designation without a Comp Plan map amendment, we, obviously, could not support the application and we would have to deny the whole application, unless you remove this area. So, they eventually decided that they would just cut the project off of Bainbridge right here at their proposed collector. So, the Janiceks have kind of sat patiently waiting as the utilities were extended out to this area and they came to us and said, you know, we have got - we have this 15 acres and it's our understanding, based on what staff has indicated, that we need a Comp Plan map amendment in order to develop this in some type of a commercial fashion. In our meeting with the staff, they recommended some type of a mixed use, they didn't want to see solely commercial use, and so we went through kind of an evolution. on site plans, coming up with some different types of multi families and different combinations of retail and office. We did take our site plan and we met with Mr. Wardle and Mr. Turnbull of Brighton Corporation. We showed them our particular ~~: r,; r~ ~ °~" .~,, N,' ;:~~: ~., '- #, '~ ,b,... ry. ~~ ~ _y ,.. ~~. '~~~ ,~~ :;:: },: '. s~~~.: s ~ Meridian Planting 8 Zoning August ~, 200a Page 25 of 89 plan. I asked them if they would be supportive of our application, since their property adjoins us on the west and on the south, if we requested a mixed use community designation and proposed to develop it in this type of fashion. They indicated that they were still working on their plans for the adjoining area and that they weren't sure what their product was going to be, but it definitely would not be detached single family dwellings. It would most likely be some type of a mixed residential type component, whether it be townhouses or patio homes. So, Mr. Tumbull's recommendation to us - he said, you know, I'd like to see townhomes adjoining my panel and he said I'm not opposed to vehicular interconnectivity or pedestrian interconnectwity, but until we come up with a more solidified plan, we don't know where that's going to work best for us. So, we did not show a stub street to that property for that very reason, because, obviously, we are going to need to coordinate with Brighton on that location. As far as pedestrian interconnectivity, we have all of this green space along the south and west, so, therefore, pedestrian access would be very easy. We also made sure that we had good pedestrian interconnectivity between these -these are townhomes with attached garages. Central common area here, with a splash pad and a gazebo area, play equipment, and, then, we had pedestrian friendly crossings, awider -like seven foot ped path coming up here and in our transportation we matched up with this future street here in Irvine Subdivision. We went ahead and looped out here. That was at the request of my client. We, obviously, have not submitted to ITD for any particular permit at this time, but it did align with the existing street to the north. Now, when Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Wardle kind of solidified their plan, obviously, this roadway could go on and head westward and create that vehicular interconnectivity. This access here, unless approved by ITD and approved by the Council via a variance, would not be possible. But that's how my client kind of wanted to show the plan. In looking at that, Mr. Janacek said, you know, 1 had a 220 acre farm. I kept 15 acres. All I'm asking for is just a portion of it. I'm surrounded by, you know, mixed residential. His calculation is I'm seven percent of my total original farm and I believe that is acceptable. One of the things that we also consider is Highway 20-26, they have been working on their corridor study. It's anticipated it will be five lanes. One of the things came to light with ITD - worked on the Renaissance Apartments years ago at Hobble Creek .and that's over there just east of - or west of Cloverdale. They had to compensate -ITD, because they had federally matching funds for those improvements through there, they had to compensate the owners of those Renaissance Apartments, because they are a residential use and due to their close proximity to the new improved roadway and I guess they have to look at it from the perspective that there is some type of noise damage to that. In that particular project at the time we put three story buildings there to kind of create some noise abatement to Hobble Creek. So, if this were to stay medium density residential, we are going to have problems, obviously, with some type of a setback, which I think the last time I talked to ITD they were talking 200 feet from the edge of new improvements to the edge of any dwellings. Otherwise, they have to pay damages for that -the impact. I don't want you to get hung up on the site plan, because it's just - we are making assumptions. In many instances we submit Comp Plan map amendments and we don`t have site plans. The staff encouraged us to come up with some different ideas. They thought it would be a little bit easier for the Commission and themselves to evaluate the project. So, they have been pushing us _:. ~.:,: t" ~~ n ~ Meridian Planning & ZoNng August 7.2008 Page 26 of 81 toward more detailed plans. But, obviously, this is just made up of assumptions. It would have to come back as an annexation with a development agreement. If it is ~ , ~,~ designated mixed use, the Comprehensive Plan mandates that everything comes in as , conditional uses. So, there is plenty of opportunity, obviously, to review the internal circulation, interconnectivity, pedestrian access, archi#ectural and the true mature of ~" ~ ~~~ these maed uses. When I look at your Comprehensive Plan, it talks about ~- in the purpose statement for mixed uses and that's, obviously, what -- what we focus on. It _ ` ~~ talks about creating a combination of compatible uses. The purpose is to designate and identify key areas and one of the criteria is that they are situated in a highly visible area. 20-26 is a state highway, a major arterial. Ten Mile, that is a minor arterial. When the -_ ^ Ten Mile interchange change goes in we are going to see, obviously, the number of ~`~~~~ I guess I'd like the Commission to ask themselves would I trips elevate on Ten Mile. So . ~;~ , want to live in a dwelling at an intersection of two arterials. And I would think that the answer would be not really, unless, you know, that's all that was available to me in a price range or something along that line. We learn from our lessons in the past. One of - an example I want to give you is Eagle Road. It was a two fans rural state highway. I was working on a subdivision called Madison Park with Boise city. The only thing at the ~ intersection at that time was Lowell Scott Middle School. Boise had that area all ~ { t designated low density single family. We went ahead and we designed Madison Park, had low density, R 1-B zone, and every time I sit at that intersection I kick myself and .~ ~4 ~ ~.: feel bad that those homes back up to McMillan and Eagle Road, because Eagle Road is now five lanes. So, I think from a planning perspecfive we try not to repeat the mistakes that we have made in the past. We have got to look forward. Obviously, taking into acxount that Chinden will be five lanes. The Ten Mile interchange is going to happen. Some of the other general guidelines that your Comp Plan talks about is -- it says, you know, where feasible multi family residential uses are encouraged, especially for "F{~} projects with a potential to serve employment destination centers and projects adjacent } to State Highway 20-26. So, even the Comprehensive Plan promotes this type of - of a ~ ~ ` ~ maed type use. If you look at your current land use map, there are maed use community designations at Locust Grove and 20-26, Meridian Road and 20-26, Linder and 20-26, Black Cat and 20-26. So, obviously, this is not a preferential treatment of this property. It appears to us to be reasonable and consistent with other designations along this corridor. One of the things that staff brought up in their staff report is the - > ~ compatibility with the adjoining medium density residential that will take place. Obviously, we don't know exactly what that configuration is going to be. Even your Comp Plan says, you know, where the project developed adjacent to lower medium '~~~~~~~ density residential, transitional use is encouraged. So, that's what we have incorporated here. Now, obviously, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is successful and we get more information from Brighton and we start, you know, trying to massage this site plan and finalizing it, we may incorporate more residential and, obviously, the Commission and the Council would have to review that at that time and make a determination. The designation does not guarantee you anything. All it does is allow opportunities and we still have to comply with other sections of the policy manual , '~*~ and the ordinance and it is discrefiionary, what is compatible and what is not. I guess ~ ~ lastly -- I know there is a lot -- a lot of apps behind me. In conclusion, I guess I would like you to recognize the fact that the Comprehensive Plan map is a living document. I ~~ t i Y '~ , .µ.tr }huh` ~1~. ~!~C. ~~j' ~; r; ;=~ ,. ~: s Meridian Planning & ZoNng August 7, 2008 Page 27 of 81 mean it's ever changing and the reason that the Commission is allowed to reevaluate it every six months is due to change in condition. You know, this -the medium density residential, I just don't think that designation is appropriate at this major intersection and I would hope that the Commission would see that and understand that this does make sense. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no one that has signed up. if there is anyone that would like to come forward? Seeing none, any comments, Commissioners? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: My thoughts? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A little bit. First, I'm not going to really make any comments about this conceptual plan. My comments are based on the CPA. Looking at this area, I know that in the past we have traditionally placed all commercial at major intensections. That's been very traditional. That changed - we changed that with this Comprehensive Plan, with this land use map, for a reason. We found that the accesses to commercial areas at comers slow traffic down. They -the traffic moves through the intersections slower. There has been a lot of time and effort put into those studies and that's why you see commercial areas at the half mile points where they can offer up slow down lanes, get people off the major thoroughfare and get them into these half mile points and the studies have shown that by placing commercial at the half mile points, not at the major arterial intersections, allows for better traffic flow and that's why the land use map was placed this way. I can't account for sins of the past. I -you know, yeah, that's the way we always did it. To me that's not how we should do it in the future. This was marked medium density residential. We have been doing that just fine all along Chinden. We have been requiring very large berms and fences and noise abatement along that area and as far as I know there has not been a lot of complaints about noise and the like when -when these large berms and fences have been placed up and - and I - to be honest, I dons see a problem. I think the developer would be wise if they are going to place medium density residential here, to continue that along Ten Mlle, because Ten Mile will expand and be large and I would continue the large berms and fences for noise abatement to the residential areas to keep my property values up so I can sell those homes. But, to be honest, I'm not excited about changing everything we have worked on on the Comprehensive Plan to move the commercial to the half mile points. There was a good reason for doing that and now we are talking about going back to the way it's always been. Those are my thoughts. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. ~iy~, r x~e . Y S Meridian Planning & Zontng August 7~ 2Q08 Page 28 of 81 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ;~~J "~ '' Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~~~: ' ~ ~' ~ Newton-Huckabay: None of the developments that are along Chinden right now that are developed -developed out, because Irvine isn't built out yet; am I correct? it's still `~-` just a plat. Lochsa Falls, Paramount, all of those are set south. The homes are None of them butt up to Chinden. You have the substantially south of the intersection . commercial area north of Lochsa Falls, it's just starting to build out there, with - `~~ recently. You have Paramount, is almost solely surrounded by light office, to insulate their development. I am going way back in the file cabinet of my brain, but it seems to ,~ ~ me like when Bainbridge came through, that Brighton was talking at that time - we are '`~ discussing mixed use and I almost want to think that there was a potential school site or a private. Am I - Moe: I dons remember. <~ Newton-Huckabay: Seems to me like - I would have liked to have seen, actually, where that collector is supposed to go -that entire portion come through with - I think I r4 `~~ - - my personal opinion is - and I think that Becky made a great argument in that favor mixed use community out here is a good designation for this area. I think the that , location as far as between Boise and Nampa - I agree that if it were to - it would need to interconnect into the Bainbridge property, so you could take and leverage those collectors and I think some -you know, there is employment opportunff~es close to i' home again. I know that development at the half mile, neighborhood centers, is -all of that was put into our Comprehensive Plan and in the years I have been on this Commission I have yet to see a neighbor center develop out the way that -the textbook ~`~ says that they are going to be so brilliant and the closest we are coming is there on Ustick with that -there by the park. And I - I think that - I don't think that mixed use - I like that. Of course, I like that land designation in general anyway, because I think it adds - it gives a potential for a lot of quality of life things for those people who live around it. You get a ton of variety in there that you can - in a mixed use community. I '~t};~ would be in favor of that. Again, I'm not in favor to access to 20-26, but that's a burden -t~~ the applicant's going to have to push that through. I don't like your site plan. I would like to see something better. But, again, seeing a lot of work and I know that something ~' ~~~ could be done better and I know that Brighton Corporation would work in concert with z:: that. So, l would be in support of k, myself. Marshall: May I - }n >`~~" Moe: Commissioner Marshall. ;~ , ~~ : Marshall: -for jus# a minute? Again, 1 -Paramount was approved with their _ commercial site and Lochsa was approved with their commercial sites out against Chinden prior to the implementation of the land use map as it sits today. „~~ ~: ~; ;~< t, <.;~. ~~,, ~~~~ 'y7~ :~} sr j~I E~. - . ' ~~i ~ ,,X,: , ~:, _;~. _. 1:'. ~:>=~ f., , , z ~_~. ~a';~, :~; ~~ ~ ~ y `' -A; , x, `~ ° ~ -: ~ ~ ;: ,!_ ~w~ ~; ,~.~. si~F~ Meridian Planning & Zoning August T, 2008 Page 29 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: I believe the current Comprehensive Plan land use map in that area was -- wasn't ifi `04? Marshall: The last it was approved -the last I read it was '06, but - Newton-Huckabay: In that area. Well, I cant argue with you on that, because I don't know the date. • Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I don't know exactly which properties changed and when we did the Comp Plan map amendment, north Meridian in 2006. Obviously, Paramount was done before the north Meridian map changes were made, but Idon't - we did go - if you look - and I know it's kind of far away. There is a hard copy of the entire Comp Plan future land use map just below the screen there. We did diverge from more of the circle and half circle neighborhood centers that were shown on Chinden in 2002 to more of the linear neighborhood mixed use designations and we did, iF you will, clean up some of those areas -the Lochsa Falls offices, we did clean those •up to give them I think a mixed use designation. Well, it could have been office. I don't -mixed use. So, we did - we did kind of diverge on Chinden a little bit from that, but there is one a few more miles to the east that is developing out that has some of the situations that were brought up recently. The Hightower development is at the mid mile between Locust Grove and Meridian. it has core commercial at the center. It's located at the mid mile with the mid mile access point. I will talk about that a little bit later in another application. And they do have residential as well that abuts their -now, you may have seen their nice berm and they have the - it's a faux wall - a faux rock looking fence, but there is six foot or so tall fence on a berm. So, ITD, as well as the city, does require, If we do put residential up to Chinden, you can't put a chain link fence up there, It needs to be at least ten foot tall to mitigate for some of that. We do have setbacks and Becky's right, ITD is looking at a 200 foot total right of way, so we get a hundred foo# from center line and, then, you'd have your landscape buffer with the wall on it. So, we are setting those residences back. But there are -there are cases of both up and down Chinden. I mean you see a mixture of the old and some of the new. So, just - I don't recall when the changes were made or exactly what properties either, but we do have some of both. Moe: Thank you, Caleb. Newton-Huckabay: I donut know if we want to get me started on that Hightower and Jericho area, because I think we afl know how I feel about that. Moe: Well, that's not what we are discussing tonight, so - Newton-Huckabay: No. You're all very lucky. Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments? Rohm: My only common#s are, really, that as Ten Mile redevelops and they are putting in the interchange and that's going to be a major north-south roadway and just from the t~~i:'.. t 3:' L~ .+~~ r ` Mefidian Planting & Zoning ~: ~ August 7, 2008 :'; Page 30 of 81 ~~:_ other roads that have redeveloped and have that same designation at Chinden, that ~~. seems appropriate to have some mixed use on - at Ten Mile and, obviously, you're not . ~~~ going to be able to take access off of Chinden without a fight. But just because they will '~~_~ have to take that battle, I don't think the change -- I think it's appropriate to change this ~~`~~ -land use designation at this time and, #hen, we will battle the rest of the development at ' 'N' such fime as they bring a preliminary plat or annexation request. `~~~ Moe: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, any comments? I~ O'Brien: Just a little, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to take these type situations on a ~A> one-on-one basis, one case at a time. I think that this is one of those situations where ' I'm in favor of the mixed use designation on this particular site, mainly what previous 'i~~ Commissioners had mentioned, Ten Mile traffic and the build up that's going to happen along Ten Mile, as well as Chinden. So, I'm in favor of the mixed use as that. So, thank you. ~~~ Moe: Thank you. Well, I have gone both ways on this property here. I think, basically, ~; the biggest concern I have is, in fact, when the surrounding area develops with it and we decide how we are going to have access in and out of the parcels and whatnot, are going to be a very big concern of mine to make sure that we do have the connectivity ~w::: and whatnot, that's going to be required. I also think that any residential in that area, =~ once the -- that Ten Mile widens out and Chinden, that's going to be a very busy area ~~ and whatnot and I'm not so sure that medium residential is what should be in that area, so -- ~,FW Newton-Huckabay: My bigger concern with these is that none of them have - I mean we approved Bainbridge three years -- four years ago, it seems like, and it hasn't built out yet and, you know, Imean Ijust -- it just - it can rack your brain worrying what this -- is going to actually, eventually, come in as -- you know. Scratch that. I can't enunciate "°~~~ what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor.of the mixed use. Moe: I think I knew what you meant. But we will stop you. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Understand what I mean, not what I say. Moe: Absolutely. Mr. Rohm? Rohm: I think we are ready. Moe: You were getting ready to do something, I believe. Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-001. N ,~ r ~;~k ~ ~ `-r ~~ fi ,~~t 01 .F ~~] .{ AFv 1!./t f~ ~ 1 ='`N ~ y ~.,, p i ~ ~~ 4 -sty ~s ~,d, ,~ -q, i~dL ,. ~.3 ~ ~ ~~: f~~~~ x~~~.~. r >:~r F i K AFT F/!x o p,- a4 ~ P-r F :. ,Ft Y F4 f a 1~' ~~ [~.1~!A ~' S T u . LtiS ~~S ~~. ~' ~. `~ `~ S « A ~ ~ LL'' ~• ~F °~'~ ; .r; ~N ,. .. ` yam. ,. as ~` ` ; ~ ~ -~ ;~ r Meridian Planning 8 Zoning '' August 7, 2008 Page 31 of 81 O'Brien: Second. ,: Mae: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-001. All F-.~;, - those in favor say aye. Opposed That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. _;r Rohm: Mr. Chairman? ,~'_ ' ' Moe: Mr. Rohm. -~<. ~~ ~ '"~~ Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. CPA 08-001 to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. 1 4 Marshall: Second. jet; Rohm: Yeah. End of motion. Marshall: Second. ~~ Vim, ~~ Moe: That's what I was waiting for. It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08- 001, to the special meeting of August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. ,~P s~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ _~ Moe: Before we get going on the next hearing, we are going to go ahead and take a ten '' ~. `?~ -r>. minute break right now and we'll be back at 9:00 p.m. (Recess.) Item 8: Public H®aring: CPA 08-003 Request for Comprehensive Plan ~.N~ Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use ~'~} designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Community ~~ for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Commercial by Primeland Investment Group, LLC -west of North Ten Mile Road and north of West ~`~ McMillan Road: . ,.i_ Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reconvene the public hearing on CPA 08-003 for ~~ Volterra Commercial and start with the staff report, please. ~4 "` Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Volterra ~r T:"~: NF 5 project. If you recall, in 2005 this site was approved as the Volterra Subdivision. It was approved as a PD under a mixed use development, so to speak. They proposed their commercial here at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mlle, transition to an L-O .,Y., _ =~:*~` , ~~` . .<< x~, ~~u~~ ..,:, ,r~-,: t,,, _ r~, ;;~~ s o Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 32 of 81 district, and, then, the remainder of the properly was to be single family residential. The subject site is bordered on the east by Volterra -excuse me, Verona Subdivision. To the south is the Volterra South Subdivision. To the north or -and -excuse me. To the west is just the remainder of Volterra Subdivision. And then -excuse me. To the west is the Volterra Subdivision. Extension of that. And, then, to the north is the Bainbridge Subdivision, as we saw on the last slide. Or the last presentation. Excuse me. One thing I did want to point out for you tonight is the portion of the Comp Plan that they are proposing for the Comp Plan amendment is reference -has left this portion out and it actually goes all the way through the mid mile. So, It's roughly 94 acres that they are proposing as a maed use community designation. Here is the site -here is an aerial of the site again. You can see it's pretty undeveloped at this point. Still a lot of agricultural land there. There is that C-G portion here to remain out and, then, again, roadways and collectors to connect with these subdivisions are proposed. Here is currently what we have on the current Comp Plan map. Again, you can see where there is some lots platted there. Again, it's land of running up here to the north and, then, continuing to the half mile, again leaving this commercial portion out. If you were to choose -again, staff is recommending approval of this, but this is what the map would look like once it got through the system and was approved with a mixed use community ~esignatlon. There haven't been any subsequent applications submitted with this. The applicant is in the process of submitting a rezone and a development agreement modification application to us for our review. You should be seeing that within the next couple months at least. Here is their concept plan that they are proposing for the project. Again, it is a mixed use development. So many times, like you said, usually we - in the past we have seen these projects come in and it's pretty much fumed into a commercial development. This #ime staff is pretty favorable of this project. We believe that this is really a true mixed development going on here. The applicant warrts to really market this as an employment center, something similar to an EI Dorado or Silverstone Subdivision there on Eagle and Overland Road. Here you will have your. mix of residential uses. A nursing care facility. Possibly an assisted living facility. Condominium project here. Forty to fifty units proposed. Some med tech, high tech, buildings here. Possibly medical offices. Some other professional offices along here and, then, you kind of have your merging employment center here with your supporting uses to kind of add to that and draw people into the development. The other factor staff put into this also is - as you're aware of, those intersection changes are underway right now. I'm not sure exactly when they are scheduled to be completed, but I know they are in the process of doing that now. Staff has not received any elevations at this point for how this site is to develop. The other thing I would caution the Commission on is we haven't received - wifih this concept plan they haven't really proposed the amount of square footage that will be on this acreage. Like I said, the Comp Plan is really only 94 acres, but the whole - the whole site encompasses roughly 116 to 120 acres. So, it's a pretty significant development on that - in that area of north Meridian. Sometime - I don't know exactly when the study was conducted, but they have had this concept of what was called a BEC, a Business Enterprise Corridor study and it actually identified a portion of this area in that plan as a particular - a business employment area to develop in this area and this area was identified as being one of those comdors. And so the applicant's tried to work with that and go with that study and make the justification that this is what the city a,~;~ ~; ;; >: ~^- ^^ ~, ~;~,~ i :- ~c __ ~;,,; ~_~~: ~. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~:,~;, ~~~' l' ,r: ;';;,~' i~' # ` z w F r-- f; ,,..y ~- ~ ~ ~, :,,: %, ry: yl. :•}t~.` z= ~,; „_: s o Merldtan Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 33 of 61 envisions to happen here and staffs reviewed it, looked at these access points, believed there is some vehicular connectivity. It does stub here to Bainbridge to the north. AU these access points along the west link up to existing streets that were proposed with the original Volterra Subdivision. You have Verona street -streets here from Verona -- the Verona development -driveways here that line up with the proposed Verona commercial - or the approved Verona number four development here and, again, these roads align with Volterra to the south. So, the applicant's really done their homework on this and really tried to com® up with a strong concept plan for the area. But, again, with the Comp Plan amendment we can't tie them to this concept plan until we have an actual - either a rezone or a preliminary plat on this site. With that, staff is recommending approval and I would be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Is there any questions of staff at this time? Newton-Huckabay: None. Moe: Mr. Marshall, you look like you have - Marshall: Bill - yes, I do. Mr. Chair. Bill, so the plats that were there that we are ov®rlaying have already been approved Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, that is COITect. Marshall: Okay. And so - Parsons: They have actually asked for a time extension to keep that plat alive for the residential portion, if this weren't to go in their favor. Marshall: So, if - if that's approved, then, the connectivity, that ,would be a medium density residential there on the left-hand side; is that correct' Parsons: That is correct. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Larsen: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, I'm here tonight representing the applicant. My address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. Trying to be brief tonight. We have submitted a rezone application on the properly and we have filled in this part of the map with that rezone, which you should be hearing upon your agenda as it comes forward from staff. We are in agreement with the staff report and all of the condifions. We have worked with them for quite a little while on trying to develop the project. We don't have too many i ,J -x~ s e ~` ..', ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 20Q8 Pegs 34 of 61 - - r comments or issues with it, so we would be happy to answer any questions you might . have. F~f '' ~t`? Moe: Any questions? ,,~y~ T,; ~'x~ ~ Rohm: No questions. Larsen: I might like to come back if there is public comment or if something comes up. is . Thank you. ~~'~ Moe: Well, there is no one signed up for public comment. If there is anyone in the ..~ _: ~ audience that would like to come forward, you may do so now. I'm sure you don't want ~ to come back up, then; right? Any comments, Commissioners? ~~' Newton-Huckabay: I would just like to say that this -well, in trying to enunciate this earlier, is that ~ when we were talking about the previous application, this is what I am _ concerned about is when the rezones start coming in from what we platted or we approved and it was platted four years ago and markets have changed and it's just - ~~4 that I think is a very difficult position for us to be in and -but, generally, I think this -~t, development looks -looks good for a concept. Could you go back to the one that -- .~1~ what we are replacing? ~~~f~_ Marshall: You're talking that whole area. Moe: Commissioner Marshall? 74 ,r Newton-Huckabay: That's all that's been platted as residential and Bainbridge is north .,.j': which has been - by the residential, that will likely come in, I suspect. I have no of it -;,=4 _ , other comments. Moe: Okay. Anyone else? , Marshall: Mr. Chaim r Moe: Yes. `~ ~~ ~ Marshall: Personally I like the idea that it's moving the access to the commercial up A more towards the mid mile point. I think it's an appropr+ate location there on Ten Mlle. One of the things -- if we can go back to the potential site plan -- that does bother me is that having commercial right across the street from the residential, I would be worried to see how that develops. I personally would like to see professional ofilces, low intensity development, up against the residential, but -- ,} ~; Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, may I have a minute? r rt ;,,., Moe: Yes, you may. ::J `'..r `ri; -c 1=i• _1 - s o :~ ,%' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 3S of 81 ~~.6~ Larsen: Actually, in that area we have a park and so there is a park across from that portion of the office planned in the master plan. .} , Marshall: Thank you. ;; =':~= Larsen: Thank you. ~~ ~ ~' ~ Moe: I, myself, think this is a perfect use for this area and somewhat look forward to y seeing it start to develop and, then, become a reality. If there is no othercomments - ~'`' ~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? . ~; ~' ,~= Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. f4,;E~ Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-003 for Volterra Commercial Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-003. All .,~~: those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. ~' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. : ~: Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would like to continue CPA 08-003 for Volterra Commercial to our specially scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of = August 14th. u ~`" Rohm: Second. ~'s~ . Marshall: Second. :~s Moe; It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-003 to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning on August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That .:.z motion carries. ,,s; ~'~- MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. '~'' ' ~ ~ It®m 9: Public H®aring: CPA 08-004 Request for Comprehensive Plan r'; Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use ~~ .yo- designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for 11A®ridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies - Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: {< ,.,~:~~. _~ ,; ;rte ~;~:- i~,:° ~;s` ,~..~ ~ Y.3 Li: :{;. r:'` ,.; r-~ E'l , ~} :;f ` ;. ~~T: sa ~~+~ ._ .u; ,~~ :;,~; ~n `~ ';~ y#' Y;f +t 4 _~; Meridian Planning 8 Zoning S August 7, 2008 Page 38 of 89 It®m 10: Public Hearing: AZ 08-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 72.67 acres from RUT in Ada County to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (5.52 ,_ ~ acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (64.04 acres) zoning districts for M®ridian and Amity by Hawkins Companies -Northwest Comer of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-004 for Meridian and Amity. Start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members ofi the Commission. This is, again, the Meridian and Amity CPA request tonight. Basically, if you look at the zoning map that we have in place, this site is, basically, zoned RUT at this point. There is four parcels with this CPA request - or, actually, part of this project. This portion here. This parcel here. There is a little parcel here that's hard to identify. And, then, you have this parcel as well. The Comp Plan amendment is just, basically, addressing this parcel located here to the north and this section here. These are where the two changes are to occur. Right now currently this - on the land use map you will see that this site is medium density residential and, then, so is this 38 plus acres to the north -the northern half of the development. Step back here. You can see that this area is fairly undeveloped within the city still. The applicant is proposing to change this from a medium density designation to a mixed use regional designation. The site is located -abuts Meridian Road here on the east. Hams Avenue - or, excuse me. Hams Street to the north. Amity Road to the south. And, then,, you have some rural residences, agricultural lands to the w®st. This is that wond®rtul dev®lopm®nt to th® east, the chicken coop site. Actually called Valley Storage. I have a trailer in that location, so, please, let's not take .k,M~ that away. Anyway, back to the project. Go to the concept plan. The applit~nt has `'` ~ submitted basically a bubble plan and concept plan with their CPA reques#. Under the current -when this application was submitted to us, the Comprehensive Plan had a different definition for a mixed use - or mixed use regional designation. Since, then, Council's acted on some new provisions for that designation, but the old provisions, basically, said that you could have over 200,000 square feet of retail, really no limit on nonresidential uses. It asked for those components to have some residential in there, to have a mix of uses, but it really had no cap on that. The current designation that we have in place for mixed use r®gional caps your development at 50 percent retail or nonresidential uses. You can have as much unlimited office as you want, but have ten percent residential. And so if you look at this concept, the applicant is providing some residential here, a small office component here and the remainder of this is primarily retail or shopping center is what they are proposing on the site. This area of the concept plan is roughly five acres. This is roughly three acres. And the rest of this is primarily up to 64 acres that they are proposing to develop. Right now if you look at this concept plan, you can see that the applicant is proposing three access points onto Meridian Road. Again, staff isn't in favor of that based on the cede. Again, it's the same situation you had with the Janicek property. Our code strictly prohibits -- you increase the intensity on this parcel, you restrict access to the state highway and it's the State Highway 69 in our code. The other thing I'd like to mention is this is a scenic ~- ~~.. , qF ::,: ,.: ra ~~•F - ~ ~. ~' h 7,~, ~€ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning August 7, aooa Page 37 of 61 byway. It's classified as that. So, talking with ITD, ACRD, and even staff, we are all in ~~.'' agreement that we do not want to see these access points happen on Meridian Road. °' The other thing I'd like to point out is ACRD has made commerrts to a trafFic impact _~~ study. They are recommending that no other applications be submitted on this site until ~` they have a chance to review that TIS and make sure that this development can actually function as they are proposing or by a - add a backage road, like staff and ITD and ACRD have commented on to provide that backage road here. We feel that provides a better solution for them as far as access. It alleviates this -these concerns onto Meridian Road and a little later on in tonight's presentation I will be talking about a 'ti' which makes sense to tie into this one to have that backage road and proposal here - "` , give them future connectivity as well. So, at this point staff is real supportive of having R . ~~. some kind of road at the west end of the property. As you can see here, the applicant's proposed on their concept plan roughly 460,000 square feet of retail. That doesn't include the multi-family component there that they are proposing. The other issue is there is a there really isn't -there is a pathway showing - if you guys are familiar with it , gas line that comes through the development here. In our pathway's plan it's identified , ~ as that being a greenbelt with a ten foot multi-use pathway to come through the Y development. Staff actually proposed that here, to be located on the western edge and, = then, connect to Amiiy Road here. Staff feels they could actually probably incorporate ~~~ ~ ~ ~~' that amenity into the development and to really add to a mixed use development in this area. Staff believes there are -this area does need those type of services there. That's why we are in support of the CPA at this fime. Again, staff is recommending of that and I will be happy to answer any questions Commission may have regarding the - project. s -,~,. ~`' Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? ~~~ ~ ~- O'Brien: Bill, regarding the percentage of residential to -what is it, light office, is there some kind of a ratio there that you need to achieve within a dev®lopment area? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, under the old requirement there ~: _ wasn't. Under the new mixed use regional designations -under the old we didn`t have ,. ` a stipulation on what the residential component was going to be, but under the current ~~ mixed use designation we require ten percent. Since this site would encompass ': ~ ~ ~ roughly 72 acres, we would be looking at a minimum -under the new standard we f ~ - would be looking at a minimum of 7.2 acres of residential in that development. .;,~s O'Brien: So, you're not taking into consideration d®velopment sun-ounding the outside of this -this particular area? t,: 1 Parsons: We are. I mean that is some of the concerns that we have, is that these big ~'"' boxes do butt up against residential and that's why I can't really comment. The . ,~ .. ~ ~: applicant has submitted an annexation with that, but we are not opening that tonight. - But at this point it's just a Comp Plan amendment, so I'm just going over some of the layouts of their concept plan, but - `, ~~~: . a. ;1~, .:,~; ~~ ~ ~ .` sir ..;`:` ~;m: ~~: ~,, ,~ Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 38 of 81 O'Brien: So, to say, then, i'f there were going to be some more residential areas surrounding this development here, would that satisfy the needs of percentage, so that they could maintain their current site plan? Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, not really. It has to be on their site, not just surrounding the site. O'Brien: Okay. Well, that's what I'm wondering. It just seems like you're cutting off our nose to spite our face and not being able to develop it to its full potential, because of that rule, 1 just - it just seems kind of odd, even though other areas develop -you know, developed out residential-wise. That's aN. ~':`.t:l i - .i Parsons: I bring those points up to the Commission just as a reference to see where we were and where we are trying to transition and from staff s point of view we look at this as one of the first major developments in south Meridian and we should really set the standard here now while we are going forward in that area for future development. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I agree. Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. 'I Newton-Huckabay: I think, Tom, what -- with the amount of commercial retail that they are proposing in their conceptual site plan, they almost should have came in and asked for commercial C-G zoning and -but tonight all we are going to worry -- when they come back in September with their -with their annexation application, that's when we will have a whole new site plan, I hope, to look at. O'Brien: Appreciate that comment. Thank you. ~I Newton-Huckabay: But there is just way too much to -there is way too much commercial on that to really get the real spirit of mixed use - a moved use designation on there. O'Brien: Thank you. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. F~ccuse me. Marshall: I have got a couple of questions for Bill. BIII, you mentioned that there is residential -meeting this density residential to the - on the left side there? Parsons: F~ccuse me, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Marshall, are you referring to this or this portion here? Marshall: Yes. Just on the -- on the left side of the property here. ~r ` t Kl , »_,~„~'J` 1' ~~ ~~~ _ ~_ `; ~. 4Y } f~j ~~~ i r' a v y 7x ~~ ~ ~ y..` ~ i-Wfy-~ . ~. ', F F 1 ~ J ~ - 7,~ ~Yi i h ^3'- ~d'i +Jir ~~" ~ ~~ ~„ ~'~~` ~ i a -7 s " a~ii * :. 'i} ^I a ~ f., .~~# ~ ~ ~ ,'~ a ~.~+ _ ~ r ~ ac 9, ~y~. . Y, ~ ~ rt~r~ ~ E ; w~ ~ ~~ ~ti~ t ~* r ~~,.. f ~ _. `2~ ~..._ ~ ~ t ~~~ { w ~. ~F °'" Meridian Planting & Zoning August 7, 20Q8 Page 38 of 61 Parsons: That is correct. Marshall: Okay. And that's existing -- Parsons: That is existing. Correct. This is the current map as it stands today. Marshall: Okay. And, Bill, one more question. Is there any other regional or C-G areas anywhere close to this? Parsons: Well, if you look farther to the north, Commissioner Marshall, you can see that there are some C-G properties here and, then, of course, you have Overland with your Southern Springs and, then, you have Medina Subdivision and Lowe's. That's ail commercial there along Overland Road. Marshall: But nothing along Amity or down the south. Parsons: Not at this time. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Evans: Good evening. My name is Lance Evans. Address 855 Broad Street, Boise, Idaho. Suite 300, Boise, Idaho. I'd like to just focus tonight on this Comp Pian amendment, the land use map amendment, and while there are a lot of details that need to be worked out and we will talk about that in a minute I'm sure, what we really want to focus on tonight is just the concerns and, really, staff s support of this Comp Plan amendment. We agree with staffs recommendation, obviously, for approval of it. We believe that this area is going to be a place where we can provide services for all, for the entire south Meridian area. If you look at it now, currently, really, most people living south of 84 have to go quite a ways to reach any kind of regional services and that is why we have requested this. We submitted this -- this applicafiion in December of 2007: It fell into a different set of standards. We understand that the code's been amended, that there has been changes that have been made, but we have gone forward, been working in the past for a couple years on this project, going forward with the understanding what we would have to do and how to make it all happen under those existing rules at that time. We - we hope to continue to work on some of these issues that Bill has brought up tonight, but Ft is a concept that we are looking at tonight only. We are not asking -- you know, those details need to be hammered out and we want to work on those. But when we look at just the Comp Plan land use map amendment, the general uses, this is really the only commercial site -- only commercial uses that will exist. We will have an office and residential component to meet -- to sa~tlsfy the code standards. Given that we are just talking about the Comp Plan amendment, I don't want to go into a fot of detail on all these other issues. I hope to come back and be able to talk a lot more about those. But it is critical for us in the development of this project to f ~ ;1~r'tp ~'i` a%r~;~t'Q Y't~~~~.M~ Y Y1-9 4 `t '.~~?~~,1 '~ '~ `t k ~ #k~ ,f ~ ~r mi r ha ~M':! ~ ~~ - - y i,~ , ~ k ~ ~ .~•f t .. ,, ~ ~ ,7 y. z a f ^W ~'~r` r v-. ~~ `.t,t~;#S~A:~W ~'~k~'f ~'~S'-T~y~aV.;.~.}~a . 8~.+e~i' t i _ a+i;t? %~{,f ~ ~'w? , x~<n - .3~ t ~ ~. ? Jf ~ ter'' _.J ~ ~ - f ~: r ` 4 t _ r ~ ~ { J, ~. ~~7 ~ (~~,,~,~ nay J' k;lr a i J t. s.. ~•~r '~~~1' ~ f 'k ~ ~` '~~i n~ ~~~F~ t ~. ,lry r ~~., vn u 2 .`< ~ 3. ^~r`',-~, ~` a ~,~y'L ~ .. s f ~r~'~~ k ~~~~ ~' .:Y ~~ a :.~~~iss~~ny 'ar4~3i.~~~'~ '+~,~~~Y~. ~ ~ ref i ~t ~~r.~~ Si~~ ~+s, 4 c~ r ' * ~~ .-l~W1 Jr <¢ '?.. ~ ~ h F 1. } { i'.`t `. x , r ic~ct } ..: ~ ~, i . x'. .. ## Y '.d 1 - ~ ,~~MF"~ [f kJ. K~~~~~~~ ~ y~ w c~~O ~ sn n-r , V ~wk":.v, .. ~~ - _ Se 4 ~F.i't - - d 1 ~ Cam, ., to is r x L ~ f - , , i ~` ;` ~ i ,-. i~ )y. rr~~r ~j - .r r ~.t-~'~~`9~~~r~'>vXi~~7`%~~. v.~C ~~,4~'~ t #, S;Y SF~ i v, y ti7. SF~~fl% t~i~~ir~ 1+..-~ - 4 ~ _ 7 - ~l_ P r ~Y J i _ ~ +; ' J kf f 4 "~ ~ a ." ~' -'~ f 4Yr i~ ~.~ ~ r yYj~'p~yT ~r~ 1 ~ ^ r Z ~! 5.~ ~ N { ~ k f t' ~ ((pp ~Q J~~L~~'.~A i^l p y ~ .rA .r ~f M 'k. .` l~ is 4 .T, Ya^"".' ~.-: . rC. '~l ' - :.T^ T t 4 (y Fay'` _ "l i !~ ' .. _ ~ .. 1 ',_L ': ,. y.. ^~ } rio ~ ~t '~ ~y~ h~`- ~r ,,}}++~}} • ~ n R n DID P~~l.~ - t -, ~kt9 ~ ~' N s: a : w ~ y x '. ~~,, {r ~ y 1 ~; ;. - Mefidian Planning & Zoning Augtast 7, 2008 ~~~~ Page 40 of 81 be able to say, all right, this time - at this time we are going to -it's going to work. The mixed use regional designation will be able to be applied, really just to the northern half of this. Currently we have that designation on, you know, this -this lower portion. So, we are really just -this is what's being added to that mixed use regional and that if you were to break those two parcels or break that development in half, the percentages of residential and office go up considerably. So, we start to really approach the standards, even at the higher level. I'll leave it there and be happy to come back and answer any questions you have about those -you know, if you have any other issues or whatever tonight, knowing that we are going to come back and work on the annexation and zoning elements. Thank you. Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. I have a couple folks signed up. Carol Gossett and, then, I- Newrton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, she was for? Moe: She was for the project. That's correct. And, then, the other one - is it Steven Hasson. Sony if I beat that up. Hasson: Good evening. Moe: How bad did I do that? Hasson: Pardon me? Moe: How bad did I pronounce your name? Hasson: Youtake -it's has and son and you glue them together. I think you did fine. Newton-Huckabay: Hasson. Hasson: There you go. All right. Well, thank you Commission members, Commission chair. For the record Steven Hasson. I'm the planning director for the city of Kuna and I'm here in -- as a representative of the city this evening to comment on this development also that you have before you. Originally I just came here to ask a question and that was whether or not this site was being entertained for a Wal-Mart, because we had heard from public agencies and other interested people that it had and we just wanted to either confirm or quell that rumor, but now that I see this conceptual site plan, I would like to add two comments if I may and that is whether -however the Kuna-Meridian Roadway, Highway 69 develops, it's real important to maintain the integrity of that road system. It's important to maintain that road system by good access management control and good access management control, be it ITD, be It ACRD, be it L r ~ w ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ti .. <~z ~ F~' jT~r ~' r ~ 1.~: ,~a. ` - ' 's`':y~ i a "' ~ ss gyp: t'°_ T`°. 1 ~ y ' / X t '~ r ~~ r. ~. ,~ ~i~~ 1~att y,F 3 y~- ill $ .. s ~... a i•+.~. ,rs y 3L-- ~'~Y ~ ~ 1A. ~.,< Gy.. ..i K{ . ~. r. -~` m ~ h ~.-. L~~Yx ti:r. ~'~ ~ .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~c t t 'i47,..•yl .1.~ 44 d Y G i N1'. t+ ) DG' r ~! ' 5' F ~ ~ ~ t Ff ~. p ~. h ~ _. .. ^ ~,F ~tyP ,j `, ty .,~.~~< . ~~~=. ~~'-~~ ~: ::` ,; ;:; =. ~•`~`"{ '4F, >:: °~~'. 'fi't' ~ Y:i~•R~k,~v ~; ~: . ~<a~5: .~ .~:x~ '~> "~? ,~~: ,, ~° Meridian Planting 8~ Zoning O August 7, 2008 Page 41 of 81 Meridian, be it Kuna, would suggest that there be three driveway entrances per mile. There would be one at the section lines and there would be one at the half section line. Certainly, if this proposal were to come to Kuna we would limit them to the half mile and I heard your staff say that they vigorously request your c~nslderation for that and, likewise, and I tell you that if you have too many driveway accesses, full or even partial, on Highway 69 or any highway for that matter, it does two things, it creates traffic conflicts and it slows down #raffic. And I think it's in the economic best interest of Meridian and Kuna to be able to have Highway 69 between the freeway on the north and Kuna-Mora on the south as afarm-to-market road where your traffic skates along at 55 miles an hour and that there be a series of frontage or backage roads provided along that corridor to afford retail commercial enterprises opportunity, but not at the expense of the general public who has to drive there every day. And, then, the other thing -and I have been in this business now for 30 years. I have been a planning director in nine jurisdictions in six states, so I have been around the 61ock, and when I see this I do not see a mixed use, I see a commercial land use proposal before you and if that's what they are offering up, that should be what it is and thank you very much for your time. Moe: Any questions2 Thank you very much. Hasson: Thank you. Oh. Is it a Wal-Mart? If I could find that out. Moe: Well, there is no one else signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to came forward, you're more than welcome. Okay. If not, would the applicant like to come back up. Can you answer that question? Ovary: Jason Ovary. 5537 North Brigadoon Avenue in Meridian. I am also a member of Hawkins Company. I would address first his comments regarding the access and we recognize access is going to be a tricky issue and part of the reason we requested the deferral of our zoning and annexation is we are in the process of completing our traffic study. We had numerous meetings with Caleb and BIII and Anna to talk about that and we are on the verge of getting that completed and we think a couple work sessions will get us to a better plan. So, we do recognize the concerns with acxess off Meridian Road. The other issue -and Lance touched on it briefly - is, you know, the timing of our application. We were working within the rules that were in place at the time we submitted our applications and you have mentioned we submitted in December of 2007 and we are not opposed to working to modify our plan and that's, again, we intended to do with some of the work sessions. However, you know, we did discuss that with staff at the time and we said, hey, this is what we really want to do and I think staff appreciated the fact that we weren't trying to hide what we wanted to do and we said would it be better to come in as a purely general commercial project and the response was, no, we don`t - we wouldn't support that. So, let's figure, you know, even if you're coming in mixed use regional, we did add a component of residential and we intend to establish what that looks like and the component of limited office and hope to be able to satisfy staff and as they have so far recommended a positive approval for this, because we truly belief and identify this intersection will be a great place to provide these services. I live on the north side of Meridian, but I know that my friends that live on the XG .~i$ .~ f Maddlan Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 42 of 89 ',~~ ~~: `~ = south side come to the north side to shop and we are going to have four years of trafttc R~ ~` ~ construction on I-84 and rerouting Meridian Road and people that are on the south side are going to have to deal with that and we hope that we are going to be in a position to help solve some of those challenges needing to go to the nortli side of the interstate. So, I hope that answers or addresses the twro comments that Mr. Hasson made. ~`` ~K -s Moe: Is there a Wal-Mart planned there? ;; '; ~ . Overt': You know, we are talking with various retailers and, you know, we've had .- various interest from all of them. Moe: Okay. Thank you. _: i. Newton-Huckabay: Very diplomatic. `~; Moe: Pardon me? Newton-Huckabay: Very diplomatic. From the fence. Moe: Okay. Any comments, Commissioners? ~' Marshall: Yes. First off, I'm glad this did not come in as a C-G and it came in as a 2'~: , mixed use regional, because I would be adamantly against it, because with - I am , against any type of large commercial going up against residential and if this is ~~~ ~ ?~, residential -single family residential ov®r here, there needs to be a buffering area. These need to be moved out to the street and the access needs to come in from the half mile point. There needs to be a frontage road and there needs to be a buffer between these large buildings ~ and residential. I'm adamantly against any large commercial up against residential. And that's why the mixed use is appropriate here, so y, ~, ~ that we can get some -some light office and some professional offices, things like that . s.. ~- t:~ as along this area to buffer between - as well as multi-family and things like that to , . _ buffer between these large buildings and residential. I think there is a need for this out k ~;, there. It won't tum on. There it goes. I think there is a need for this out there. I'd like to - see something like this develop, because it needs the commercial, but as it's laid out in this I couldn't support the layout as it is and I agree with limiting the access. There needs to be a frontage road and there needs to b® significant buffering area and I'm not talking a berm and a little bit of grass or trees, I'm talking about lower intensity uses, . :.r. -:~ multi-family, professional offices, things like that: Those are my thoughts. Moe: Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, any comments? :; O'Brien: I think I'm just going to reserve that until after I see a more detailed plat of where -what's going to change and how it's going to look. And I know they are going to move the building closer to Meridian Road anyway, as I think I read something about that In the staff report. Anyway, there is enough changes that I don't think I can make ,,~:~` any further comments. ~„ ~, i,, i X~ F . i~-• ~Y, r.,, - ,-. ~:~ ~z~ '' z Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 43 of 81 f. ~- ~.A_•, Moe: Thank you. I guess my only comment I would say is that I'm in favor of the ~~~ ~ F ~` - request, but also I want to see what's going to come before us on the 14th -excuse me - on the 4th in regards to the annexation and whatnot, because I, too, have got a real problem with the existing layout at the present time and I realize you started your design based upon another set of decisions and whatnot and the city's come back and _ requested more. Quite frankly, this is a commercial property to me. This is not a mixed ~F~ use. There is just not enough diversity in this, other than being called commercial to ~`•~~~° Y me. So, I do hope to see something a little bit different come back before us. Any other ,~ comments? If not - ~ ~ ; ~~~t~~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~,~~`~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA OS-004, the '~ ~~ Meridian and Amity mixed use regional. ~~ ~~ ~~'~~ Marshall: I second that motion. ~' Moe: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to the close public hearing on CPA • 08-004 for Meridian and Amity. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion ;4 . -'.4 ~'-..' carries. Thank you. ~•' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ ~~~ ~~~- - Newton-.Huckabay: Mr. Chair? • ::r, Moe: Yes. _~ Newton-Huckabay: 1 recommend •we continue CPA OS-004 until the regularly scheduled ' ~ .,:>~> meeting of - or the specially scheduled meeting of August 14th, 2008. End of motion. ,. <_ ~; . =~. Rohm: Second, Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-004 to the special P8Z meeting of August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. -.,~?, Newton-Huckabay: Shall I do the next one? ~s''; Moe: Yeah. Open it to continue it, please. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. :> f ~.~ `:t~ ~r •-t ~ ~=::~^ s/,, ~7 x'7`1`: - .R~_ , ~. ~~; ~: ~= ,,,; ;; ~~: ~f • Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 44 of 61 Moe: To September the 4th. Newton-Huckabay: 4th. Okay. I recommend -- or open AZ 08-005 for the Meridian and Amity property for the sole purpose of continuing it to September 4th, 2008. End of motion. Moe: That would be a regularly scheduled meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting September 4th, 2008. O'Brien: Second. Moe: Could I get a second, please? O'Brien: Second. Moe: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-005 for Meridian and Amity to the regularly scheduled PSZ meeting of September the 4th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. It®m 11: Public H®arng: CPA 08-009 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for Blskay by Greg Johnson -south side of Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for Blskay and start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just heard on the last public hearing item, this is where that current CPA is proposed. The applicant's coming in, their site here. It's roughly 52 acres, but the Comp Plan really is approximately on -- it changed on a nine acre portion of it. To the -again, to the north is Harris Street. Again, it does tie in with this proposed development here along Amity and Meridian Road. Here is the other site. Again, it is pretty underdeveloped out there, pretty much agricultural land. The only subdivision that's in the vicinity at this time that's somewhat built out is Meridian Heights northeast of this site. Here, again, what we have planned for -- under today's standards, mixed medium density residential and, then, here is what -this is a little skewed on here on - GIS tech kind of got that off a little bit. It actually runs along the pipe line. You can see that green line there, that's actually, the Comp Plan amendment and it's just kind of a little sewed, but that would connect up to Harris there. So, just to put that out there for you guys. Again, the ~~ „~~. ~'~ ,~~~ i; i J ~ ~' rY'~~ Y 3 1 .1 471 rr r e i~°' ~~ i v ~~i ~.ti r~;# ~~~ S ~,« !~~ s r r, > s.i ~rN ', 3i 4 ~N, fi x ~$ t 5 ~ !G :. r §f ~~ '-~ ~ ~~. r ~ ~ ' ~ ~'# ~ ~ ~? r~,;t~ sf 1 ~. . ~ 4 Meridian Planting & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 45 of 61 applicant doesn't have any subsequent applications -development applications with this. At this time they are not even contiguous with city limits, so they can'# even request annexation, but when we met with the applicant we -they were -they knew what would happen on that section of the road, Meridian -Amity, and they thought, well, if they were coming in with a denser mixed use development, why not try to come in and get something changed for their property as well. As Commissioner Marshall mentioned, it is appropriate to have office slash mixed use - or, excuse me, multi-fiamlly development buffering commercial development. So, anyways, here is what the applicant has proposed. Here is their concept plan. Again, it's -this is -it's tough for staff to make a recommendation for approval on this, just because this site is - is a little premature. We don't know how this is going to develop. There is really nothing developed out in that area at this time. We have questions with future connectivity here, based on what happens with the adjacent property, so there Is a lot of variables out there that are hard to tell at this time. The other issue I bring up - and I go back to the Comp Plan map, is you see this little node right here on that - on the subject site and that really references from the parks department standpoint a community park. I know in the staff report I have referenced that they were looking for a regional park, but after speaking with Steve Siddoway and getting some comments from him today, he's informed me that the city and the comp -the parks comp plan actually calls for a community park - a 30 acre park is what they are looking for. If we go back to the concept plan here, you can see the applicant has proposed roughly 3.5 acres. And it's my understanding that they intentionally dipped down Harris Street to allow development of that part for these four comers with the dividing parcels. Which makes sense. In the parks department's comments they had referenced that three and a half acres would not be sufficient and they would encourage the applicant to came in and sit down and work with them to see what they cxauld do to get additional acreage for that community park. Again, the applicant is proposing to go from a high density residential to more of your traditional four-plexes type R-15 zoning district, a medium high density residential area, down to your detached R-8 lots. Staff would like to see better connectivity with this parcel to the west of it. I mean they stub to the southern parcel, but -and have Hams come into that at that point, but if you look at their submitted concept plan, you do see some roadways that come in here that have the potential to add some additional connectivity there. And without realizing this is a concept plan, it is important to connect our neighborhood, so any future development came in, I'm sure the applicant would be more than willing to add some additional amenities to connect to that as far as vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but at this point there just aren`t enough to evaluate. They really wanted to demonstrate how this portion of the comp - what they were proposing with the Comp Plan would develop. So, I would anticipate with annexation, plat, they would probably have more of those details. Sony. So, with that, again, staff is recommending denial of this Comp Plan and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? ~~~;, ~~~. ~~f, ';~~, ~~'~~' ~; ~h h` sue;. . .:: ., ~ ~ '.fi F:. ~, i'~ [ ~~. ;1V'r V/: ~~: ~s ~'~,: ~~; ."r, }~: „~~:: ~~~, ~ Q Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 48 of 81 McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. I'm representing Mr. Johnson, the applicant, on this particular application. Mr. Johnson came to me with a copy of the Hawkins bubble plan and, then, a more specific site plan. He indicated that he's chatted with them and they had informed him they were submitting the Comp Plan map amendment to increase that muted use regional further north. So, he, obviously, had an interest in providing some type of a transition on his property, since the intens'rly of the uses along his eastern boundary were going to Increase. He did want me to go on the record that he is supportive of the Hawkins application. He had chatted with them. I have met with their representative. We have exchanged plans and information. Obviously, you know, there -- what's proposed there, a big box user with other complimentary retail uses. We will kind of change these -the character out here, so we thought that it would be prudent on our part to come up with some type of a way to transition our use and come up with some uses that would compliment theirs. So, we looked at it, let's integrate our uses and what would be served best, being adjoining a large retail facility, would be apartments. If 1 could use the board. The black and white doesn`t quite do it justice. So, one of the things that we looked at, the Williams pipe line, as Bill indicated, traverses through here. That is something you just don't mess with. They have very strict restrictions on what they allow. The depth of those pipe lines deviates, so the other thing that we look at when we are dealing with k is minimizing our street crossings, because typically we end up having to hump up over it. This pipe line, at 75 feet wide, is their current easement. It continues in a northwesterly direction. In my previous meetings with staff I said, you know, that would be an awesome pathway. You know, you could put a big multi-use pathway in there and we have met Doug Strong, who was the parks director at the time, and he said, you know, a neighborhood park out here would be awesome along that pipe line and, then, they would, obviously, have a destination as people biked and walked along -along that new greenbelt. So, I was also working with Mr. Centers, who owns the property on the north boundary, and he also owns the property on the west boundary. So, when we were kind of sketching out some different ideas and at the time the single family residential market was very hot, we kind of got together and said, you know, If everybody gave, you know, three, three and a half acres, a couple acres, whatever, we could make a great park and, then, this will be a signalized intersection at Meridian Road, because that is the half mile at Harris. The neighbors to the north in Meridian Heights were supportive. They want a signal really bad, because it is difficult for them to enter and cross three lanes to go northbound. We drop that collector in and, then, you have all of this nice collector frontage on a neighborhood park and excellent pedestrian interconnectivity. So, the way we looked at it when evaluating this site and figuring out our transitioning, this is a natural bamer. I'm crossing it once with the collector, only, obviously, out of necessity. It creates a partition in this property that we had struggled with when we were looking at it from a single family residential standpoint. So, Mr. Centers wanted single family detached dwellings adjoining him, because he anticipates in the future single family development. Mrs. Laidlaw owns on the south boundary. She came to our neighborhood meeting. She said, you know, if you put single family detached next to me that would be acceptable. I just don't want the multi-family, because that's not what I thought -how the property was going to develop when I initially sold it. So, we do have this kind of L shape here of the single family, then, we transition to Ilke a multi- n +~~ ; :~,. lUlerldlan Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 47 of 61 family. Here we show kind for afour-plex type facility with a great loop connection and we have got linkages to the greenbelt. We have got intemal pocket parks. And ft just made fior an awesome -what we thought transition. We spoke with Hawkins about this - this backage collector road. We are in support of it. We think, you know, obviously, tha# would create a transition between the two uses also. Mr. Johnson was, you know, supportive of, you know, like parking. His primary concern is, obviously, the loading docks. But, you know, with the proper landscaping, the proper transitional residential uses, it, obviously, can take advantage of that commercial. We think that this -this, obviously, makes sense. And, you know, depending on how their residential component were to develop, obviously, interconnectlvity between those linkages to the greenbelt through us and other pathways would be incorporated. And, obviously, this is just an idea. So, we are asking for -out of the 52 acres -out of the 52 acres, we are asking for nine acres, which you see there with that apartment component, be re- designated to high density residenfial. What we proposed there -there are about 24 units per acre. So, obviously, like an R 15 designation, would not work for this. I think - you know, from a planning perspective, if we could get people to walk over to - If it's Wal-Mart or Target or whoever, walk to the dentist, walk over to other essential commercial facilities, I think that would be great and I think that's what we are looking for. As far as the long term planning, keep these people off the arterials, try to keep them in the intemal sections. Shoot these collectors, make a continuous collector, so that we minimize the impact on the intersections. So, we felt, when looking at the big picture, what's being proposed, that this makes sense and compliments the Hawlin application. I'd like to address the -the parks issue. My client wanted me to state that he owns 40 acres at the comer of Victory and Linder. He did talk with the parks department about if they were interested in acquisition of that and I don't think the discussions went very far. Inkially, you know, what we proposed here for the neighborhood parks, those are a donation. All the neighborhood parks that I have proposed in projects have been donated sites. But when the staff starts talking about 40 percent of the site, I mean that's what we - from a planning - in the planning world call an exaction, that, obviously, our impact on parks is not that significant. Mr. Johnson donated the Bear Creek park. We did get some impact fee credits on that and so I was quite surprised where Bear Creek is just due north on Stoddard and it Is a community park, 18.4 acres. I worked with Mr. Johnson and the city on that one. So, that kind of services that area. Typically, when you look at the parks plan, it references a park, but it states that park would be located at Meridian Road and Amity. And it has on here a little asterisk and it, basically, just kind of straddles three different property Ilnes. Now, when the city came up with these different proposed parks, they always qualified it. We are not designating that park on any particular piece of property; it is just stating that we want a park within that section somewhere. It calls out not a regional park, but k calls out a community park. Now, in all of our experiences with different municipal parks departments, the regional parks, the community parks, we locate on arterials. We don't typically put them within the interior of a section, because of the high volumes of traffic, you know, they have all the little socxer kids and the football kids and baseball kids and so they -they really generate a lot of traffic and plus the cities want them visible, so they can be seen, because, obviously, it is a wonderful amenity. So, if the city is - parks department is looking at the community or regional park, the interior of the section ,_.. _ ~: __ r ~,;a • ~ i. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 48 of 61 - I don't know, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The staff has recommended that we meet with the new parks director and, obviously, discuss this and we would definitely do that prior to ~ submitting any subsequent applications on this. But right now we are just asking for a designation of just this portion the nine acres constitutes, about 17.3 percent of the property. The rest of the property would remain in medium density residential, which would be consistent with what you find to the north and to the west. I think that's all that I need to cover. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to come forward, now would be the time. We have someone coming up. Ovary: Jason Ovary. 6537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian. As you are aware, we are the applicant adjacent to this property and we are in support of the proposed amendment as Becky alluded and we also think that by understanding the bigger picture of the proposed uses adjacent to ours that it does help created the buffer that was referenced in our application. But I did want to go on the record that we confirm her statements that we are in support of their application. Moe: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Any comments, Commissioners? Mr. Marshall, any? Marshall: Right now I like the idea that it's a buffer up against the large commercial projects. Worry also that our Infrastructure is set up to hold so many cars and I don't know how that balances things out. I don't know « it's a small piece of area. I don't know how many properties that's Increasing. It's not an exceptionally large piece of property. But I have to agree It Is kind of what I was looking for on - on a buffer against those larger residences, as in multi family. I still would Ilke to see something between those big box stores and even this, a little lower intensi#y from the big box store, but - ,' ~ Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I, generally, when I think of the mixed use -the mixed use community -it's community; right? Marshall: Regional. Mixed use regional. Newton-Huckabay: Mixed use regional. Oh. Okay. Never mind. Never mind. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, any comments? t, ~~~,~ ~~ 4 yr, ; t~ ~ , l~ ,k~~ '. t t~ ~, ;:. 1f ''T . ~ ~ r; ~ ' i« Sqq+rPt~ s + ~., w€. ~ ~ i t~ , .~, r I , ~ T.t'~'+ ' '' ~'~ - f v r, ~' ~} 1 :.i1~ -~ r ~ r ~C F ~, b J ~ :~ 4 ~~ 1' k,~ t ' f - f ~~ 1 ~wk 2r1 ? ~,,,F~, ~ ~i4~ ~ i s~ r 4A i rt -~ ' c,y~ ~eMa.. y 'ii Fem. ~'} ~~ "* . r nti~ , -S ie ~. ' a k~ k anti a ~`; aw?* ~, - f ~, _ '0 ~~ ` t tir ~Yf~: r . ~foc ,. ~ ~ ~; '~' 't ~ ~ i ~ ~~''' Y t~ : "~ 4 5 ~ k ; T b~~ +~l kl L Y ~J`w ~ ~ ~ _ 7 ~ f F ~;1 ~ . 3' f Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 49 of 61 Rohm: No, sir. f~.l Moe: Okay. f really don't have much of a problem with the development at all. The only concern I still have is that I would have liked to have seen a little bit more dialogue, possibly, with the parks department to discuss this park issue. You know, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to at least have a little bit more discussion on that. This thing is not going to develop any time soon and so whether or not you took the time to go through - I guess there is a couple things that I'm interested in. It .would be, basically, dealing with parks and, basically, what we also see coming back with their neighbor as well, so I`m not just sure how to feel totally on this one, but - Newton-Huckabay: Just to me, to put a high density land use designation in this area just - it seems a little odd to me. And I Idnd of - when I look at mixed use -you know, the mixed use regional or the mixed use neighborhood designation, part of that whole idea of that into create a transition in and of itself and so I'm not sure that you need a high density residential transition from a transition. Does that -- Moe: I understand what you're saying. Newton-Huckabay: And BIII made a comment earlier on the previous application, this is going to be one of the first -this area is a big deal, I guess, and I - it has - we can - we can mess it up or we can support it and I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the high density there and I don't have a use problem with the development. As always, I think it's, you know, innovative, but I'm just not comfortable with high density right there. think it's pr®mature at this point for m®. Moe: Commissioners, any other comments? If not, can we get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-09 for the Biskay Comprehensive Plan amendment. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for Biskay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue CPA 08-009 for the Biskay Comprehensive Plan amendment to the specially scheduled P8Z meeting of August 14th, 2008. End of motion. Marshall: Second. i - X _ +~.- ~. ~~~a i~ '; ~y _ ;Y ~' ,:: ,_= z `iu .k ,. ~,;..., ~; - -. f°.; 1'. -....'r7 µ .:: ~' -. ,... # .~ ~; ~' ' .- t :. -'_ti ~ >,~ ` ~~ '~ti;. 1 ~ ~~ ~ s ~v ~ . ~~ :~~, ~. ',- , 4, . , ' ~ ~ §.~ .~= .,~ ~ ~ . Rf -~ ,>L ,; ~~;: ~ . ~.. - _, . ~fl .. ~,~ ~. £ z ~,, ~ 7 ' . ~ ~ F ~' ' a . - ; z 6 v y! '. rte ' ~ ~ ., ~ r ~ ~+ ..a ~ # r t. ~ ~ _ -zr~ - <q • Ma~idian Planning 8 zoning August 7, 2008 Page SO of 69 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-009 for Biskay to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. It®m 12: Public H®aring: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, L'LC -south side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately % mile east of Meridian Road: Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPA 08-007 for Zamzows on Chinden and start with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The CPA 08-007 is for Zamzows on Chinden. It's located on the south side of State Highway 20-26, approximately a half mile east of Meridian Road. The mailing address is 545 East Chinden Boulevard. This ten acre parcel, shown here, is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. It is within the city's area of impact boundary, which you can see right in the light blue teal color there along 20-26 and our urban service planning area, but as you can tell from this map, it's not currer~tiy contiguous to Meridian city corporate boundaries. So, therefore, not currently eligible for annexation. To the north, obviously, is the state highway. On the other side of the state highway is Castlebury Subdivision. It is an Ada subdivision, zoned R-9. To the east is a Lutheran church. To the south are some agricultural properties. There is an estate home on that ten acres there, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the west is a Catholic church, also zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by changing the land use designation on approximately ten acres of land from medium density residential to mixed use community. Part of the property is currently being used as a commercial business, the Zamzows, obviously, and, then, there is a safe barbecue dealer - I don't know if you can really make it out on this site plan, but it's somewhere in that location right near the state highway. The applicant has owned this property for approximately four years. In 2006 the city amended the Comprehensive Plan map, the one I mentioned earlier, for all of north Meridian, so from McDermott over to Eagle, Ustick, up to Chinden, there was a study done and we changed some of the land use designations in north Meridian. That map includes several changes, one of which was to move the mixed use community neighborhood center designation within this center. So, here is -and, pardon me, this got skewed a little bit. You can see it's a little bit wider than it is tall, so it's a little bit out of whack. But here is -- here is the one arterial, here is another, and your mid mile half moon, if you will, with mixed use neighborhood center. And the Zamzows site is right here. You can see there is a small portion of it that was medium density residential even then. Here is the current designation. The parcel lines do not show up on this, so cut this into fourths, basically. Zamzows would be right about in there. And, again, there is your fourth. So, there is what the map would look like if you act favorably on this. It should be noted that ~, k ~ ~~, 'f+sN~~ _ ~ !' t />;hir~ ~xrtl.~~~L~wt~ f~=2s7Naa t~t~%'~i t~''~ri'~`~c ~ rt ~' ~`~ ~~i~M..,~;~%v~ _ >r Garr ~`. ~-~+ i r ~ ~,y~ : f } ~ ~ ..r ~~~ ~~ fi 1'~l ,.- ~ ~ 's1 r S. Wrr'L - ~ .;sf~taC~-.t~',~s~1~R'~*~1Fi~~~l~~~!~'~#?k{..~""rv:';1f ~ 1~~ Ir .`.~'F~F~-~r}~~~+r+k~r,^'~ t ~$; t~'. it ~°n a w <r 3':.=. .~ ~.~{' ,t ri ... F k .(u-~ Yr -~~-.. ~ rv a, r1~ ~rSr.$r i .. Tl t. `j"~'~.'~~a2~~~~~~"~4.]^„il tk 4~~~F 7"a R~~ I '~ ~ r"/,'i.'. t v{ .~ ~ a ~ t ifi'y r CS t:~h ~ ~ ~' ~ r ~~ ~ t y .;K i+ ~' <wptik'Ei+~l'J.9~-~"'.~+~'~4?1 ;'*:rs 1R~b"~~I, - ~'°-^2b c 1 9 :~,r~.. r( ~s,.r,`t F'~a.Gy7j:+~~ _ ,JCS, .. `, P~`~ _ ,rF- ~, i; l+f P - p ti ~ ~'.. ~~ .~ tl '~~ - yc.+w~- ). :~ ~ e ~ 4~ r a4' ~, ~ 4..7 ~ r}} ~ <r ~c~ ~~a<l w . y J~ 5. .~~ ~ C ~ '-r/1' ~. ... '~hrr7`~ Gf ~ abt ~~~. ~ '1 X } k 6~ T ~ ~ Y 7q ~"7~'> . a ( W i ~ ~ tto ~ ! Y'~~~ 1 ,,;~y fir. ?~ ~ ~ `?~i~~X~1 ~'i ~ ~,~+z~~~1.H x , ~ ,~ Ir +~'.p ~~'~~r,`,~' {~A ~' M f i i ~ .J '~.. f .~ ~d{~~ ~r' x ~' ~~~ ? , r . ~ ~ %' rsv ~.iF7 a N ~ 9r r ~ F. ~i ~ 7 ~ a ~'. v; FiC - :. ~. ~ ,a~ ' c r r r c.t '-x~ -an fi , ~~, 4 a j a~ ~ fl-"s., e" f e_ r r rK74 ;= i k. i~`F"r' > :, '.,~ e;~_ ¢.~~r r''o- 'gr'4: .ur :, s` ~ ,`. A 1 '7~~: ~:''~ ~ + ;,~Sf~ `a`ns°9h ~ ... .. .. ~ 'rt`rr~ }% wt ~ ~ +-.tx~ ;4 .;~er~~~°~C' _.~ `"Os :..:df r;~, ='#~ • ~~~ <; ? ~ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 51 of 81 although the property did previously have a similar designation on the site, the mixed use designation, not the neighborhood center part of that designation, but the mixed use designation, that the -the diagram that we do shoot for - and I will grant you that we r, ~- but we do have don't see a ton of them develop as envisioned with the Comp Plan map , some along Locust Grove. Quenzer Commons real similar, although they don`t have `~~ real core commercial at their center, they have more core offices, but that's a development with Brockton Subdivision where you do have your core commercial ~ fanning out to your high density residential and, then, on the outskirts of your medium .;,:. density residential. So, if you look at this map, you know, a quarter mile is "` ~ approximately here. The commercial areas aren`t shown even within that hail moon ~'~ '~ area. It's at the center of that half moon area that your core commercial areas are looked for. So, again, although the designation changed on this site over time from this designation to this designation, city staff have anticipated residential development of this once Zamzows has had their run at it and redevelopment is ready to occur at annexation that the city requested. All of the land surrounding the subject site, as you can see on the map, is currently designated medium density residential or public/quasi-public. I don't know why this church got the public/quasi-public, but the Lutheran church is shown as medium density residenfial. I couldn't tell you why that is there. But the surrounding properties are either medium density residential or z~'" public/quasi-public. The city has planned for a variety of commercial and retail r{ opportunities in north Meridian. This site is not one planned for commercial and retail. ' Staff believes that the proposed mbced use designation will further saturate this area with nonresidential land uses, making some other sites planned for this type of development difficult to build. Staff believes that the map currently depicts appropriate future land uses for the site, which is medium density residential. As you can see but for the one in the wastewater -mixed use wastewater treatment plant area, tonight '~ _~ , everyone wants to take residential and move k to commercial. The city did do a study in ~~'"_ 2005. I'm not going to go into the mertts of that study or if it's valid or not, but it did ` . compare us to other - to Boise, to Eagle, to other similar type agencies in the Treasure ~ ~, 4 Valley. Even nationally. And they said you already have enough in north Meridian to _ support more than the residential you have planned in north Meridian. Again, take that ' {` for - wi#h a grain of salt. Read it for yourself. But, basically, they said you have about three times what you're going to need, roof tops to office particulariy, but even retell. -,:= We had way too much planned. Not built, but planned. We have lots in Paramount still, ~,' ~~`~ Lochsa Falls that we got zoned and approved - Bridgetower -that are approved -not _. ;,; the fear is is but are planned in the future. So necessarily that the building's there yet .h , , that if we keep changing this map and all these places are going to compete against each other and, .then, some of the places we really wanted it, it's not going to be feasible, because they got -someone else got the designation and the land use. The applicant has not submitted elevations for concurrent annexation or development application. They have submitted a conceptual development plan shown on the screen, { showing how the site may develop in the future. The landscape nursery. So, there is a k w . retail aspect. And their greenhouse will remain. This building is In approximately the ~` although on the site plan it says a new retail user same location as the current building ~~` h ~ ~~~ , there. There is the drive-thru shown on that site. These access points appear to be the ones that are there now. There is a shared driveway to 20-26 here with that Catholic _;; ~,:~_ ~.ti ~.,~,~ .~~;. P~~; ~~.: • Merid(an Planning & zoning . ` ~ August 7, 2008 ' ' -` ~'4* Page 52 of 61 ~ church. It continues on on their side and, then, feeds back - I think it eventually leads . ; '~ 5 - '~~ ' back over to their parking lot that they have closer to Meridian Road. But there is a ~~ shared driveway there and, then, this one that the subject site uses for k, so -and, then, there are residential units, attached townhomes, zero lot line homes, something similar to light duplexes, if you will, in this area and, then, some additional retail users are shown due west of the existing landscape nursery store. So, across-access to the >< east and west are shown. As you can see from this plan, they haven't shown any connectivity to the medium density that's shown just to the south. Staff will recommend `~y~ both vehicular and pedestrian accesses to those in the future. Regardless of land use ~~, we are going to want to see some connectivity. And, again, we have done the song and dance a few times tonight, but, again, the UDC prohibits direc# access to 20-26. The ~' ~~` thing that I think is different about this one than some of the other projects that we have looked at on highways -and we talked about it before. This site neither has access on the arterial -the other ones were on a comer of an arterial and a state highway and this one is a quarter mile in from that and they only have access to the state highway. So, there isn't that ability to even look at having another access for commercial purposes off ~~ ~ `'~ of your adjacent arterial, because you aren't there, you're internal to the square mile and you're not at the mid mile, so you're kind of in no man's land, if you will, on this property. So, just, basically, the reason staff is not recommending approval of the subject application is due to the access. We can't, again, support access that would require a variance for both of these access points proposed. Even if the accesses weren't there, staff has a difficult time envisioning how retail would work on this property, because, ~;t ~ then, you're taking - I'm going to go to more of a regional view. You would be taking ~~ that commercial traffic through either residential to the south up and through or back F µ~°~ over to the Hightower development and through a church and back through. So, a backage road even for those retail users dons seem to be appropriate, based on future and existing land uses surrounding the subject site. Again, we don't have any commercial users on any of the sides around them, so getting commercial users there would have to be from Chinden, essentially, and, again, we aren't supportive of any ~`F= .. access, let alone two to the state facility. So, because of that and - so, acxess and w4,, , future land uses and existing land uses around, staff is not supportkre of the applicant's request for the Comp Plan amendment. Staff is recommending denial of the CPA and I "~ will stand for any questions you may have. _ , Moe: Any questions of stafF? Would the applicant like to come forward? Eisenbarth: My name is Darin Eisenbarth. I live at 307 Windsor, Nampa, Idaho, and I'm ;; ~, ~~~,~ the president of Zamzows. We are a little different than most of the applications that .. you saw tonight. What we are, actually, asking is to have our designation restored back ~ to us. When we purchased this property - or when we were cmnsidering purchasing t i a this property about five years ago, we came in and we met with staff and we kind of went over our, you know, future development of the property and they said, yes, it meets with exactly what we are trying to do, we are trying to develop mid mile and we _ saw our designation there and, you know, not that they were giving us any, you know, warranty, bu# it seemed to meet with what they were looking for. When we were in the "~~~ process of developing our Overland store about two years when that started, we came r ~ -s~ ~~}~; ~~; . N~~~ ~~,. ~~~ . ~~ ' Meddlan Planting 8~ Zoning `~ ~ August 7, 2008 "~ Page 53 of 81 in and noticed that our designation had changed, had been moved. When we inquired i about that, they said, well, we -- we moved that to the east to facilitate another properly ~`` owner and we can't support you having any access to Chinden, which I thought was odd, because we already have access to Chinden. We have been operating -- that properly has been operated in that manner for 17 years. Originally, it was -- the preliminary plan was done in '91. So, it kind of leads us a and they originally had said, 2 well, you would need to negotiate with the other property owners around you to get access back to your property, which I don't know that that leads us anywhere. So, '~~ basically, it was land lock us there. We have not submitted an annexation and rezone permit yet, but today we did meet with the Catholic church, with two representatives from the Holy Apostle, and they were supportive of our planned development and they are in the process right now of getting everything ready for an annexafion and rezone on their property as well. They have got that one small parcel that they need to get ~~ finished and, then, they are going to submit their application as wail and that's what we met with them about today. So, that would make us contiguous to come into the city. We think this designation is what the city was trying to do with the mid town center and all of that. We have, obviously, been operating in this location for a very long time. As ~x far as not, you know, violating some else's designation around there, I don't really `' understand that. I mean retail clusters together usually and to disadvantage one _ property for the sake of another's potential development down the road, I don't really understand. This is our e we own six properties in Meridian. This is - we own five -;>` :~ business ~ we operate five business locations in the city of Meridian. What we do feel ~,~ about this is, if you could show our proposed site, is that we are going to buffer with this ~, ~f,R -- we are going to kind of buffer in between two other commercial or quasi-commercial -~''' uses. We have the Lutheran church to the east and we have the Catholic church to the ~'s. west and so we offer kind of a transition into that. We also offer a transition o we spoke with Mr. Beeler, who owns the property behind us, and, you know, I don't really want to `" ~ I speak for him, but he's looking at medium density residential for his property. We offer -~ j a good transition from Chinden, acxomplishing noise buffers and, you know, good xy>y transifions in that way. So, this site plan is very, very preliminary, but it does represent .~~ the spirit of what we are going to try to do with this. So, I think that's really all I have to ~~-~M say. And, for the record, it won't be a Wal-Mart. y~NL Moe: Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: No. ~~ ~, Newton-Huckabay: Not right now. ,r:. ~`~~ti Moe: Thank you. x' ~~~'~` Eisenbarth: Thank you. _:~,: _~ i Moe: Douglas Zamzow. ;w_`'~ ~ , a ~yy+, ' ~ . i"<~ . 3 r `^•~ ' ' ' . d 9 ~.~.• . i 5~.. r .. ~ ~' ~ »r ..i :~ u ';,; . .} "'< ~ ' ` M ~,s a n.5 '. '~&' l~ -w ~,~±:~ ,TR ;; k `fir :: r-F4 r~ s~ .. .. f : ~f `~:+~ ` ..~:w k `a . .~. ~• 'j 4 r .. ' 1 ~ ;; p r t r - ° `~`:~'~' ~ ,. ~ 1'. .. .y. f . .'. '>. ..i... •. - li [ ~ t- r 7 .. -. 7 n .n z. '~. ' . ~ T . . • ~ n ~ { ` : Y,t ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ,,d {~~(~, „~- om. ~~fuY' y ~ r~ ~ , ~++ r~ ~ +~'} '1 aMF, g. F ai. 1 1 & is 1f s'~. . 4i . ~ ~ ~Ert-e C:CV"~1~r~Vya?fk: .:aY•~:t 4:. S 1 ' a' ~ h _ : . .,, r, :°,~. i y ro. ' a ~ ~ ~= , {5~ +~ Y' ~:'~'FU`1 '~` it y].Zt' r c ~ i {. . . t .; i 3 \ i : fir, ~ ~~~ 5' _y`~~, ` " . ~tY; Wit _ ;i JS~~'£ -` c ~ ~, w , a a , ' z Fl~ ir.' /~ : 5' 1 I ~ 3 ~ Y .f y ! z,. ~ t•( 33 . Y : ~~ .;, •J! ,Fi i T.a .. ~.n f 17 . l Y, x .M1`. - - ~r .5~: f ~ .ray.3 ~ ~Y. ~ . , .. : _ .f ~ ,,, j 7, r', e, i R.~-... a 4 ,~ ,~ t ,~' i ~ y ~ 7~ F~, ~. 9 Y -3 ~ Y '' . Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 54 of 81 Zamzow: My name is Doug Zamzow, I live at 415 Schmeizer Lane in Boise, Idaho. I act as the construction manager for Zamzows. You have probably seen me before when we did the Overland project here a couple years ago. Read through the report. Caleb's been good to work with. We have met with Anna several times and Caleb and Sonya. We ace optimistic, similar to the Overland store, that we can make this work for everybody's benefit. I'm not sure if any of you have been to the Overland store, but it's doing well and we have had a lot of compliments from the neighbors and the -and the clientele. I don't have a whole lot #o offer. I just wanted to make a couple clarifications. The pedestrian connectivity to the south, as well as vehicular, is a doable item. There is water. United Water is already on the site. The staff report at this point says there is no services at the property, but we are hooked up to United Water. I haven't told Caleb that yet, but we do have United Water already at the site. And I feel It's a good transition from Chinden to the medium density to the south. Thank you. Moe: Any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Thank you very much. Any comments, Commissioners? Marshall: I just had a quick question for Caleb. Moe: Okay. Marshall: Cal®b, could we go back to the futur® land use map in that -right. here. That's good. So, right here, what's this intending to be right in this area, the neighborhood center, the NC? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Marshall, that -that's the Comprehensive Plan land use map before it was amended in 2006. That's -that's the request -they are, basically, asking to go back to what it was. That's what Mr. Eisenbarth was saying is that they are requesting to have their old designation back put on the property, so - and, again, what happened was, especially along Chinden, we lost these half moons and, again, that designation doesn't come out very well here, but it's moved along - lineariy along Chinden a half mile right here. The access is alt set just a hair into that Hightower like right in there. But the core commercial is around there with higher density residential townhouses. So, this -the way this is developing was what was intended for here. But, again, not necessarily on the Zamzow's property, the core commercial would have been right here to there and, then, fanning out so this -the fringe of this area is meant for your higher density residential to support some of that core commercial at the mid mile. So, 1 don't have any problem giving them that designation back, but It still means we are still looking for residential development. The mixed use, as you know, I mean it includes commercial, retail, office and residential from three to 15 dwelling units per acre and that's what we would be looking for is the three to 15 dwelling units per acre. So, that's what that old designation was. Meridian Planting & Zoning August 7, 20Q8 Page 55 of 81 v Marshall: Refresh my memory, then, please. The concept plan that is being presented, how much more commercial is being added to what's there? Hood: You know, the applicant may - I didn't see any square footages on there, but - so, I don't know exactly what this building entails. There is one - k looks like multi- tenant retail building here. Something about half that size there. Again, a new building - it looks like new. Replacing the existing shed type building that's there now with fihe drive-thru. That's pretty much it for new retail. So, not - not a ton of new retail on the site. You know, half or a little over half of the site is for residential - I mean there is kind of a demarcation line between retail and residential. So, they are doing a mini mixed use project on their site. Again, access is really the -the big thing, the hump that we couldn't get over, because you can't - if you can't get there, retail is not going to work. Marshall: So, what we are saying is the current Zamzows, as it stands there, would be removed and be gone? Hood: Eventually some day. I mean that's the -- Marshall: Well, as a part of this proposal. The Zamzows is not part of that? Hood: No. No. I'm sorry. So, these were the new construction. This is the existing building with their nursery area that's here. And, then, they are keeping some ponds, too. These ponds are also on the side of - I can't remember if that one is there or not. But there is some of these larger ponds are on the site and they are retaining those as well, but, yeah, this would be - be kept. Some of their bins for bark and sand and other things are in this location here. It looks like they go away. That may be what -.yeah, it says bark storage on it. That's what this is. So, they are still retaining some of those accessory uses to the landscape nursery business, building kind 'of a little mini community around it, if will, too, so -but, no, that stays. And just to be clear, we are not -definitely like to support local businesses and these folks are great to work with. I wish them continued success in that location. It's just long range, when it does redevelop, this just isn't really what the city had envisioned for the property, so -and I know that directly conflicts what they have envisioned for the property, so that rn~akes this one tough. Moe: Before I get any other comments from any of the other Commissioners, I had gone through the signing list. Did you have any comments, sir? Okay. Thank you. So, any other comments? O'Brien: I have question. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Was there any type of traffic study or going to be a traffic study on the amount of traffic that was maybe seeing going out onto Chinden from this kind of a proposal? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 58 of 81 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, depending on square footages -and, again, I don't remember seeing any numbers with, you know, concept square footages. It may not meet the ACRD warrants for requiring a traffic impact study. That's certainly something the city can do when it comes to the annexation stage is say we want you to prepare one. Quite honestly, I don't know what that traffic study would address. I mean there is a lot of variables to - to look at. You evaluate it with two access points to Chinden, you look at it with no access points or one access point or not knowing when the other properties around are going to develop some other way out, how do you really evaluate that traffic study would be pretty difficult. Now, again, ACHD and ITD, if a permit is submitted to them, could require a traffic impact study, but, again, they have those thresholds and I don't, off the top of my head, know what those are. O'Brien: Thank you. I just look at this as we have to make the assumption that there Is not going to be a back road to get out of that particular complex and there is going to be probably one major access, aright-in, right-out period. To me that's what it looks like. And that could be a problem, but that's for somebody else to decide. Thank you. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I like it. ,':>~ ~`~, Rohm: I have a couple comments. Looking at the property as it's currently being ,'~~ utilized, it's more of the mixed use commercial now and doesn't even potentially look like medium density and it seems counter to me to say, okay, even though that's the k ~ way you're using it now as being part of the county, if, in fact, you come into the city, we are going to make you change what you're -how you're using it. So, from my perspective, the way it's currently being used and the way they are proposing to expand . ~ ,~I just makes sense and Iwould - I would be in support of this myself. So, that's the end =;=- of my comments. F ~ Newton-Huckabay: I think fundamentally we have -down there in that section of ,, Chinden, coming up on Locust Grove, when Hightower came in and the -that county }.4~ subdivision at Jericho - I mean I think closing that off was the biggest improvement we ~.a: are going to get in that area and having access from -through Hightower and I think - I ~;F~,,T like this. I think it's -you know, you got a church on each side, there is another ~~~; r~ landscaping company right out there next to the other, I believe, and I like it. Moe: As far as access to get into the property, would you condition that into aright-in, `==~_'~ right-out type of si#uation or - t _~x~ Newton-Huckabay: No. ~~~- ~,~, } ~' Moe: -given them full access? rx:~':~ ,v.~ ,, ~; ~ u. .~j., ~ . l~ ;~ fi ~ .. yr! ? t i `. y yy E.~ ,f~ C,7~' ~~ r ' t ~ ... !, F w,2 -Iti2 ~ `r SA ~ ~`~~ ~ ~ ~ :>-~ ~ ~ i~, - ~ ~~ r~ ~ AF ~ { '; F ti' ~ ~: ~ f r `L ~'S X y V<: r ~'' ~ J .. ,t ~{ ~~+ .~ ~,' ~ , ~qq ly ~, ~ Y y - > Lf ~~' . ~,. ,, 1 T ~C~ ~ S h ' f SIB ~~ r ~ K i` i r ~ t.k z. .~ ~;::.~, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 57 of 81 Newton-Huckabay: No.. I'd leave the full access. It's been a full access, so -like Mr. Eisenbarth said, for 17 years and I don't think you're going to get a back road in there very easily and - I mean I suppose if you come in and - I mean this a major redevelopment of the property, but you're leaving the existing business use on it, so I guess forme that kind of gives you some kind of a grandfather righ# there somewhat®. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: To be honest, I like the layout. I think it kind of fits the area. But I have to admit I really don't like the access to Chinden and we are putting a lot of traffic back out there on Chinden and that's one nasty road to get on and off of and it's going to slow traffic down and it's going to be a mess. But, boy, I sure do like -you know, to be honest, I think it fits as far as - I'm very tom on this. I just -but the access I keep stubbing my toe on that. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask you a question? I mean is this going to stub off to the west, is that going to stub into the -isn't this a private driveway on the church on the west side, isn't it? Because doesn't that exit out to Meridian Road? Yeah. That one comes in from the north. Marshall: I don't know. I - I don't - Newton-Huckabay: That's the question I have. Hood: It doesn't. I have got the aerial I can go to as well. But, no, it doesn't -the church currently has undeveloped parcels in here, so there isn't -they have one access to their parking lot right there and -and, then, this driveway does come into their site, but it's not -again, the properties on either side of that is -are undeveloped. Now, if there is some cross-access amongst the properties, which is what we would want to see. I mean at the bare minimum, if we are going to approve something at the quarter mile, we'd want it to be shared. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I mean I would take away - I mean I don't have any problem taking away one of those accesses. I mean that - that I would think would be with the intention of getting that east west connectivity, because I would think your -- at some point you're going to be able to hook into that Hightower development, if, unfortunately, the soccer field went away. Hood: And I guess that's part of the problem that staff had, too. I mean you have got church, church, commercial. How do you get - it has to go out onto Chinden. There is nowhere else for it to 'go. And even if it does redevelop with medium density residential, you still don't want to push .that commercial traffic through medium density residential to get here, so - ~~r r'+ 7 w.. Z Y$, _.~_a: :,'~' ~~ ~ .t~YK~ t _~#.; ~ art 4 r: y :Kr «~ ~A ], •~11' _.::- ,, :r ,.~ :_« .; rs" T ~?~ } ~~ ~' s e Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 58 of 81 Rohm: Well, the point is, though, I mean even if it was medium density residential, it's still going to exit out onto Chinden, is it not? Hood: No. If it's medium density residential, they can develop back through here and you use access points this way and you have got medium density to the south. There is a stub street here. We have talked to the church about developing this. They don't have any plans to, but we have -they haven't ruled it out, developing this medium density residential and stubbing right up through -it's not Wheelers -whatever these folks here is, so -Beeler. Thank you. Beeler's property. So, you will have -through residential subdivisions you will come back out to Meridian Road in this location. So, it is fully feasible that this could be medium density residential and have multiple access out to the arterials and even through the development back through Saguaro and back all the way back down to McMillan. Moe: Well, Commissioners? Rohm: I think we are ready to close. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-007. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: Did you second it? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I did. Moe: Oh, I'm sorry. We have a motion and second to close the public hearing on CPA 08-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue item number CPA 08-007 to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. Marshall: Second. «;r, ~. ~~ r~~ ~ ~ ;_. >:, >~~~: ,~.:, ~,~~ t a ; ~. ~~ _~-~ .:: ''` .,::= ~, Y. ,~; ~, ,. ,,~~; +a .;;~ v~ ``=z ~ r S~ n "C `~* _ ~; ~~ ;..<~,; y, z ~~ ~~ K"'' "ti ,: z tY~`?,. ~5 `p Meridian Planning & Zoning e August 7, 2005 Page 59 of 61 Moe: it's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-007 to the special P8Z meeting on August 14th. Ail those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. It®m 13: Public Hearing: CPA 08-002 Request for Comprehensive Pian Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and .Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: Item 14: Public H®aring: AZ 08-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.75 acres from RUT and R1 to C-N zoning district for Eagle and Victory by Rose Law Group - NWC of E. Victory Road and S. Eagle Road: Moe: All right. Just to note, sir, we -- no, you're fine. The rest of the hearings tonight are going to be continued. There will nothing to open - it will be opened to be continued to the 14th. At this time I would like to get a motion to continue -wait. Yeah. Well, continue CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010 for Eagle and Victory to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 14th. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-002 and AZ 08-010, to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Public H®aring: CPA 08-008 Requ®st for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road: It®m 16: Public H®aring: AZ 08-009 R®quest for Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited OfFice District) for Postal Annex by Jack Gish -Southwest Comer of Meridian Road and McMillan Road Moe: At this time I would tike to get a motion to continue CPA 08-008 for the Postal Annex to the special meeting of the Planning and zoning Commission for August 14th. ;~ t. - ~~~ e o Meridian Planning 8 Zoning '~~ August 7, 2006 Page 80 of 81 ,,; Newton-Huckabay: So moved. '~ Marshall: So moved. ~:, „~ Moe: Did Iget a -- Newton-Huckabay: You got adual -- second. Moe: We have a second. Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-008 for the Postal Annex to the special meeting of the Planning and ` Zoning Commission for August the 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That y ` ~'~~ motion carries - ,_ :.; _ _ . ,~ t;~ ~` ~~ ~ ~ L MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: At this time I'd like to get a motion to continue AZ 08-009 for the Postal Annex to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of .;>: September 4th, 2008. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. ~ '~~ Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and secronded to continue AZ 08-009 for the Postal Annex to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for September 4th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. ~r MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. a,;: 1` Rohm: Mr. Chairman? ,,. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we adjourn. }r; ~~~~~ Marshall: Second. . ~_ r Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: 10:40. R ~ , "i c5 "''~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 90:40 P.M. ~~k j_•, 'f Q:~r~ .~~. ~.. vT~!i. .. w:-: r,a - wiz r:~= r ..~ ;, ~~~ xa~' ~'~,~~# k ' ter?'-' • i~ ~; ~r#;i, *': ,; ~ ~, ~~ ;~~~. ,~ s~ ~ a i, `r'~r ';;: ~ a~i,::. _ ,;;,: . Meridian Planning ~ Zoning ' August 7, 2008 Page 81 of 81 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVID MOE - I DATE APPROVED .~~`'''~~~~~~~~"~~''~--, ATTEST: ,. ~ z , .~ r -. nn '' o I l n . ~ K1 ` t _ ~ ~ _ y, ". .~~. . ~-~,~•, I August 4, 2008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 3, 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: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. - ..7':.... .. .. . ray ~' ~, «, ~ ~; > T ~# ' . ~ ,~ ,: ~ ~ y ' r+ a~x- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;t e ra ~ .y ~t r ~ n ~, ~ ~ ~ ~. ~[ ' '' ~~ ~ ~t YL -,c ~ ~r ~ t,ri r`c c~. rr ,. ti~_ ~ i t a ~. ~~ r ~ ~' ;f ~ r { ~ ~~ r ~' ~~yy ~Y ' ~+ fv F sr ,r~, ~ ~ y `~7s ~ '~" R ~ ;~~ LCD ,~ l~~} ~~n '~ COMMENTS See AtFached Minutes ,:. ,. ~~0~~ s.o ~~~o~e Date: X t .F.~ August 4, 2008 ~_~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 . ~~ APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of July 17, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS __~ ~~ ~~~ CITY CLERK: See Attached Minutes z~,~~z: " CITY ENGINEER: ,:~~` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ~~Q CITY ATTORNEY ~ `~ a. ~ ~ ~ 1'lI LS /~ ~` CITY POLICE DEPT: +Y' ~~ ~ ~ ~ / ~~ Y~."`~y CITY FIRE DEPT: tl ~ a CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: r,r~ CITY SEWER DEPT: -`'~ ~~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ~ /~; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: -.~. ~' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~.~. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ` ~; OTHER: `~~'~ Contacted: Date: Phone: ~n ~+~ -.~ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~~~= -~ ~, ~~ :,, ~~_.: ~r"}',. ra, .'.~y; _, %. F'~: 'l-v;. ^:.'k. Yo- ~.'„Y~< ;,3e; i.'2 t:~;. r~~ ~ -_ k.. ~t } :T • August 4, 2008 CUP 08-016 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Maverik, Inc. ITEM NO. 3-C REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval- CUP approval for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district per requirement of the Development Agreement for Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) -NEC of N. Locust Grove Road 8~ E. McMillan Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of McAdlan. ~; '~;~': ~: `~ ` ~ AUK ~ ~ ~00~ ~, ;j -~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ,; r~~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIANp=-- LAW AND ' ~ A H DECISION & ORDER ;~, ~^x°~ In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a Convenience Store and Fuel Sales Facility in ~_ '`''' a C-N Zoning District per Requirement of the Development Agreement, by Maverik Inc. r ~=~p Case No(s). CUP-08-016 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Dates of: July 3, and 17, 2008 (Findings scheduled for August 7, 2008) ~` A. Findings of Fact ,,~, ~~. _ ~ 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, ' Y ~`~ ' incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) _r;~ 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) ' 'k'"°`~ 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law s ;fir 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). ~~, Z. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. ,<~^ ',~ 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. Yt CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-016 x ~ '«~' Page 1 .'r%~ti ~~~:. ~~~Y :... (f~:: i ~ 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Building Elevations, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit as evidenced by having submitted the site plan dated 4/9/08 and building elevations, dated 1/25/08, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff ~> Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-016 Page 2 ` ~ _ :~J Y[` r~~ :;.4(l ~' JY~ 1 ~ ~ ``~ require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. t 4; .r <~ E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 's 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 ~'.~ r ~, an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of ~; r '-~ this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008. =k -'%~: IyM c 'a '..'7, i ~ `r ~: .. ,., ~., {.} ~` -,~.. + ~~ ~~` ~.,"t. `~`i'S :. rJ 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-016 Page 3 >", g - °>: ' ~= ` ~~ B i f h l a y act on o t e P ng & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~ d day of 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) - ,ti ~s COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ~. ~'t '~? 4 ~' ± 4~,(~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED_ l~/,eG(~ -_ ~ COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED_~ .( ''~- COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED ~~ ~. C~~j~~ D ID MOE ,~,~~,~ a 1®~~9 ~•,~'~ O t ~ ~. O A est: - SEAL _ Y ~ ~ = -~ o~ ~s~ • Q, `,` Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk % O„ 9 ~~nn~ ~tN~ Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City ~'•' ` t;: Attorney. ~~ n =~ B Dated: ~' I ~ - 0~/ ty Clerk's O ce :~- :~: -~ [ {y. ~~ ~'~fi ~ .h :~;~ ~'~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER .r CASENO(S). CUP-08-016 Page 4 4~~5 +~. ~ : rP '%~"t 4•u. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINLTDATE OF JULY 3, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 3, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~T FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner E IDIAl~I ~^' (208) 884-5533 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT: Maverik (Locust Grove/McMillan) • CUP-08-016 Conditional Use Permit for a convenience store and fuel sales facility in a C-N zoning district, per requirement of the Development Agreement • DES-08-020 Design Review for structure/site located adjacent to an entryway corridor, per requirement of the Development Agreement and UDC 11-3A-19B 1. SUNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, Maverik, Inc., is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a Maverik convenience store and fuel sales facility, per requirement of the Development Agreement (DA) for Woodland Springs Subdivision. Design Review approval of the proposed structure and site is also requested with this application, per requirement of the DA and UDC 11-3A-19B. The property is located on the northeast corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road. A final plat has been approved, but not yet recorded, that depicts the subject property as Lot 1, Block 1, of Woodland Springs Subdivision No. 1. The site is currently zoned C-N and consists of 1.42 acres. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (CUP-08-016 & DES-08-020) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis for the requested CUP & DES applications below and recommended conditions of approval for the CUP application. Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-016 for Maverik, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. Note: Per UDC 11-SA-2, Design Review (DES) applications are approved at the administrative level by the Planning Director. However, because DES approval is requested concurrently with the CUP, Staff has included analysis on the DES request in this staff report; the DES application does not require Commission action. The Meridian Plannins & Zonins Commission heard tlis item on July 3, and 17, 2008. At the public hearing on July 17, 2008 they moved to approve the subject CUP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin: i. In favor: Dan Murray; Todd Meyers ii. In opposition: Jeff Greene; Andy Mitchell; Kimberly Mitchell; Judv Horlacher; JoAnn Horlacher; Doug Racine iii. Commentins: None iv. Written testimony: Val Greenspan; Jason O'Verv: Liz Pew; Susan Greenman; Bart Naylor; John R Knowles ITI v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters vi. Other staff commentin on application: None b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. ACHD's plans for widening and signalizin the intersection; Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 1 ~. : ;,~, ,x~' ,yy~ M1'ry a{~~,~4~ T~, ~~4TL 1T C ~y t _ J , ~T'cy~' 1 r i K i ,;_ C y~ , . g ;y, ~ { ' } * ~ „r k`s~- 7 , ~s~~ yN.~ ~ ~" ~` . V E'> y~ 1.~: b Mvi Z ~' J~.~ `Y.t;~ „ tx ~ + ~- '' ..+ .~. ' ' ,. , 4 ~~~ ..{ ` F~ Y~ _ ~"~ ~a ~, ~1 4~~(+ya 'l 7 a ,~ h f .3t ~1~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ - ~ 2 L Lt~t7 ~ 'e°R 7., ~ $~t. _ ..~ v'i ~t au o .' 5 R f •-L i ~: k~ yk., Y 7~D~ b e4 ~' L{~ J a ~~ Cif ~ ~~ 3 f~ . ~ tY ~ .wl ~~.~. _ 4~ .. _ ~__ hW L CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 3, 2008 ii. The effect of the proposed convenience store and fuel sales facility on adiacent residential properties: iii. Limitation on hours of operation. c. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Add condition of approval for the hours of operation of the convenience store and feel sales facility to be restricted to the hours between 6 am and 11 pm, 7 days a week (see condition of approval #1.15 in Exhibit B): ii. Add condition of approval for the reauirement of a type 1 vapor recovery system to be installed for the fuel facility (see condition of approval #1.16 in Exhibit B); iii. Add condition of approval for the applicant to work with AC13D to obtain a license agreement to install landscaping and irrigation sprinklers on the property south of the detached sidewalk along McMillan Road to the eds:e of the future back of the curb. Applicant shall also be responsible for maintaining this area (see condition of approval #1.17 in Exhibit B). iv. Add condition of approval for the applicant to submit a road trust to Ada County 13i~hway District for a minimum of five foot wide detached sidewalk on McMillan Road once that road has redeveloped (see condition of approval #1.18 in Exhibit B). 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- 016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 17, 2008. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-OS- 016, as presented during the hearing on July 3, 2008, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 17, 2008. Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 08-016 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: The site is located on the northeast comer of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road (Depicted on the approved final plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision No. 1 as Lot 1, Block 1) Southwest % of Section 29, Township 4 North, Range 1 East b. Owner: Maverik, Inc. 880 W. Center Street North Salt Lake City, UT 84054 Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 2 ''° r-~r ~ : ~ a+s ~'~~ R ~~ r . ~i ~~ ~~s ~~:y_ z, 14 ~a ;e,c ~i r~~ ~~ y } is ~, ~ ~ ~~ k ~r :~ ii~ ~ !~. LX:' i 94 ~ 4 x to k C~L~ :~Y ~1 ~~j ' ;'x a ' 7,t¢ k` 5 i Jih'Y. M1S ~ ~ x ~+ $ ! t _ ~ w y . 3 'ti~ /, !4 f D ~' F... ~ 1~•1{ fi 1,". ~~ ~ ~v 1 ` . (6~' ~~. y~ ..f. R ~~ ~ ~= ~_,' r std;- k t' a ry CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 3, 2008 c. Applicant/Contact: Brad McDougal, Maverik, Inc. 880 W. Center Street North Salt Lake City, Utah 84054 d. Present Zoning District: C-N (Neighborhood Business District) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Neighborhood f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval fora 4,377 square foot convenience store and fuel sales facility for Maverik in a C-N zoning district. Design Review approval is also requested for the proposed structure and site. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: Taken from Applicant's narrative: "Maverik is proposing a 4,377 square foot convenience store with 5 fueling dispensers located on the northeast corner of Locust Grove and McMillan Road. The Maverik lot will contain approximately 1.42 acres and shall have access through the adjoining lots to both Locust Grove and McMillan Roads. Cross-access easements will be recorded." 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11-SA-2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute design review as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SA-2D, this type of application is approved at administrative level by the Director. c. Newspaper notifications published on: June 16, and 30, 2008 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 6, 2008 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 20, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area consists of rural and urban single-family residential uses and an Idaho Power substation. The adjacent property to the east has been approved for Portico Subdivision, a 261ot residential development, but is not yet in the development process. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Rural residential property, zoned RUT (Ada County) 2. East: Rural residential property, approved fora 26-lot residential subdivision (Portico), zoned R-8 3. South: Idaho Power substation, zoned R-8 4. West: Rural and urban residential properties, zoned RUT (Ada County) & R-4 d. History of Previous Actions Pertaining to this Site: • A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPA-07-014) was approved (Resolution #08- 593) in 2008 to change the future land use map designation for the subject property, and Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 3 ,r;M :. ~ !. ,~ r ~~, : v,~t t': >~<; ~"~ >`-;< ~i-,r ~'; ,M~ ±~ _~ ~i a ~~r. , ~ s~ ,;: ~'~~' ~u~ ,. '~w ;~; ~: ~~a .~: =~°„~ 1 w„ ,4r ~~> ~',;.ri `_;yr _-:,; ~~: i ;u„ ti;; _ , ~; }~ Yw~, Y ~ ;,: ,. ,. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 3, 2008 Woodland Springs subdivision as a whole, from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Neighborhood. • This property was annexed (AZ-07-014, Ordinance #08-1349) in 2008 with a C-N zoning district. A Development Agreement (Instrument #108022886) was approved and recorded with the annexation that included provisions for development of the property. Specific provisions of the DA required CUP approval for a convenience store/fuel station use on the subject property and DES approval of the proposed structures and site. • A Preliminary Plat (PP-07-019) for Woodland Springs Subdivision was approved with the AZ and CPA applications. The PP consisted of 4 commercial building lots on 7.55 acres. • A Final Plat (FP-08-003) was approved in 2008 for the first phase of Woodland Springs subdivision consisting of 3 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 4.52 acres. • A Final Plat Modification (MFP-08-004) has been submitted to modify the landscape plan approved with the final plat for Woodland Springs Subdivision No. 1, as shown in Exhibit A.4; the hearing is scheduled for the July 8, 2008 City Council meeting. ~~ e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Main is to be installed with the Woodland Springs Subdivision. Services will need to be installed to the new purposed building. Location of water: Main is to be installed with the Woodland Subdivision. Services will need to be installed to the new purposed building. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: There are no existing trees on the site. Several existing trees were previously removed from the site and are being mitigated for in compliance with the requirements listed in UDC 11-3B-10, as shown on the landscape plan. 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There aze no waterways that currently run through the subject property. However, the Letup Canal is proposed to be relocated from the south side of McMillan Road to the north side of McMillan within the street buffer area on the subject property. See below for details on landscaping in this azea. 5. Hazards: No hazards aze known to exist on the site. 6. Existing Zoning: C-N 7. Lot Size: 1.42 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 4,377 square feet 2. Hours of Operation: 24 hours per day, 7 days a week g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 9 2. Pazking spaces provided: 26 (including 2 handicap stalls; not including spaces in fueling area) ^ Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 4 !N`r:: ,.~ -: ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 3, 2008 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 one parking space is required per S00 square feet of gross floor area in Per UDC 11-3C-6B , commercial districts; the proposed parking exceeds this requirement. h. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A minimum 35-foot wide buffer is required to be constructed along '~ ~- E. McMillan Road, an entryway corridor and minor arterial street. A minimum 25-foot wide . ~'~` buffer is required to be constructed along N. Locust Grove Road, a minor arterial street. Landscaping within the street buffers shall comply with the landscaping standards listed in %~- UDC 11-3B-7. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: NA (There are no residential uses that abut this site.) 3. Other landscaping standards: Parking lot landscaping is required in accordance with the `F standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. i. Required dimensional standards for the C-N zone, per UDC 11-2B-3: } _~,.~ r. z'., ~- ~; . , ~~~ DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS' C-N Front setback in feet 20 Rear setback in feet 25 Interior side setback in feet 0 Street landscape buffer in feet Local 10 Collector 20 Arterial 25 En a corridor 35 Interstate 50 Landscape buffer to residential uses in feet'"' 20 [see note below] Maximum buildin hei ht in feet 35 Maximum building size without design standard approval as set forth in 11-3A 3 ins uare feet 7,500 Parking requirements See Chapter 3 Article C. off-street parking and loading requirements Landsca in requirements See Cha ter 3 Article B. landscapin re uirements *All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way for the street classification as shown on the adopted Transportation Plan. **miriimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure. "**Where :the adjacent property is vacant, the Director shall determine the adjacent property desi nation based on the Com rehensive Plan designation. Note: Per UDC 11-4-3-20 (Specific Use Standards for Fuel Sales Facility) requires the total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection device to not exceed 20 feet. The proposed canopy height is 19 feet measured from finish grade to the top of the canopy, which complies with this requirement. j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access for this site is proposed from one off-site access point to/from N. Locust Grove Road and one off-site access point to/from E. McMillan Road across Lot 2, Block 1, of Woodland Springs Subdivision No. 1 via a blanket cross-access easement depicted on the final plat. No additional access points are proposed with this application and none are approved. A blanket cross-access easement is depicted on the fmal plat for all lots within the subdivision. Staff and ACRD are supportive of the proposed off-site access points to the site. Please see Staff's comments below in Section 10, for Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 5 ~;~ ~ :~. _ .:~ - ,~ ,. ,ir r ~~~ ~, .~~ ~`'~ ,ink` ,~~, ~~.. °':'a+ 2008 EPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JiJLY 3 , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF R a. ' more information. .~~^ 7. COMMENTS MEETING On June 13, 2008, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B 'F~v ~i below. , ; 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS '~'~' k' - ~ ~ ~~ s ~ The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Mixed Use - Neighborhood." In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, mixed use areas generally provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of the mixed use designation is to identify key areas which are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree " ' ~'= of design and use flexibility. Areas designated as "Mixed Use -Neighborhood" are allowed up to 10 acres of non-residential uses; up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential building area; and ~ - r~ residential densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Sample uses include: grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional offices, medicaUdental clinics, retaiUgift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, and public uses. Staff fords that the request generally conforms to this stated purpose and intent of the Mixed Use -Neighborhood designation within the Comprehensive Plan. ~~ Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to ~- ' c ' the proposed development (staff analysis below policy in italics): ~ ~~ • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of '' existing access points on arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action item 12) There are two access points to/from Woodland Springs Subdivision from adjacent arterial streets; one from N. Locust Grove Road and one from E. McMillan Road. The subject property is accessed via a blanket cross-access easement across Lot 2, Block 1 that is depicted on the final plat for all lots within the subdivision. ~. , ,, • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, ~ vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 4) ~.,,~t~, A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer was required along N. Locust Grove Road, a minor arterial street; and a 35 foot wide landscape buffer was required along E. McMillan Road, a minor arterial street and entryway corridor, with approval of the plat. Said buffer should be " .- landscaped in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and installed with the improvements for the subdivision. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably •~ ~: provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter ~ .. ;..; IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action item 6) This property is currently in the City and is able to be provided with City services. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." { ~ (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) ,: :~ ; ~ Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 6 :' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF NLY 3, 2008 ~•~ ~~ - ` The proposed convenience store and fuel sales facility is the only such business in the general vicinity. It is expected that a variety of commercial/office uses will develop on the F,:_ adjacent lots in Woodland Springs Subdivision. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal E_'~,',`: III, Objective D, Action item 5) ~_;~: Internal parking lot landscaping is proposed with this application and should be installed s' ~; and maintained in accordance with the applicable standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7 and I1- ~: , ~ Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible ~r~'`' with the existing and future surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any ` '- verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the ~_ applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE "`~~ a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-N zoning district. Retail stores, personal or professional services, healthcare or social services, and restaurants are all principal permitted uses in the C-N r:: - °'" district. Fuel sales facilities required CUP approval in the C-N zoning district. Additionally, there is specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-20 for fuel sales facilities that the applicant must ~F,,, comply with. iF '; ~,. %44: b. Purpose Statement of the Commercial Districts: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. The allowed uses in the C-N district are primarily small-scale convenience type uses. 10. ANALYSIS ., ~ :~ ,~ ::~, „~_;_L -. ~ a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the CUP request as proposed, with the following comments: CUP: The applicant submitted two site development plans (included as Exhibits A.2 & A3) for the property. The site plan labeled as "CUP Site Plan" shows the proposed off-site access from Locust Grove; the site plan labeled as "Architectural Site Plan," Sheet C-0.1 shows the proposed off-site access from McMillan. Both of the site plans depict a 4,377 square foot convenience store with an outdoor picnic area and 5 fueling islands. Per UDC 11-2B-2, retail uses are principal permitted and fuel sales facilities are a conditional use in the C-N district. However, the existing Development Agreement for Woodland Springs Subdivision specifically requires CUP approval for the proposed convenience store and fuel sales facility. Dimensional Standards: Per UDC 11-2B-3, there is a 20-foot front setback and 25-foot rear setback requirement in the C-N zoning district. There is not a required setback on interior sides. Where landscape buffers are required, buildings must be setback at least the width of the required buffer, regardless of the required setback. The maximum building height in the C-N district is 35 feet; the highest peak of the proposed convenience store structure is 28'7", which complies with this requirement. Additionally, per UDC 1 l -4-3-20, the maximum height for overhead canopies or weather protection devices is 20 Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 7 ~,~s ~ ti~s3~,~ `,~ M~~~..`. ,~. Y7Lth xx' } `~ ';'~ ~ { yd ~~ V ; 3- y r . 4 i71 ~ _ ~ { ~, ~ ~ `}.~ 1.]{,}~~ t i- -x 1 P L Y .Sip .T L ~T. [rte ,~~~ ~ a w Yom, ~«~ ~~ 'y: P ~ ~ s~ ~~ ~~ '~' tt p,]~~ ~J3 ~q` ~ ~ * ~ .v, l n ~ ~v ~ r ~,~ 7 t Y:. tF ,~'ksvu ?;.~ a~ _ n , G lh A T e ~ l,. } Jr, Y~ ~ ~~ 3 ~,;. f, v$~y'~~ r~ Ste. .,~yy~ ~y ~.1 N v ~~' Y 5 t ~~` ~ ~ ~.~ ~ a J ~ } x w~ S~Yr fii ~ yi ~~+:: s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 3, 2008 11 feet; the proposed fuel canopy is 19' which complies with this requirement. Fuel Sales Facility: Per UDC 11-4-3-20, there are Specific Use Standards that apply to the proposed fuel sales facility use of the property as follows: - When allowed as an accessory use, gasoline or diesel fuel sales facilities shall not occupy more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the subject property. The proposed fuel islands do not occupy more than 25% of the subject property. - The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection device shall not exceed twenty feet (20'). The proposed canopy height is 19 feet, which complies with this requirement. - Vehicle stacking lanes shall be available on the property but outside the fueling areas. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of- way by patrons. Such stacking lanes shall be separate from areas required for access and parking. The stacking lanes shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any abutting residential districts. The submitted site plan shows adequate stacking area on the site outside of the fueling areas. No residential uses or districts abut the site. - If the use is unattended, the standards in accord with Section 11-3A-11 of this Title shall also apply. Not applicable (the use is attended) Building Elevations: Building elevations for the proposed convenience store and fuel canopy were submitted with this application and are included in Exhibit A. Exterior materials for the convenience store are proposed to be EFIS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System - i.e. synthetic stucco) with stone veneer accents. The roof and awning are proposed to be metal. Building materials for the fuel canopy are proposed to be pre-finished metal trim with vinyl to match the convenience store. The fuel canopy columns are proposed to be clad with aluminum and match the color of the EIFS, and the bottoms will be accented with cultured stone veneer. Further, the fuel canopy is proposed to consist of materials that coincide with those proposed on the convenience store. The proposed building and fuel canopy shall be constructed in accordance with the elevations shown in Exhibit A. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed elevations with the conditions noted below under the Design Review section. Access: Access for this site is proposed from one off-site access point to/from N. Locust Grove Road and one off-site access point to/from E. McMillan Road across Lot 2, Block 1, of Woodland Springs Subdivision No.l via a blanket cross-access easement depicted on the final plat. No additional access points are proposed with this application and none are approved. Direct lot access to N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road is prohibited. A blanket cross-access easement is depicted on the fmal plat for all lots within the subdivision. Staff and ACRD are supportive of the proposed off-site access points to the site. Parlang: Per UDC 11-3C-6B, in commercial districts, one off-street parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the total square footage of structures on the site (4,377 s.f.), 9 parking stalls are required; 26 spaces are currently provided including 2 handicap stalls (parking under the fuel canopy is not included). Additionally, per UDC 11-3C-6G, one bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces, or portion thereof, in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Per this requirement, a minimum of 2 bicycle spaces are required to be provided on the site. Site Plan: Staff has reviewed the site plans included in Exhibit A submitted with this application. The following items should to be shown on a revised site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application: (Note: The scale on the plan labeled "Architectural Site plan " Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 8 ~, . r?~:, ~, ~c ~~`'~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JiJLY 3, 2008 ~~, 'kA„~; k!~ ~ ~1.~" ppears to be a little off,• please correct the scale so that it matches the dimensions depicted on the plan.) ~' ~ ~ Per UDC 11-3C-6G, provide a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces on the site in ;<:; compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. x,:;;:_ -~ • An internal pedestrian pathway is required to be constructed at the northeast corner of the ~: convenience store northeast across the drive aisle as shown in Exhibit A.7 (per the ~`~-' Develo went A Bement Said athwa shall be distin shed from vehicular driving €~:-' surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. ~, • Per UDC 11-3B-8C2a, landscape planters shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet and '`"'` shall not be less than 5 feet in any dimension, measure inside crabs. The planter along the :tip` ` north boundary of the site adjacent to parking and sidewalk is less than S feet in width; , ~' ~ revise plan accordingly to comply with this requirement. ' ~_ Landscaping: Staff has reviewed the landscape plan, included as Exhibit A.4, submitted with this ~> ~ ~' application. The following items should be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the ~!';' ,: Certificate of Zoning Compliance: (Note: The scale appears to be off a little; revise the p an to ~` coincide with the dimensions on the site plan per the requested modifications.) ~~=7 • Per UDC 11-3B-8C2a, landscape planters shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet and shall not be less than 5 feet in any dimension, measure inside curbs. The planter along the =° north boundary of the site adjacent to parking and sidewalk is less than S feet in width; -~ .~~ revise plan accordingly to comply with this requirement. ~~" • The three existing trees shown within the 30-foot wide irrigation easement shall be ~.. ~`~:_~ relocated on the site if the easement holder does not allow trees within the easement. ~ .~ • Provide street buffer landscaping within the buffers along Locust Grove Road and €` McMillan Road in accordance with the landscape plan approved with the final plat (prepared by Landmark Engmeermg & Planning, dated 1/30/08, stamped by Jed Wyatt on tK- - 4/24/08). In order to vary from the approved landscape plan, a final plat modification application shall be submitted for approval by City Council for an amendment to the ±" approved landscape plan. (The applicant has submitted a final plat modification ~ application to the City that is scheduled to be heard by City Council on 7/8/08.) x3 .~~. " Sidewalks: The architectural site plan depicts 5-foot wide sidewalks along N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road. Per UDC 11-3A-17C, detached sidewalks shall be required along all ~~ arterial streets. Staff recommends that minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks be constructed ~_ , ~ along both Locust Grove and McMillan Roads in compliance with the standards listed in UDC ~ ~ .,~,_, 11-3A-17. Note: ACFID is planning to construct the sidewalk along McMillan on the south side ~ y ,~, `;_ of the relocated Lemp Canal. ~ r ~ Internal Pedestrian Walkways: As a provision of the DA for this site, internal pedestrian ~, ~-:• walkways shall be constructed as shown on the concept plan attached in Exhibit A.7, approved .r~' :`' with the plat (shown in Exhibit C of the DA). The concept plan depicts a pathway at the northeast corner of the convenience store northeast across the drive aisle that is not shown ~` on the site plan; this pathway shall be shown on a revised site plan. ~~' Multi-Use Pathway: Per the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the City's multi-use pathway ~ y'•y system is not planned to cross this site. A portion of the pathway is planned along the south side ~.~`~} 'I of McMillan Road, but has not yet been constructed. ~'"` ' _ ' Outdoor Seating: An outdoor seating area is depicted on the site plan that consists of a couple of ~ _ _ - picnic tables covered by a trellis structure within a landscaped area to the north of the =r I ~1_ ~ ~, =h, Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 9 E~ ~~ ~ ~r 4 y~~ i. ,,fix ;~ `~" %~ ~ d_ ~ K 74~F~. .. ..:G}~f -~ 5 ~i:~ T~f Q .~ f ~ ~ ~' oY k~51..,.i ~i+ ,5~~ ,~ ~. ,a.g T ~t7 ~ ~~ '{t { t., 7 i11,~-tee-~ ! r t ^~. ~ ~ ~~ W { ~S„ M ~ ~,a.. R~ r~M {2 ' ~4~, ~ ~? key ~~"~ 4 ~, ~ ~'. 'it~l-'? .rl ~~ 9 y ~r~ } t 1 ~}~i 7 '. ~ ~~ L N ~ x x ~. +~d fi,o Z Y ri N x <' *F,' ti~ T{~ .S r pry _ s t ~ vL ~a x t n;~ ~ •C .. ~'~ r .'j j -~~: ,r,,t„~, , ~: #s :, ~ ~ .. J ~ `~ ,: ~ <~ ,.' b ~% ~~~` ~~T ,.~, r ",° ~° ,; ;: ~ i,; ,: tX ". ray .. ;;;~;: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 3, 2008 convenience store. This amenity was required as a provision of the DA. Staff is supportive of the proposed outdoor seating area. Fencing: An 8-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the southeast corner of the building to screen the outdoor service and equipment area, in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-12. Staff recommends this area be screened as proposed. Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation for the convenience store and fuel facility are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Staff does not object to the proposed hours of operation. However, the Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the proposed hours of operation will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: There are no ditches, laterals, or canals that currently traverse this site. However, a 30-foot wide Settler's irrigation easement is depicted on the site plan along the south property boundary where the Lemp Canal is proposed to be relocated by ACRD from the south side of McMillan Road. Per UDC 11-3A-6, all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, which intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Note: Because ACLID is relocating the Lemp Canal, a waiver is not required to be obtained by the applicant from the City Council if it is left uncovered; ACfID does not intend to cover it. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle- point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Certificate off Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted, prior to issuance of building permits, for the proposed convenience store and fuel facility. The site/landscape plan submitted with the CZC shall be revised to comply with the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this report and shall be submitted prior to establishment of the new use. All improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. DESIGN REVIEW: Per the Development Agreement, all structures on the site are subject to the design review standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C. This site is also subject to design standards because it is located adjacent to McMillan Road, an entryway corridor. The applicant has applied for Design Review approval of the proposed structures on the site with the subject CUP application. The applicant shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C as follows: 1. Architectural Character: a. Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. The facades of the c-store visible from McMillan & Locust Grove Roads have modulation, roof line recesses, and projections that meet this requirement. However, the facade of the fuel canopy does not comply with this requirement; the applicant shall revise the elevations to comply with this requirement, or relocate the canopy so it is not visible from a public street b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be clearly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or arcades Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 10 rte:;, ;_ s~ ,. ~~ ,r p ~r 17 ,~; .~ ,, 4 1 s, , -~, F. z. ,:T. '"t~ ~,~ _. _ r r~ F , .: ,~,,i,~.` ;: n: P „~~.. ~ r. ~~~~ ~ "_ n ~~~ _ b?~ w =~ _.' ; x`< ~-~', h v. ~ ~,r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 3, 2008 shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. The primary building entrance for the convenience store is defined by the architectural design of the building and an awning over the entrance. The windows and awnings shown on the west and south elevations exceed the required 30% of the facade. This requirement does is not applicable to the fuel canopy. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. The proposed roof design of the c-store incorporates two roof planes, two parapet heights, and cornices, which complies with this requirement. The roof line proposed for the fuel canopy does not comply with this requirement; the applicant shall revise the elevations to closer correspond with the design of the c-store roof line. d. Pattern variations: At least two (2) changes in one (1) or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and/ materials. The building design of the convenience store incorporates 2 different colors of EFIS (synthetic stucco) with stone veneer, which complies with this requirement. The building design of the fuel canopy incorporates pre-finished metal trim, aluminum cladding around columns, and vinyl with cultured stone accents. A mix of colors is proposed on the fuel canopy. The design of the c-store and fuel canopy complies with this requirement. e. 1blechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. An 8 foot tall fence is proposed to screen service equipment at the southeast corner of the building. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened by the parapet as required. No mechanical equipment is proposed on the roof of the fuel canopy. 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth- faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. Exterior building materials for the c-store are proposed to be two different colors of EFIS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System - i.e. synthetic stucco) with stone veneer accents. The roof and awning are proposed to be metal, which complies with this requirement. Building materials for the fuel canopy consist of pre- finished metal trim to match the roof/awning on the c-store, vinyl, and stone and aluminum clad columns., Several different colors are proposed on the canopy. Staff believes the colors and materials proposed for the c-store and fuel canopy comply with this requirement. 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other structures, landscaping and/or berms. The parking shown on the site plan complies with this requirement. (This requirement does is not applicable to the fuel canopy.) 4. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian wallcway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP 11 Page ~,: :-y 'z ~ ~. . ~;, :: ~ 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 3, 2008 machines, or temporary structures. An 8 foot wide walkway is proposed from the sidewalk along Locust Grove Road to the sidewalk leading to the main entrance of the convenience store. An 8 foot wide walkway is not required (per the DA) from the sidewalk along McMillan to the main building entrance because ACFID proposes to not cover the Lemp Canal. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. The internal pedestrian walkway that is proposed from Locust Grove Road to the sidewalk leading to the main building entrance should be constructed of decorative stamped concrete, as proposed. The pathway required from the sidewalk along McMillan Road to the main building entrance shall also be constructed of stamped concrete (unless the Lemp Canal remains open, in which case a pathway is not required). (This requirement does is not applicable to the fuel canopy.) c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one-hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. NA (This requirement does is not applicable to the fuel canopy.) d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. The elevations show an awning over the main building entrance, which complies with this requirement. (This requirement does is not applicable to the fuel canopy.) b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-016 for a convenience store and fuel sales facility, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 3, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on July 3, and 17, 2008 At the public hearins on July 17. 2008 thev moved to approve the subject CUP request. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. CUP Site Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 4/9/08) 3. Architectural Site Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 1/29/08) 4. Landscape Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 1/29/08, labeled as Sheet L1.0) 5. Building Elevations 6. Fuel Canopy Elevation 7. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with the Preliminary Plat B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department Maverik Locust Grove-McMillan CUP Page 12 7r'~~:`_ i~"; i~::.. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINZr DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 2. Site Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 4/9/08, labeled as Sheet CUP Site Plan) ~': s ,~ ,. !~ ,~m ,.'~ t;,,;, r.~; t:,:-; -_ _ . . ~; _~ ';; ,~,I '~.' O G:iE ~'..+.i 6E`(CB.IL FOi6 9IILDATA ~ ~.a rmtaG~ Sam .Jnur. Putlne~+'~'am~ ~~~~~i ~ ~ ~..~u.r Tdaltatl.ylaaifim irmm - - - :..ma a.~ n _ .~ ~~ ~~~n .~~, o ~:~:o. -~ ~ .~y ~~ - -.~ ~ ~a r~~~ m 0 0 0 ~~~.~ ~~ ® .~. ~~ Exhibit A Page 1 ~.,~, ~~.,,~ W~~+Yn~ a ~.s N C (zB 888 J} IE9A1, lea serefteceat6re 3 Ycl®to ~ ~>m c.u.p. srrs pwv x v r ~`. ' ~ a: , l .:..... .... .. .. , ~~ ,~ ? r ~ ~U IS f4~~ ~~ }S :3-;~ `> ~ r r +' ~s ~. i ~~'.1j ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~x `,y x~'S ~ ftfl ty h ~' .X `ST'-i ~ ~{ .- w~ x ti'. i ~'.;raA ,~' ~,' P ~ ~: ~ a o -n .:.::.i ~uQ°v~eo 1 ! ~$ OkTLRS ca eeor r» O ~.; m~~.~ i ~~ ~i81~ ~~ Q r~re c~•. rr .vim ~ __~~gg G nCi~ y, i L !t t, ~ ~~ _._~ F,AS7' fficffiIId,AN RO RBEHIfEG1981LL BRE FILM C-9.1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~ DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 3. Architectural Site Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 1/29/08) d ~ru °r`~ bie~um° i c ' y ~ '"G°"s°°e~' ~~.....~~ ~'~4 ~ ~~ ~~ .. , y + flies ~ffi ~ u ~~wae 8eu LOC~OWY! ~~.~yw ,~-- 868IcYl~m 6md •~~ ®IEM2 Deer, L!{®I ~o ® uusn~mo Exhibit A Page 1 '1 r~ ¢ ~' ` '. { ]~-~ 1..,,. •: rc, ^i }.< CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 4. Landscape Plan (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 1/29/08, labeled as Sheet L1.0} I i 1 ,~, ~ ! j~ k_ ~ . i _ -~ . I ~4 1~ ' WOfYIN l ,-qi i~ I' l .p? p - y 1 i- ~.1i S "- A ~ . ~ > CI ~ti ..1. ~ `' 6x ' 0. ~ ~ .. ~~ `::~.~LL~ ~~~~+M1 r' 7~1"~, ~- ,~ ~ t4~4",At,'n r+ f won ~. ~~~ t-.'~q r~ ~ ;b. .4.m ~~~ o . ' ~. ~ ~# IST N 1 _, q ~ 9~~ a. 9 k ..e. t.~ ___ ~ _- --__ - ._-._ ~ -_ _-_ _ ef f~~ ~ ~~ EAST licRfILLAN ROAD ~ . l ~~-~ ~~ LFB RIA9 _- ~ 8II8 HOYA r.me me ~ u b ~~c~ry ioc s we~ pt!.GE eta rd478 Op ~78'Ga o-ro e. t49 GCR'.81 LGVIIP/<P8 ast7 60. r'LtF! Y71' I ~ q~q.-. ~ 49 eLREB 6P~Y t ~` ~ GI!IDrvu AC@L Jb1r 0P p - Irma Fihmo ~ncnl t1 Fn A~J ~m~mA Tm. Rm~NrtOCt _cmL " 118~:G.' AF~4~ Yl OtO e i Dt f6r691 ,e - ~' °~' ~ °~o., ... R t-.~.~ ~~va" _ °' ~ ~~ rapt I r'~i' y~ auc ~., . 1 (~B J[Ll 1n u ~('A 1!: N],Eft ~6T8 ~liNH6iL NU*DG 6a, - 9 M1 ~ T; .r l q ~ C 5 a t pl S-~..~ .. .... - n L}- ~ Pt~l l ~ , A r~ • i1 F ~°P ° e~' ~ s I T H 0 + ^ ,+ t ^*~ de*Sid1L• L°J a r+w i+ e {7 L : ,~.Tt1 ~, - il ' i~' - 1 ~ ~p "^' ' I 1 " . FI 1 a5 I t - n, i S 1 She 6-f +~'~ Y' Yam t ra T or^ d ^i" ~^I . ~ 9"~ (~ ~ ~ ®QIG6C51 &7!e ~`~'~®~ LHLH>V ND5'HO ~oTll~s I$Qm~ ®~' -a~1 Ir ;.r Ln 11: 0 .. I r. w - •~'~~ OaR FRY. /~ 'E3 ~-- s.-~ ~~ . n __-__ f i_' sew:..a. - -:'~~. R~ L~~ Exhibit A Page 1 x ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ,~ r~4 ~~ ~1 ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ .. ti n ~ ~.; m~~ FLF '+4a ~~ `~~ ~y h S ~1%~~~ ~ LT~Z w t 5 . .,~ u.,V::, t `M ih'~` ..i ~ t~ 4 "t ~~ Sri t ~~ js lei '._~' ., , ik:,. ~ ~ 5~1;~~ y ~ ~~ ~ r j-~~ ku i., ~ ~~: tifr~ ~~' r~ i"~ ~,~.i _. ,. _ - sti... ,,,,.,~~ , ~ ~;y t'+° ~ ltC;'" `r ~a A ~~r t~ - ~.. s:Y ~~~ ~ ~t" ~, ~~•• S.' VWi I~'~S it ~t~~~,yds auk^,, r k~. Y ~ ";: ~` :,'; fir S'J ~~ h __ ~ ~'=~. aF -. l ~' ix , "r. 4 h ~~`x~ ~, 5 _' ~j r';` k -_ -:4' ;R, , _. w> <t tidC ;~ _~`;! x ~: sx:_ .ic I i ,, pi}.';F _..i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF NLY 3, 2008 5. Building Elevations (prepared by Dixon + Associates, dated 1/25/08, labeled as Sheets A-2.1 and A-2.2) ~~ ~~'~ a~ t 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ _ t 1, - - ., ~ , `,~ ` ~~ ,,.-~ .a-. - A FWiFl6Piial ..,~, ~~ n~~ ~~. al®Ef179~ar strow~u. m~u,m aw a ~., ~ ~emert®~a~ 8 '!Y'' ^ ~~. rttra... ~~ 4 w1a8Y1I10! me. mae~n wn ,maw ~ °.~ o~vuw ~~r~u Exhibit A Page I ~ ~.w ,. ~~ NT 1 {.';j 4 ~"~' f; f ~4liY ~~-~a ~~ l '~! r. 1 ~~. ,i y~', Y _ 1: ~` ,z#~'N ~, ~~ ~.q: u , ;,~,,. i'i~ wf K~' X +~ ~ ~' w ~ r~ ~' ; '+ ~* ~r r 3t: ~ ~ ~~~. .', g, ... 4 A -., 3yN .~ ... eY ~ "~ ~ f 'P,x LY. VM .. +gr' 1 1 ~~~ ~ t' L M1; ~1 i r ` ~ ` t ~" '":. rt r ~_: _- ,' ~i~: -~;; ~, r~°.._ .:,; ::;,~~', .* , '< !arc ``'A~-_ `~ t ~i ~~~ ~~~~ i; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 ~,,~G~ ~ __ -'-- a ilOR ELflGi10l 0 ~l J _~ ~: ~~ I,~ atroamoea -~ ~ ~ ~ I I ®cer~n~ne~urme ~ ncaew A-zt ~, r ~ h~~ :Sa - <l ~C~si ~;r,'y~; ~x:;z .1r k~`r, ~r~i ~~'~ I H `. it t , .~ i }}a ~,;~f } ?3 `~~ ~~ ~'.~ lr ., ~ t i O o ~. O O O ~_ ~ _ - ~~~» ono 9 ,t ---tFi(----- - --~-----__- ~ -I =-~-°` - 1~ ~ I ~ II l _ ~~o e --- ~ -- ~G7~. p ill ElE9pTWi ~.v- 0 O 00 ~ -~-.m- ' ~ -~ ~,~_"` F ,~..- - ~ ~~ '~ _~_ ~m ems r ~s~.. ~ 'G f10®fID Yom, li ®Gmollmtl@ee 6L~/cffiHW ~~~~ ~ rom mm ~ ~_~. .c. Bml BE9li1{~ '~ .m _ II~ Zp _---~ Q~ corm FH0Yi74ll ~a~ RAY® ~ ~~ A-03 Exhibit A Page I ~~; , „, ,a j3 °~ p c~ xy 1 . ~ ~ ` F ~^ ' •a :y;; FlY~ T~'~r 1K ~C ~ ~ ~+ ~%t Y Y y f ? ~iu121 K x j '~ I # :Z ~~_ ~~'wm-1 a ~~ L J , ~ ~ z t r 1 gg ts-u ,y9'~ Bt '~'f_ r f ~ r ~ .N2 x~ "Y r,~~F1 ~ey~ r~ ~., ~ ~+ r~ s ;, 3 •4y i t _ ~_ ~ ' M', l~Y t ~N 1+y> ~ Fj Y,~~' ka x ~: eyt ` r ` ~~ `'iy ~ ~ t;} kl ~ ~~ .~~ ~~ ..z~~ ~ : a ,~' ~ ` T s*~krfY vow } ~*. R )9'r'~' Y. WTY 1 ~~ U'~~~` K;~y^ r G `~ ~ ~" t -.~~ «3 r ^K -tiY ~~.~~ _ _. i.1~ - .; r.., t vx _ ,'-. ~;'~: err tr ~'.. ~ . .; ;i t' __. t. ~, ,.; ;~,r,:: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 6. Fuel Canopy Section/Elevation m. ~~Y.1: ~.~ria °n ~i m Fuel uuuen~ew B CiYGPT HBBTtl EtEYATBlY ~•~+~+•~ " ru sa. o . e~ 6EFEEEBCED if0iE8: ~YµZ4' B$BE84! BEE 2IC~.S F08 TTPICNL6R6DiTP1AB Om~^~"~"°0® ~ p~.~...a.~ ~ET®! COFTBACfQB BEBP08IBB1E P09 ® p.m..A.m.~ 0~.'~y,°a.°'°` TBEBAtdABDB, *~ O~®.m+~.~...o, BODT19B1 Tier p~s~~m® 61B4EBA,6a. 0&®BIILLPBDi1DE AIID pEfTAtt ~~,, ~' BBcwml~rad@ms Be.6 ®e®ae BvTB EBEEflN11t6E184. p~.m.va.~ YEBBIW.N ~tT ~ y' ~ wm ~ Oe~ e~ mr. p.~.~ro® ®~ .mss O~+ n+~ aarm ar. m caxa~r BEE neaBneaB BpgTpg pgpp~~~ ELEYAi1D88 iac. arBnBTaa vt~ EBmeEEBteo a cuovT ~ E~EVUnna TBS rdBDP1 cEruu A~2.9 Exhibit A Page I 'Pw't',..; '. ® 'C7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 3, 2008 7. Conceptual Site Plan Approved with the Preliminary Plat ~~ -~ S'.~i ~~ ~. c. ~~ n w w i :~ .t ~_ _ Exhibit B Page 2 2008 DIAN PLANNING~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~DATE OF JULY 3 , OF MERI CITY .';< ~-i B. Conditions of Approval -w ~ 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~.; ,~ 1.1 The site plans, attached as Exhibits A.2 and A.3, are approved, with the conditions listed herein. 'The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval associated with this site (AZ-07-014 and Development Agreement Instrument No. 108022886, PP-07-019, and FP-08- 003). 'The applicant shall revise the site plan(s) as follows: :~;~~' a. The scale on the plan labeled "Architectural Site plan" appears to be a little off; please correct h~_; ~: the scale so that it matches the dimensions depicted on the plan. _~= b. Per UDC 11-3C-6G, provide a minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces on the site in ~~`` ~~ compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. c. Per UDC 11-3B-8C2a, landscape planters shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet and shall not be less than 5 feet in any dimension, measure inside curbs. The planter along the north boundary of the site adjacent to parking and sidewalk is less than S feet in width; revise i .t plan accordingly to comply with this requirement. . . d. An internal pedestrian pathway is required to be constructed at the northeast corner of the convenience store northeast across the drive aisle as shown in Exhibit A.7 (per the r >;r,t:``~ Development Agreement). Said pathway shall be distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. 1.2 The landscape plan, attached as Exhibit A.4, is approved with the following modifications: a. Per UDC 11-3B-8C2a, landscape planters shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet and shall not be less than 5 feet in any dimension, measure inside curbs. The planter along the ~~ north boundary of the site adjacent to parking and sidewalk is less than S feet in width; revise plan accordingly to comply with this requirement. ~~ ~ ~ b. The three existing trees shown within the 30-foot wide irrigation easement shall be relocated on the site if the easement holder does not allow trees within the easement. c. Provide street buffer landscaping within the buffers along Locust Grove Road and McMillan Road in accordance with the landscape plan approved with the final plat (prepared by Landmark Engineering & Planning, dated 1/30/08, stamped by Jed Wyatt on 4/24/08). In ~ order to vary from the approved landscape plan, a final plat modification application shall be . ....~- .:,v.., --. ~ submitted for approval by City Council for an amendment to the approved landscape plan. -"" (The applicant has submitted a final plat modification application to the City that is ~' '= ~ scheduled to be heard by City Council on 7/8/08.) - 1.3 The applicant shall comply with the applicable Specific Use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-20 for fuel sales facilities as follows: a. The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection device shall not exceed 20 feet (proposed at 19 feet). }" ~~ ',~~; b. Vehicle stacking lanes shall be available on the property but outside the fueling areas, as proposed. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public ~' ~ ~~ right-of--way by patrons (as determined by ACHD). Such stacking lanes shall be separate - from areas required for access and parking. - s 1.4 Building elevations for the convenience store shall comply with the elevations shown in Exhibit A.S. The building elevations for the fuel canopy shall be revised per the conditions noted in #1.7 , below. _ ~~, ::a .< ~. ;Kx~; Exhibit B Page 3 ~:., ,t; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 3, 2008 1.5 Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk shall be constructed along both Locust Grove and McMillan Roads in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. 1.6 An 8-foot tall solid vinyl fence shall be constructed around the outdoor service and equipment area at the southeast corner of the building as proposed, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-12 for outdoor equipment and service areas. 1.7 The applicant's request for Design Review (DES-08-020) approval of the proposed structures and site is approved with the following modifications to the fuel canopy elevations: a. Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. Revise the fuel canopy elevations to comply with this requirement. b. Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying parapet heights; and e) cornices. Roof design of the fuel canopy shall be revised to more closely coincide with the convenience store roof line. 1.8 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application with revised plans that comply with the site plan, building elevations, and conditions of approval listed herein, prior to issuance of building permits. 1.9 Direct lot access to N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road is prohibited. The fmal plat, which notes that all lots within the subdivision are subject to a blanket cross-access easement for ingress/egress and parking, shall be recorded prior to occupancy of the proposed structure. Or, a separate blanket cross-access agreement for ingress/egress and parking shall be recorded for all lots within the subdivision. 1.10 Unless modified by the Commission, business hours of operation are not limited for this use on this site. 1.11 A car wash facility shall not be allowed on this site, per the Development Agreement. 1.12 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.13 No new signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance (UDC 11-3D). 1.14 The Applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. 1 15 The hours of operation of the convenience store and fuel sales facility shall be restricted to the hours between 6 am and 11 pm, 7 days a week. 1 16 A type 1 vapor recovery system shall be installed at the fuel facility. 1 17 The applicant shall work with ACRD to obtain a license agreement to install landscaping and irrigation sprinklers on the property south of the detached sidewalk along McMillan Road to the edge of the future back of the curb Applicant shall also be responsible for maintaining this area. Exhibit B Page 4 ~' . ^ ~~;:: ~`- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINGARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JiJLY 3, 2008 1 18 The apulicant shall submit a road trust to Ada County Highway District for the cost of a minimum five foot wide detached sidewalk along McMillan Road once that road has redeveloued. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer Main is to be installed with the Woodland Springs Subdivision. Services will need to be installed to the new building at the developer's expense. 2.2 Water Main is to be installed with the woodland Springs Subdivision. Services will need to be installed to the new building at the developer's expense. 2.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. 2.4 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.5 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.6 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.7 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.8 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.9 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.10 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material 2.11 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. Exhibit B Page 5 ~:~ °~ .: ~ -; ~;. ~ ., ~. ,~~ . CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D® TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINSATE OF JULY 3, 2008 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18" above finished grade to the center of the 4 %Z" outlets. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.7 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants 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). 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 No comments were submitted by SSC for this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ACHD submitted a letter to the City stating that this application is subject to the conditions of appYOVaI of Woodland Sprzngs Subdivision as follows: 7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 7.1.1 Dedicate 41-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of McMillan Road abutting the parcel. The right-of--way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the Exhibit B Page 6 kb ~ - F ~' F Y ~`-1~9. tx ~f ~.'~ ~ i "3 1.}'y. try ,,.~ ~ t ~i ~,-.e ~,yGG~ ~1, ':;.. d"~ r ~~ _ nnw,.a' - 1 ~ f h "f t r ...' y~ k37~!, ~ ~ ~' t £, "+ f'r ~ `~ '~`h 9 f. i ~,„~~ ~+ ~ -5 s-_ if a ~~ ~ - _ f :~~ . 1 i~l~r~ ~ WY: ~~ - r'91 i r 5-, H 'F ~! ' ~}'. . 7 <;S$. ti '~ +r,~ ~.'~' .~+ .r r aHkY - ~~~Gr. ~ [ *'y~ Fr~ f ^:k ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s '4~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ 4 j `~ J~ ~ ~ _ r h~ . Nr k~ r$,= C ~. r ^'- r ~. ~~~~k+ ~ r i3~ 'mss i~~ I~ r ,_ ~, .~+e~a~ ~LT~ "' `-= CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN(Ti DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 ~~ ~~F applicant prior to scheduling the fmal plat for signature by the ACRD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 '=' business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The District will purchase the right-of--way which is in addition to existing right-of--way from available Corridor Preservation Funds. 7.1.2 Provide the District with a 30-foot canal easement, as proposed for the future relocation of the ~~ Lemp Canal to the north side of McMillan Road abutting the entire site. f a .k~ , 7.1.3 Provide the District with a road trust in the amount of $11,375 for the future construction of the sidewalk abutting the site on McMillan Road with the District's intersection improvement project. ~` 7.1.4 Dedicate 35-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Locust Grove Road abutting the parcel. The right-of--way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the '# ~: applicant prior to scheduling the fmal plat for signature by the ACRD Commission or prior to '° '"* issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 ~~¢~. .,, business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The District will purchase the right-of--way which is in addition to existing right-of--way from available Comdor Preservation Funds. 7.1.5 Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk a minimum of 28-feet from the centerline of the Locust Grove Road abutting the site. Provide an easement for any segment of the sidewalk located outside of the right-of--way. t~: 7.1.6. Complete Beethoven Avenue as a 36-foot street section (measured back of existing curb to back ' - of new curb) and construct curb, gutter and 5-foot attached concrete sidewallc within 50-feet of ' ~ ' `~ :~ right-of--way. 7.1.7 Construct one full access driveway to intersect Locust Grove Road approximately 360-feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. The driveway is restricted to a maximum width of 36-feet. -' { 7.1.8 Construct one full access driveway to intersect Beethoven Avenue approximately 74-feet north of McMillan Road, as proposed. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site ' beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii ,~ ~. = - abutting the existing roadway edge. The driveway is restricted to a maximum width of 36-feet. 7.1.9 Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to ' ~~ McMillan Road and Locust Grove Road shall be noted on the fmal plat. 7.1.10 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. .; : ; 7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval ~ ~ ?~~ 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. f ` 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACl-ID roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. s:. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the `~~ construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file - ~ number) for details. ~,~ ~, -.: Exhibit B Page 7 ~, 4'F '~:2 r ~. '' 'k _ ~ e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 -: r ~ 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. ~' 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing n.o°r ":"_ by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the • ~~ State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit ~ ~: (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. ~ 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. ~~ }~ 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The `''' applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The -~~ applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days ~ ' y:x~ prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized ' ~ representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to "` obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. ~ °~~'~~; " 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. ~., ~- ~::;' }~ ~* . ;: ~'.~ "6" p "._ J .'~/X --'~':-~ ~~ ~- ` ~ Exhibit C Page 2 ,F,,:,~ ~~ e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the existing site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and comply with the dimensional and development regulations of the C-N zoning district. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staffs analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Mixed Use -Neighborhood. The property is currently zoned C-N, which complies with this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission fords that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the Development Agreement and previous conditions of approval for this site, the operation of the proposed 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 fords that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission fords that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public facilities and services. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the Applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Exhibit C Page 3 ;~~` ~::.., .~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 3, 2008 The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, the Commission does z -r ~~ not believe that the amount generated by the proposed new use of the property will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. ~= The Commission fmds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in ;~ the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. y„ - ~~~ ~'_ _:,t .~Y K ,~ "1 'aS 1L+~~HS' ^~i .~ f: }~ r, y5 ~f _ Z ~r >~:~,~: Exhibit C Page 4 ,'~. ~~,: : ; - ;~~ -. , _ -. 4 ,;~ ~. ~M~; s ~~ Tt .,1 } _ . ~,; .~~ :fit ~ul~ ~ r.' 'rt; >, S" \~ :. 1, ~ ~ l '= YP :; ;, ~;,. ~;: ~~ ~ , .:'~ ~`~ - -_~~ t,: • e August 4, 2008 CUP 08-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Michelle Hutchings ITEM NO. 3~~ REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for ApprovalTransfer of a CUP (CUP 04-029) to continue operating a daycare center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool - 1258 E. Cougar 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: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shop become property of the City o4 Meridian. air ... ~w~;;:, q:~, ~,. !~;-,. f~?: COMMENTS See Attached Findings _d. ..~. f CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ J; ~ p ~ ,,~4. ~~ ~ ~0 ~ ~°" ~ ~ i FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF f~ ~~; ~ ~~ LAW AND ' ~, ~, ~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit to continue operating a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district for Harmony Preschool, by Michelle Hutchings. Case No(s). CUP-08-014 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 17, 2008 (Findings on August 7, 2008 agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-014 Page 1 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department; the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site/Landscape Plan and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planzung & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Site/Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site/Landscape Plan dated May 28, 2008, is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-014 Page 2 '~~5,;- 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 July 17, 2008 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-014 Page 3 e .~h By action o the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED~~G~ COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED i>~, COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED CHAIRMAN DAV MOE \\`~{~,,~~ ~ri~ trii~rq~ psss Attest: `~,.~~.,~~~> Qf ~f~r~ig~'r.~. r ~ '-, Tara Green, Deputy city rlk a~ `~,, ,~ \ ., ~~, ~,. Copy served upon Appliczl~,~~rr/„ ~~ `~~„~ `bepartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Dated: U ~ ~ l ~~ By: rty Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-014 Page 4 .~{1'_ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~TE OF JULY 17, 2008 ,: _-,-; <~~ ' STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 17, 2008 E IDIAN~=-- TO: Planning & Zoning Commission B ®A H O FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner ' 208-884-5533 :~;: SUBJECT: Harmony Preschool • CUP-08-014 ~`~ Conditional Use Permit to continue operating a Daycare Center from an existing home in an R-8 zoning district. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST "`' The a hcant Michelle Hutchin s is re uestin Conditional Use Permit CUP a royal to continue operating a preschool for up to 25 children in an R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district. The }~ preschool is currently operating from an existing 1,350 square foot home within the Cougar Creek ~* ~ '~~~~ Subdivision. The subject site was approved for adaycare/preschool in 2004 (CUP 04-029). UDC 11-SB- ' 6G requires a modification to the original approval with a change of ownership. The applicant is in the process of purchasing the facility and wants to continue operating the preschool from the site. If the the site will have to conform to the daycare standazds in UDC 11-4-3-9. The subject CUP is approved , subject site is located at 1258 E. Cougar Creek Drive in Section 6, T3N R1E. ":N~f 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION 7 ?-'~ The subject application (CUP-08-014) was submitted to the Planning Department for review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the CUP application. Staff is recommending that the CUP application be approved with the conditions listed in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17, 2008. At the ublic hearin the Commission moved to a rove CUP-08-014. :,..',; a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin,:: ~`-~ ~_~ i. In favor Michelle Hutchins Conndra Steeves Cameron Hutchins, David Kline neutral ` ~~ ? ``` -~ ii. In opposition: David and Wynn Wildeman iii. Commenting. None iv. Written testimony Becky Skinner Jeffrey Hessing, Anthony and Dale Lyle, Erin Garrazd, Cynthia Robertson, Tara Watson v. Staff presenting application: Bill Pazsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Fencing alon~the northern property boundary. ~, ? y;~~ c. Kev Commission Chanc=es to Staff Recommendation: i. Modify condition 1 1 to require hed eg s along the northern Property boundary instead of removing the existing chain link fence. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS ~. Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- ~` ~ ' PAGE 1 Harmony Preschool CUP-08-014 i. t'~'~ rr +;+;~; ;- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 08-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-08- 014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the condition use request, and what the applicant could do to gain your approval in the future.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-08-014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1258 E. Cougar Creek Drive; Section 6, T3N R1E b. Owner: Conndra Steeves 7035 N. Linder Road Meridian, ID 83646 c. Applicant: Michelle Hutchings 5706 N. Plumcreek Avenue Boise, ID 83713 d. Present Zoning: R-8 e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential f. Description of Applicant's Request: "Request to transfer Conditional Use Permit for Conndra Steeves Day Care Center (CUP-04-029) to continue operating as Harmony Preschool. The facility's usage as a preschool would stay exactly the same, but Michelle Hutchings would take ownership of the facility. The property would not be altered in any way and no modifications to the conditions of approval are requested with this application." 1. Date of CUP site/landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): May 28, 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 UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: June 30, 2008 and July 14, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission) c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 20, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission) d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 7, 2008 (Planning and Zoning Commission) Hannony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 2 ~:~~,::; ii~~:.. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing home (used only as a business), which was approved for a daycare, on the site that will be continue to be used as a Daycare Facility. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The existing structure on the site is part of the Cougar Creek Subdivision. The business has operated from this site since 2004. The property is surrounded by single family residential homes. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single Family Residential; zoned R-8 2. East: Single Family Residential; zoned R-8 3. South: Single Family Residential; zoned R-8 4. West: Single Family Residential; zoned R-8 d. History of Previous Actions: In 2004, a conditional use was granted for a daycare to operate from the subject site. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This site is currently served Location of water: This site is currently served. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: Existing landscaping to remain on the property. 3. Flood plain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: South Slough transverse along the north side of the property. 5. Hazards: As mentioned earlier the South Slough transverses along the north side of the property boundary however, there is a 6-foot chain link fence constructed with the subdivision. Staff has conditioned the applicant replace the fencing with anon- scalable fence in accordance with UDC 11-4-3-9. (See Analysis in Section 10 below) 6. Existing Zoning: R-8 7. Size of Property: 0.29 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 1,350 square feet 2. Building height: 20 feet g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 3 2. Parking spaces proposed: 6 3. Compact spaces proposed: 2 4. Off-site parking proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the proposed project will be provided via a driveway to/from E. Cougar Creek Drive which connects to Locust Grove Road. Harmony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 3 ®!zr,~ r ~~'~' }" ~€ ': ':'.1.':,1'4• ~.; :~: ~~~~`~` ';~~.~: y_(. ~ s ~; ~z :'~; f- `~: -- ^~ . 4~;~ fi s ; ~° ~~; ; ~r;, 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DESPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JiJLY 17, 2008 7. COMMENTS MEETING On June 27, 2008 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department and Meridian Public Works Department. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval attached in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwelling units per acre (see Page 99 of the Comprehensive Plan.). Staff fords the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service has been extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The lands are serviced by the Meridian Fire Department (MFD). • The lands are 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 (ACI-ID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. 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. • "Require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties." (Chapter VII, Goal 4, Objective C, Action 2) The daycare business has been operating from this site since 2004. At that time, alternative compliance was approved for the subject site that required the landscaping be consistent and compatible with the residential neighborhood. Staff believes alternative compliance approval for the landscaping on the site allows the use to be more compatible with the surrounding residential homes. • Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (Chapter VII, Goal IV) Staff believes that the proposed use should be compatible with existing uses in the area and provide a necessary service in the surrounding area. Harmony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 4 u;» ~,~z CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 Staff believes that the proposed preschool is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the R-8 zoning district. Day care centers are a conditional use in the R- 8zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. c. General Standards: There are several daycare standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.9. Analysis of these specific use standards are provided in Section 10 below. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation CUP APPLICATION: The applicant is proposing to continue operating the daycare from the existing 1,350 square foot home. The subject site was approved as the Conndra Steeves Daycare (CUP-04-029) in 2004. The original CUP limits the business to 25 children. Currently, the applicant is in the process of purchasing the facility and wants to continue operating the daycare from the site as approved in 2004. UDC 11-SB-6G requires a modification to the original approval with a change of ownership. If the subject CUP is approved, the site will have to conform to the daycare standards in UDC 11-4-3-9. UDC 11-4-3.91ists the following standards for all Day Care Facilities (Staff analysis in italics): 1. In determining the type of day care facility, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the number of children at the facility at one time, is the determining factor. The operator's children are excluded from the number. The existing CUP approved for the site allows up to ZS children. The applicant is not requesting this requirement to change with this application. 2. On-site vehicle pickup, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pickup of clients. The existing structure is a converted single family residential home within Cougar Creek Subdivision. The drop off area/parking consists of a 27 foot by 33 foot driveway constructed with the home that can provide three parking stalls for clients of the business. The parking adjacent to the east side of the garage (parking stall # 3 on the submitted site/landscape plan) is a perms bark planting area that would not adequately provide additional parking for site and should not count towards parking for the facility. The existing attached two car garage should function as employee parking for the site. Based on staff s findings, the site can accommodate a total S parking stalls on the site (2 compact stalls and 3 standard stalls) (NOTE: the site still complies with the minimum parking requirements of the UDC). Staff has concerns with the lack of parking for the site but in addition to the on site parking there is on-street parking clients may use that off-set the ;;r ~~ F~ ''Q tire- A;;.:... Hannony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 5 l~"d "- 2008 FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17 , ENT STAFF REPORT CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTM lack of parking for the site. The Commission should determine if the proposed parking is ~f ~ adequate for the business. All parents/guardians should be required to park go in to pick-up and drop-off the =~~ children. The proposed parking lot is designed in accordance with the City s current standards for parking lot dimensions. `?_ 3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval. ~j`"' Staff recommends that the Commission allow the business to continue to operate with up to ~:~~ 25 children, as previously approved with CUP-04-029. Operating hours for the business is ~ _ proposed from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Staff is supportive of the applicant's request (see standard S below for more analysis). ., 4. The applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a Basic Day Care License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare -Family and Children's Services Division. Staff is including this condition in Exhibit B. '~''' S. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be ~. r; between 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified- through approval of a Conditional Use Permit. k'~ The applicant is proposing to operate the business from 9:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m Monday through Friday and does not conflict with this standard. Staff is recommending the hours of operation be extended from 8:00 a.m. to S: 00 p.m. to allow flexibility for those parents who '`''~ ; may need the drop their children off early or cannot make it by 3: 00 p. m to pick them up. Additional standards for day care facilities that serve children: . . ; t ~~~ 1. -All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by IiLnimum six-foot (6') non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting. properties. The ~: fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the Building Code in accord with Title 10 of the Meridian City Municipal Code. Currently, the site is enclosed with 6-foot perimeter fencing. However a portion of the "` ~ encin alon the northern roe bounds as (r oot chain link encin and has the f g f f g g P P rh' ry ~ . . . potential to be a scalable fence. Therefore staff is recommending the applicant replace that ~'~ portion of the fencing with anon-scalable type fence (i.e. cedar, vinyl or wrought iron) to ` comply with this requirement of the UDC. ~" ~ `` ' Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within `~ s ~ any required yard. On the submitted site/landscape plan, the applicant has referenced outdoor equipment at 7.5 feet in height which appears to be within the required S foot side setback; however it does not appear to encroach into the 12 foot rear yard setbacl~ The applicant should verify the play equipment is outside of the side yard setback. Said equipment should be relocated ~;~~~ is five feet from the western property line to conform to this requirement of the UDC. „~ .z Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used ~, i after dusk. Staff is including this condition in Exhibit B. 5ite/Landscape Plan: The applicant has submitted asite/landscape plan with this CUP 1< ;!°: application. Currently the site is developed with a 27-foot by 33-foot parking pad in front of the I ., garage. With the previous approval the site was to maintain its residential character and maintain _',t compatibility with the surrounding homes in the area. Therefore the buffers and additional ,.~ Harmony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 6 ~,,.._ k ~ 1~tipe _ ~'~V ,~' ''?~ X5,4 : ti.,i''~ ',~~>S ~ .. r. ,.. t tt u,.. ~ _ ? { - ~~ i ~ ~~ ~ air + ~ nt "~'~ s ~~ ~ ~ 7 +r- o~`yg~ 3 J~L`~tih3'~4Y~~ ~sr ~~; ~ ~ r a' /..{ fit.. `~~,'-N, ~i ~ ~~ ~ - y ~ '~ a ~ i'`+ - ~ 4fi f S S +_ I ~r' i 1N t a ~ 4:, tX ay~'~' .`.LY, _ ~c... ~~ 4 S~'ls r §'.. y F ~' IF ~~f J S~ ~ ~ S'y ~ r 9i ~ 1~ a7 ~ ~^ 1 ~ ~ - d ~' ~ ~ k ~~ a ,' r'' i ~~ ~_ ~ .~~ i~ .; ~>,: ~;~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 landscaping was not required of the previous applicant. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the site regarding the landscaping and the parking area with this CUP application. Therefore, no additional site improvements are explicitly required by the UDC. Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): If the subject CUP is approved, the applicant will be responsible to submit a CZC application to ensure compliance with the CUP conditions of approval. Prior to certificate of occupancy being issued on the site, all conditions of approval must be complied with. Written Comments: Staff has received 5 letters of support from clients, neighbors and friends for approval of the Harmony CUP application. Staff has also received a letter from a concerned neighbor requesting denial of the project. Staff has forwarded this letters on the Clerk's office and should be included in your packets for review. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-014 for the Harmony Preschool presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17. 2008. At the public hearing. the Commission moved to approve CUP-08-014. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. CUP Site/Landscape Plan: May 28, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Sanitary Services 6. Central District Health Department- Environmental Health Division 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Parks Department C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Hazmony Preschool CUP-08-014 PAGE 7 ~, ;`' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map a 3325 ' 3320 r ° 3299 ; 9300 ~! 3300 1 o, 3280 ° ~T 3265 _ ~ R- ~ 1570 RUT ~ ~ 3258 3231 ~ J "N' 1_ ! 3228 3225 3222 Z ';3 F'P.,.. -. 1. I r yA k RUT l mod, -E ~ 3ti ~ 3149 ~ 3127 ~ 1135 ~ a N w N f-----~~ ~ A i o^'0 1521 /y~ „°,r 3095 ~1 ^ryP 1ti~1 ~ ~ c°n N 3116 M ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ 3112 W ~ ~ 3088 ,\~,~ { ~DaO ,%' 3089 3078 3063 ~ ~ .0 3 j ~ ° + 30,72 a'ps ~~ ~~P 3065 3054 c 3030 3p11 3p58~~ ~ ?~ °' 3049 3000 '^ "~ v ~~`' 3043 2 3027 ~ ~ ~~+ 3030 N N N ~ ~3~_ 'j~ ~ 7 _r v 2980 2961 ~ ~ N j 3017 ~ 3010, 3009 ~~,s0 x,534 1 O ~p N 1A N N ~ p 4: r 2968 N ~ ~vp c u~ ,p 2978 ~ ~ -~i,~,` ~ ' , 2965 ~ `~ - - ~J ~ $ f -O '~~ mss' a 1 s g9 P~ - Z ^ '"~ us ~ ~s r'~'\ s 111 ~.9 i h M 'O oo .- ~ ~ O ~ ~~ '~ h ~ ~ ~ N ~ " ~ ~ N „o.' ~ w -' A 1' ~ ~ X19 v .' I tiQ ~ ^ ~. M W OD N tT Al ! 1r' b' p ~ 2891 aNO ~ r N ~ ~ a o u~i m a ~ ~ `` ~ N ON ~ ~p N r ~ N i~ I N M M M M P~f Off, ~` ~./ A M ^ ^ W ~ ~- r r ~- r a- ~ W i ~ NN w~ ° ~ 2g67 ° ~E t~~ O GA C E K R a l °' ~ W ~ ~p ~ ~ N M N O~ s M ~p M ~ ~ V' ~ d' '~ .1051 `,~ ~ N N T ~ ~- ~ N N N "' "' ~ !- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ n p1' ~-~~~ ~,A7 N b n ao ,~q'1 ~ b N~?~S9 ~ ~ ^q~'% ~b 7F 1aa~%~. N ~ ~ vt ~ ~I /~ N N ti i~ V7 J ~ N N ~ 11 ' 8~ ,'~ q'f ti S t~J1 N ~ H ~1 d \ ~ `'i ~ ,~~ ~~ ti ~ P /'`•, 2750 ,:^ 2748 2733 2760 2797 2-7-16-L- ~~~j~', ' 2716 /`~`,. ~ii~f"`~.,`~~~~~; '~ N ~ 2712 2691 694 E $AG~~~ T 1468 - X69 ~,/. ~ ~j~.~, ~~ ,,,'~69~~!,20 \! ,, ~; ~ ?6 \~F ~.,\ ~~ l?6 \ 8'26 \~9/ 2698?g75 ' 2676 2663 p ni rMi '` ~S 6~ '~ 6 ? ~ , 268 266 2631 16 ~8~'~~ ~ ?6.S =,. P,?6 ~~~f~ , 2 ?6SY^ / ~ /~ . 26 8 2630 ~, ;262S 16~a '~ S~ 26 f ~6ri~~ ?Sim r<~ 6~~..., .\ ~, ~ s?~ ~ ea,', ~b 27 / 2634 ~ %~ ~ , ~. 6 ~6 ~ '~~ ~ f 2609 ~ /Z610 ~. ~ r~~ .,, ~'O~`.•\. ~ ~O ~ ' ,`b ~_ t ~ plc ~ ' 60 ~` ~ ~I/ ~ ~f 1/ 1125 2581 ~ ~ SA4 12583 "~- ?,p9 '' / 6 S6 25 i2 ~ ~ o 2562\8 ~ ~~5 ~ ~ ;~545~>'~~ss S6 1 ; ~S ~, y,>>'\ ? y` ,~? O ,~~5`,., ~ 48 2538 2523 / <53p' -t?S~s ~i r~as.,S.~B ;~~ ~ ~9 f /,~?S 6 2504 2505 2502 ~soj~1 ,~ Aso.,, 8 %~~srd,9 .,+ ~'" <;~,pp~ ~~ \ y ; ~~ 2480 2471 2464 2453 ~~46q'~6'j2465t ~-C ; Y6.P,fZ~ __ ~~ ~s9 2593 2594 ~, ~ 2575 2578 ~ EA 2524 2523 2520 2510 2507 2502 I, 2 2489 2480 ~„~ 3305 3283 0 J 29,, 06~ ,. N ~O r II 2740 I ro N ~~ Exhibit A Page 1 ;w ,~ ..: _,• ,~: ~ .~` 1 ~i ~~ 1 ~wb i ~ y ~'~ ~ C~ ~~~4 Y.~ ~ ~ '~ 4 r~, qr c '~'~ y ~' ~' ~ tx ~~ , 14.1. }'Y' ~~ ~ i I'~~i~? f. 1 5 j ~' L ~U ('~i" ?~,5 .lF i n ~~s - ~„~,, CT`s . , ~ ~, -~ :# >> .: _t. - ' F ` r r ~ ~~ ~~ fi~} ~{ a Z.' ZS ~ ~ f~ t ~R~ ~.'4 ~y 1- A5 ~L~1,~ S i~ ~ ~ ~ * ° ~~ - r r 4~ ~< Ys#n r ,: ~ ~'' ~ ' ~ a+r- ' ~ , 4, k!` ~iY ;. ~:a s a 1 v l . ~.., .2. .. tip, . t,. _: ~x~ +~ :._y~ ye~ „_ i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING. TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JiJLY 17, 2008 2. CUP Site/Landscape Plan SitelLar-dscaping Plan Harmotty Preschool Michette Hutchings N Cmlal tv E ~" ~ 75' ......... .... ..... . I ~-~J~ ~ ~CRCC WItI18I0U l . J 1 I `-V' 1 Plnygomd 1 1 8~wtauvll I I trln't s', 1 I +q„ga8C1 ~s•1 I I 1 I ~ 1 I 1 i I 1 1 6' Cale i SgMBaa I Felaq- I 12'x12' I Bosh Sid® I 1 I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I ~ 1 112' I PIry Ma I L+q~~,~ I 1 !6'x16' I I 1 1 I 1 1 I j Pglm 1 I I ~ 1 I 1 12. ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I 1 Psimigg 1{Nqq ~ ' ~ 1 , PaWg PaY6l@ Poem 1 1 s~sl spoxu semen 1 t~ 1~ f________.__ 1 1 1 SWAN S~l3 ~ ~ I -9V]' -O'n3i' -~l,]T 1 I 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 East Cougaz Creek Brive lhvners: Camldta Stecves fine Eeatatcv I.aPal1)eseriatlan 7035 N. Cindw Road Zg ~~ l,ot 13, 8locl 1 Meridian, ID B3fiA5 R-R ZAae Cougaz Creek Subdivision Applicant Michelle Hutchings S7fX N. Plumcreett Ate 6 paztnng spaces pronded Meridian, Ada Cauniy, Idaho Boise, tp 83713 Scale: 1"=13' Date: 5.28-2Q41R Exhibit A Page 2 ,~ k _ frf f 1~~ ~ i ~~ ~ _ ~'~ - ~ . '~ s y~ f f:p v~~ '~~ _ _ j~ ~ far ,y] - 4~ ~ , 4 ,j` ~ ~I:~t 9 `r 1'" 1 - ~..r -W''~'g r '`P i ":~" .~ ~+ ~ r ,s,, ~f ~ _ ~ ~ } ~; ,~ ~<: ~ f :.~ 1: ,~ , ~.. ~ ~. . 1 ~n~~~ t {"~'1 4 , f -' ~~ P t " ~` C.; r~ , A~ r: } i 1 4 . I 1~ i ~ C' f ~. ~ i d ~. ~` V ~ a+ j ( 1 3 4 e~fY y } - T rk ~r ~ ~ >` ,~ ,` ~,~ ry a~ ~.~ ~~`I y N s 'I S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINGDATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ;~~. B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The site/landscape plan, dated May 28, 2008 is approved with the following provisions: • Maintain 3 surface parking stalls, and 2 employee parking stalls in the garage on the site as ' proposed. The parking stalls provided in the existing garage shall be designated for employee parking only. The proposed perma-bark parking stall (#3 on the site plan) is not approved, r," and shall not be used for parking. All parking stalls shall be paved with asphalt or concrete. `'+ ~ 'r't, t • + L, » ~ +L, ti ~ ,.+ ,.L...;.. 1:..L F ,.o .,1., +L,e ....,-tt,e...... ..e.h., b,,.,,..a..,.. s r~~r ~ ~~ '+~- ~ ~ + ~ ~-~~ ~ -- ®~~ a ~a -•~ ~'~* ~ ~`. The applicant shall install _ ,` `~ hed eg s and lp antin sg along the northern pro e~rty boundary to deter children from scaling the 'ti` chain link fence. '~`~'~~ • Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within ?.„~ any required yard. Relocate the 7.5-foot swing set outside of the 5-foot side setback, if applicable. ~:~:~'~ 1.2 The applicant shall be allowed to care for up to 25 children per day. 1.3 The hours of operation for this business shall be limited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. F `Y 1.4 Prior to operation of the day care facility, the applicant or owner shall secure and maintain a `Y ' Basic Day Care License from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare -Family and `.-~'s I {~~ Children's Services Division. Proof of said license shall be provided to the Planning Department , ~~;; ~~; ALP,.,, prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance this building for a day care use. l -' ~' ~ 1.5 Outdoor play area(s) shall not be used after dusk. 1.6 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-014 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this site. This applicant shall ~ include all of the conditions of approval described in this report and any modifications to the .1:.. approved site/landscape plan. Any modifications to the site design shown in this CUP application ~;; ~;' shall be clearly shown on the amended plans. T~ ;', ~~t'x 1.7 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. L~:i' . 1.8 Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. ~`'= ~'' Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be mitigated. ~s , ~~;~;; 1.9 The applicant shall educate the parents/guardians of the need to park and come into the office to ~ %'~`' check in and out the children; dropping off or picking up of children without checking in or out shall be prohibited. Cars shall not idle on this site while parents/guardians are checking in/out ~:~: children. 1.10 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. t>T< '~~ 1.1 l Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. ;:;= 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~~'. 2.1 The Public Works Department has no issues or concerns with this application. x,~ ;.:, Exhibit B Page 1 r r,,;. ~zI ., ~ ~'' ~~ x~' ~? ~ ~g M. - ~ ~ ~ a: ~ .;, :1 t ,~t d E t 5 ~ ~n ~. -'~ r .l "", ' b :~ Y .~: t ~ :~ r ~~ ~ o<' t a ~ r' +~. r.i _ - ~ X <a ~ r ax ,.~r ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,. ~y+ ~M ~~ <a a K ' ~ 1, ~ ~ 'ixfht ~;• ~. F - ~ .~ ~ r ;,, ~~ 4 _ ~y'1 f ~~L ~ t ~ ~' ~ {a f FSY t ~'~. 41 ~ ~ ~~ 1 i`2 n ~ ~ ^ ~- k i k -~; .. :~ -. - .,~e P ~fi~ i. ~: ~, ;~a .Q- ;-r.:,u ~,- .; '. '~; r h Yi ~ ?~ ':~Fh ~s'1.:~. %! {~ ! ~-y~r Y rc f 1 .:'Y t~~~. :~' -_ fi , ., v yj• ~ '~' r~4, ~~~_ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 All Daycares with 7 or more children must pass an inspection using the criteria of the Idaho State Fire Marshal. If the applicant has concerns about meeting the State Fire Marshal criteria an inspection will be completed at a cost of $20. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. SANITARY SERVICES 5.1 Sanitary Services did not provide comments on this application. 6. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 6.1 Applicant will submit plans for child care center to Central District Health Department for review. 6.2 Contact Susie Simmons at 327-8530 regarding child care licensing. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED COMMENTS) 8. PARKS DEPARTMENT 8.1 The Parks Department did not provide comments on this application. Exhibit B Page 2 ~ri .., ..~~:~7~ ~Y ~ ?; Yy ~ 1J ,< ~, '_ -., f VFY~ . ~~. Fu '~J ~.j...i' ~` " :3 ':~ ~~;~~ ;r ~ , ~` ;'~ ~a '~' ~ ' `` .;' N~SM a,„' ~4.~_'.. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JiJLY 17, 2008 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the existing site is large enough to continue accommodating the daycare. 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 designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Medium Density Residential. The property has existing R-8 zoning which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is allowed with CUP approval in the R-8 district. The Commission believes that if the conditions are complied with, this use will be harmonious with the requirements of the UDC and the residential uses surrounding it (see Section 10, Analysis above for more information regarding the requirements for day care facilities in City Code.) 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 fmds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a daycare facility should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission fmds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed day care use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation Exhibit C Page 1 li~.,,.,... r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DET'ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 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 fmancing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will be more intense than a typical single family home. However, with the continuation of the daycare facility in this location, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this subdivision that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. s>~ Exhibit C Page 2 August 4, 2008 CUP 08-020 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Meridian Development Corporation ITEM NO. 3~E REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval-CUP for a Parking Facility that does not comply w/the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.83 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for The HUB Parking Facility -north side of E. Broadway between E. 2nd St. 8~ E. 3rd St. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Atl'ached Findings 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: -:~> 4r ~: ~• ., x~ n - ,~ Contacted: Date: _ Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property pf the CNy of Meridian. f +u ~~ :-, b :, Lk~. :x~;` ,~ ,~~ . ~ ~°. ,. L . , r~ -~~ a . } i ~:~ <_<, • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER i _ m ~~ ` ~ ~ ~i ~ b~o o ~ iHi~d ® ,~ E IDIAN~A=-~ Cam' ~ ® P In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a parking facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines and for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district for the HUB Parking Facility, by Meridian Development Corporation Case No(s). CUP-08-020 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 17, 2008 (Findings on 5~ August 7, 2008 agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-020 Page 1 ~~ ~ • 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which ~~'- shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works 4' _; Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to Site/Landscape Plan and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements t~ as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order ,, `~ Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City r;'' Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein ~`~~ ~?` adopted, it is hereby ordered that: -~ ~ 1. The applicant's site/landscape plan as evidenced by having submitted the site/landscape plan, dated June 18, 2008 is hereby conditionally approved; and, "`~`` 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff . Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. x.~,., D. Notice of Applica e Time Limits ~.r 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. ki During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the ~~ ^~I conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, w and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the `'h ~ event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple ~ phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year , from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and °~ void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the ?~~ period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-020 Page 2 ~J~.. ~. ~; ~t Y.T r ~ , ~f t~ 3 ~ i i ~~ '~. 1 _ ~ ~ ~: a ~~~ S - v '~ lk -~..r , t` ~ NbP~. f t _ ~' {yt... i ~ ..~Y~ .+ so- ~I ~ ~, } ~ da - ~ ~ ~.4 .r'..$ ~* n ..y `~F ~ 7t t S~4~. ~r ~ ~W ~ T '1 Yt '/ J~ + {~ ~~ rtf ; adj. ~ r Y ~ r ~- .e ~ ~-" t' .~ ,..- n ..4': ~.,K r k S `` ~ .- i 1. ~, 6'~'zg` ~ 3 ~~ '~' _ ~`Y ~ - ~~ t .. k.(! ~~ ~ u ~ S Sr,"~tl t Fc* ~+~, ~ ~ r r~a~r s - i 1t' Yy, ~ y ~ 7~~'~ H' ~~ 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. 'r ~` 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. r' 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of ; ;;` pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has Meridian ,_ ~' ``~ ~ , 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. U'°~ ~, F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 Y ~~ . 1' jY, R yy/ff iq ~ ~ 1.?,y' h :' ~.:;: ~ :.* n ,i'-=~ aS ~~ 1 2r 5'E'~.,, C ty . ~ a.'-~ - - s CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-020 Page 3 ':-~> ~;~~: ~; :•~~.. B action o the Plannin & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~= Y day of , 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED ~ (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ~- COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED ~C~ CHAIlZMAN D ID MOE Attest: ~.~` ~'~~ ~ 'Q~, '% ~~' o SEAL ara Green, Deputy City C~ ,,~o`~ = ',~. ~~ TY 1 ~,Z .Ao Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. B Dated: ~ '~ ~ I ~~ ~6 ty Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-020 Page 4 ~_^ >~^"' ;,~~ °~~ ""` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 17, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN~~ ~' ' FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner ~ ~ ~' ~ (208) 884-5533 ~' -'' SUBJECT: HUB Parking Facility ' • CUP-08-020 Conditional Use Permit for a parking facility that does not comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines and .for a parking facility in the O-T ~< ~, zoning district ;,:; -~. ,,;., 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ~'~~~=~ The Applicant, Meridian Development Corporation, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) _ approval for a surface parking facility for Phase one of the HUB building. The proposed parking facility does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines (UDC 11-2D-4D.3). Additionally, CUP approval is required for all parking facilities in the O-T zoning district (UDC Table 11-2D-2). The property consists of 0.83 acres of land and is currently zoned O-T (Old Town). '.~< ~~ The subject site currently has several associated structures on the site that need to be removed prior to construction of the HUB Project. The applicant is proposing to develop the half block as a mixed use ~h~~,~`~' development in three phases. Phase one of the project is a 26,000 square foot mixed use building to include restaurant and office lease space. The proposed surface parking facility (57 stalls in total) is to ~' provide the required parking for phase one of the project and serve as temporary parking until - `' `~ additional phases are constructed. The subject site is located north of E. Broadway Avenue between ~..: E. 2nd Street and E. 3rd Street. '~~~ 2. SUNIIVIARY RECOMMENDATION . ~~ a': Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends ~ ~: "~ ~~. = approval of CUP-08-020 for a surface parlang facility for The HUB, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, subject to the conditions listed in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and ZOIIIIIg Commission heard this item on July 17, 2008. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve CUP-08-020. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: x i. In favor: Shaun Wardle ii. In opposition: None ° ~`' ' iii. Commentin :g None ~. .= ~~ ~ iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on a~nlication: None b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None ` ' c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: ''''y i. None ^ti'r ~~,~ ,; 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS ~~ Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 1 ~~ ~:: - ..~, .a .'i; .,. w n q., ,,, rf 4 ~: ~; '. ; a>. ;,,~. ,<< ;i; `'IE ~ '? =.. ~~::: u .~ ~ ~'~ . ;~ r~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 020, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 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 August 7, 2008. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-08- 020, as presented during the hearing on July 17, 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 August 7, 2008. Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 08-020 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: 200, 226, 234, 242 E. Broadway Avenue Section 7', Township 3 North, Range 1 East b. Owner: Meridian Development Corporation 33 E. Idaho Street Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant /Contact: Same as Owner d. Present Zoning: O-T (Old town) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a surface parking facility for the HUB Project in the Old Town district that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines, per UDC 11-2D-4D.3. Additionally, CUP approval is requested for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district, as required by UDC 11-2D-2. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: "Per the Meridian Guidelines: off- street parking is allowed only at the rear of the building not visible from streets and in parking structures. Parking is not allowed within the 30 feet of street facing facades. The street facing area must be used for tenant space with active uses. We are proposing under this initial phase, temporary parking along portions of Broadway and E. Third Street to meet the parking requirement for the proposed 26,000 square foot mixed use building. It is MDC intention to develop the balance of the site consist with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines once sufficient public parking for in the Downtown District is established." 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as deternuned by City HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 2 SFr;:. ~: ~~ ~ ~ .: r ..~. ;: ;, q,~ ,," rv» ~, ;.; ~`F.~::x~ ,~ ,~.r:: >t~ Y ~' v ;,: a.. ~,+~: , ,',~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 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: June 30, and July 14, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 20, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 7, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The subject has several vacant buildings on the site with associated unimproved dirt parking lots. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is all zoned O-T (Old Town) with the exception of the residential uses to the east. The area primarily consists of dilapidated vacant buildings and vibrant retail and residential uses to the north and east of the site. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Alley; Boys and Girls Club and Centennial Park; zoned O-T 2. East: Single Family Residences; zoned R-15 3. South: Vacant Idaho Truss site; zoned O-T 4. West: Vacant commercial buildings; zoned O-T d. History of Previous Actions: N/A e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Existing building is already served from mains located in E Broadway Ave Location of water: Existing building is already served from mains located in E Broadway Ave. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: There are existing trees on the site. 3. Floodplain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: O-T (Old Town) 7. Lot Size: 0.83 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: N/A -request is for surface parking facility 2. Hours of Operation: 24 hours aday/7 days a week g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: Based on 1 space per every 500 square feet of gross floor area, the UDC requires a minimum of 52 parking stalls for the 26,000 square foot multi-use building proposed with Phase one. HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 3 ~~ ~" ~' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 t. w; ~~~}, h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the surface parking facility is proposed via the 16-foot wide one way alley adjacent to the northern `. property boundary. 7. COMIVIENTS MEETING On June 27, 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, and the Meridian Police Department. Staff has included comments, conditions, `"~ and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. ~r 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Old Town." _ Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Old Town land use category "includes the historic '~'~ ? downtown and the true community center. Uses in this category would include offices, retail, and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of ~° `°' residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential uses, new construction of ~~% multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be imposed. Pedestrian ~~r amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes a centralized activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The boundary 4 ~',' ~ of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, ~:- ~. both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings." Staff believes that the proposed use generally conforms to the stated purpose and intent of the Old Town 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): '` ` "' • Develop public parking areas in Old Town. (Chapter V, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) Staff believes that the proposed parking facility will provide adequate parking for employees and n E~,~ ~, well as rovide additional ublic arkin or patrons of the new26, 000 square foot bualdang, as p p p g.f downtown area when the building is closed in the evening and on weekends. ;F' _,: . • Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (Chapter VII, Goal ;~~, IV) ~'>~;1_ Staff believes that the proposed parking facility should be compatible with existing uses in the area. Further, the subject parking is anticipated as temporary parking until additional phases for the HUB Project are constructed and a public parking facility is established in the Downtown ~~~-- ~ `j Area. ; ~`~''I Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with , ~~ the surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony ;::. ~ I that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate ,. I for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVEOPMENT CODE -~ ~~~' a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the O-T zoning district. Parking facilities are listed as a conditional use in the t~~ O-T zone. Further, per UDC 11-2D-4.D.3, all applications that do not meet the criteria in the "Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines" are subject to a CUP. '~''~, HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 4 ~ t ~ ,~~ ~4~ 1 f I Phi' .( r¢' } d - ~ . /~f xx __ 1~3' ~'lQva~ ~ ~ a.~=~ 4 1 5 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. v . k e k~ . r "'fir.}' E _ ~. '~ < r i' ~ t ;~ ~ ~. , n ~ ~ ~ 1 ~. Y., ~'~ ' K .~ ~~ r` ~~ t. J .4~ 3`,~`~ti '~ c15 - <~ . r ~ ~ p,. . - f£1," h'~ z ~•F t ~ .4s4x -.•1 ~ ~.. ~ rr ,~ ~~. n7„ v ~~~ r k , ~~+~' ~ 3 ~ --t+ i ~ :M a r •i:_ 7C :~,~ ~ ~~~ t~ ~.~ ~ .. Y+ A a ti ~{ i i ,~, d +'r .~'.k t ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:: r~~ t'-~ ' ~ i - .. ~ r .. .: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 s; :. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Old Town district is to accommodate and encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the O-T District is to delineate a centralized activity center }.i p and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, - fmancial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi-public uses integrated with general business, and medium-high to high-density residential is encouraged to provide the appropriate `x~'' mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center. 10. ANALYSIS ,;'. a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the '' "' proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: =; ~~; ~_~ Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The HUB Parking Facility is proposed to provide parking for the first phase of the HUB project. Phase one includes a 26,000 square foot mixed use building ~~~-, :z., and requires a minimum of 52 parking stalls. On the submitted site/landscape plan, the applicant ~` ' is proposing a total of 57 parking stalls (55 standard stalls and 2 compact stalls). A CUP is requested for the following reasons: 1) Parking facilities require CUP approval in the O-T zoning ;~:,' district, per UDC Table 11-2D.2; and 2) The proposed layout of the parking facility does not fully . ~ comply with the Downtown Design Standards (UDC 11-2D-4D.3). See design standards below ' for more information. "" Downtown Design Standards for Parlang (DDS): The DDS contain standards for parking in r.., the downtown area in areas zoned O-T as follows: (Staff's analysis in italics) ~" a'" • Number of Parlang Spaces Required: If off-street parking is provided, the applicant _ shall provide accessible spaces as per federal accessibility standards. Three handicap accessible stalls are proposed on the site.. ~. f., ~..::.1. • Location: Off-street parking is allowed only at the rear of building not visible from } 4 ~ ,' streets and in parking structures, Parking is not allowed within street-facing facades. This ~'" street-facing area must be used for tenant space with active uses. The proposed parking ` ~: lot does not comply with this standard. The proposed surface parking facility is to ,`} _: ~ provide the required parking for Phase one of the HUB project and is located along two streets. However, the surface parking is proposed as temporary parking until additional phases for the project are constructed and a public parking facility is established in the ~ Downtown Area. At this time the applicant is not proposing a parking structure on the ~ site. "''~~* • Screenin Screenin of arked cars in arkin structures above the first floor must ~;~~.,~; g' g P P g '~' %" include a solid panel up to 42 inches from floor levels. Structured parking garages will ~~ conform to the requirements of the Facade Treatment; Entrances section in these ~.:°.,; ~~ guidelines, except glazing is not required at floors above the first floor. N/A (A parking structure is not proposed with this application.) • Landscaping: Surface parking lots shall be required to have streetscapes and screened at the street sides with minimum 3-foot high hedges, fences or walls. The applicant is ~- proposing streetscape in accordance with the MDC streetscape standards. In addition, a ~-~`° ~~ row of shrubs are proposed to be planted along the south and east side of the surface ~``" "~"' parking lot to screen the surface parking from the street. Staff believes the applicant `~ `' t` generally complies with the landscape requirements of Downtown Design Guidelines. ~~~.> Parlang Lot Landscaping: In addition, the UDC requires planter islands at the ends of parking rows and a minimum 5-foot perimeter adjacent to parking lots. Staff has reviewed the submitted HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 5 -~ , ~ ~#, ,. 3~5 ' ~~. t 7 ~ ~ ` ~~ - .r _: ~ r/ y fir. ` to ~_ ~, H.. Yh _. . W yN t ,?" .`' i 5 ,~ ~ , .. ~ ^"? v t ~ ~~~~~ a 2q ~ ~ ;~ 4 _ ~.,~ ~~~~~ ~ 5 Ufa ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ _ ' . ~.~ ~~,. r'"t ~ u, t ~ 1r yc 1, * C t - ~h JN+~~`~4 .. ~, T ~~ i f ~,~ a _.::' ~: _,p ,;, i y ~~ ~ ~ ?~ w b CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 '` ; 9 plan and finds the applicant complies with the UDC. ~t~ Tree Mitigation: A visit to the site revealed there are existing trees on the site. However the submitted landscaping plan does not show existing trees. Nor are they referenced to be protected ;_>': and incorporated into the design of the project or being identified as being removed and mitigated for. Any existing on-site tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be - replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of those ` .. ~~ removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those that are removed. The Applicant should coordinate a mitigation and protection plan with Elroy Huff at the Meridian Parks Department. This should be included on the updated landscape `.,j, plan as well. Access: Access to the surface parking facility will be provided from E. 3rd Street via a one way f' i= alley which exits onto E. 2nd Street. Direct access to E. Broadway Avenue is not proposed with this application. Staff is supportive of the ingress/egress for the proposed parking facility. `~"~ Parking: Phase one of the HUB Project consists of a 26,000 square foot building. Per UDC 11- =~f, 3C-6B, a minimum of 1 vehicle parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Per this requirement, a minimum of 52 spaces are required to be provided. On the submitted $~ " site/landscape plan the applicant has provided a total of 57 stalls (55 standard and 2 compact) and .~ ~:: . complies with the parking requirements of the UDC. Staff is supportive of the amount of parking spaces provided on the subject site. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the proposed use are 24 hours a day, 7 days a =' ~ week. The proposed surface parking should also provide additional public parking for downtown "`_ ~t` businesses in the evening and on weekends. Staff is supportive of the proposed hours of operation ~. ~,~;;, ~,~~'.~ for the proposed parking facility. The Commission should rely on any public testimony to determine if hours should be limited. "`~ Certificate of Zoning Compliance: On June 26, 2008, a certificate of zoning compliance for Phase one of the HUB building was issued by the Planning Department. Occupancy for the ~,.. ' ~ building is subject to approval of this CUP (CUP-08-020) for the surface parking. At this time, r'~~ staff is not proposing any modifications to the site/landscape plan submitted with this application; '`=' ' I however if the Planning and Zoning Commission request additional modifications to the plans, then revised plans with the appropriate changes shall be submitted to the Planning Department for h, ~ k ~ =~i ` ~~ review. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-020 for a parking facility ~'` = I~ for the HUB, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in j~ Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17, ~'?' ~ 2008. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve CUP-08-020. I ~„I h~ ~ ~ 11. EDITS . A. Maps ;~,: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site/Landscape Plan (dated: June 18, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval >< 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department ~`' 3. Fire Department F,~ (`~~ 4. Police Department "' S. Parks Department -.'. ~ HUB Parking Facility CUP-08-020 Page 6 ~, Y " _ +! ~~ t r +..k ,jY~ t-'. h h ~.7<<.it Z ~• ti.:L: 1 ~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~ f ! ~ ., .gg ' ' ~~ ~ ' ~ I p tf .R ? ?.`~ ;fy_ ~ (^ ~ Mi ~'YY) ~ f ~?~ Wf~~ +t• L I.aF 1 pw~~ rf l ]r yag , gg h N~ t -NAF. ~{ _ - ^' ~~ i 1 , / ~y ' 3 ~ t .',. ~ t ~{~ ~ x N J ~ • •f ~~ t c'r 5 . ~~ ~ ~ ~ -J t ~~ -.. p f.}.. 3' k ~y Y~~~. T. • ~~1 x .3 T'^ r -~~ ~ ~4 ~~~ F l ? •- tf+ .~jr w ~ iF lf) F 3~ ~F,. ~ l 1 i. :;j-. -. ~y ~ {.y'~.~ Fi t ~ ~;~ 1~ 1 y ~~I ~: u~d ~'. ~` ' .;: ;.,~;. ,~: .,~:., ,'.; N, ~,:_ ;,: '_~~-~~e ~<Y '~ ~r=. - r z ~; f, '~~~.:.~ ~(; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~.1'ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~i DATE OF NLY 17, 2008. A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map ,: ~ ~~ .~4:y iP`!! . - :, ; , ~'{:: :, ,. -:' ~- ~ tV O~ ~ h u~ 831 ~ ~ eoo H _Z: 77 ~ ^~ Z 713 30 ~o f I~ 0 u, M o ~tf ~- h t+f " M a- N N r p~ r r r 921 916 ~ N .~ ~' ..906 .- ~' M c» ,~~ ` Nf ^ r N ~+f ~ 211 N N M M rn M M ~.~ ~ Q ~~ 909 ate- P N N f+N1 M ', O ~ ~ N o. N N N N N i M ~"~ ~"~ ~ 336 E PINE AVE ~ o o ~- t+1 =- l~ ~- N P a ~. N M l~ l~ 814 dlO X M c' z N ay 211 235 tal Z I~ 800 240 ', M ~ N 337 ~ M (+f o „'~ N 1 831 _ 8~0 - N N M 3O e M M P'1 M 1 t IUAFIU AVE vi ~~ ~ 139 ~ 113 ~ ~ N 714. 706 ,~ ,o 704 0'~ ~ - 0 rn ~- ~. ~ ~ N N N I n M M N fn Z ~~'.. l+1 fY1 ~---~- -- --~ --, --1~ I ' 200 I N ; N I N ~~ , ~ o 00 0 ~o ~ ~~ ___ I. I_IM t ro ~ ~ M M E BROADWAY AVE _ _ _ ~_-_~ UNION PACIFIC RXR 502 I I W N 218 .521 217 N 295 I-L a ~ II !r N ~ ~ ~~ v n IVI °v I v o '"' 300 360 ~+ E BOWER ST 434 333 343 34 463 Exhibit A ;r ~`3: t 1+ ~~, . . ~; R~fi. +~ti%'.J CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 2. Site/Landscape Plan (dated: June 18, 2008) _.7_. - ~He-- - - -. ~ .: :.~..~..... ti~ Exhibit A - -- ---~ ~ ~ a e ~ ~ ~~ 'S~r- ~ ~ '~ ~- 8 ~@i e ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 9 ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~F ... ~ H A a ~ ~ ~sx of A Q d~ F ~ ~ ~ uC~ T ~ ~[~y W ~ ~ ~ T .J ~ ~ Q m ~ ^, (/i ~i ~ O ~ ~~ ®I w nJ A ~ co~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ _~ ~i ~ , ~ lE ll' i' 1~ r ~ ~ ~ g ~~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ [ I~ $~ 1~~ $ ~ ~ ~ 9 B ~ rc~~ { ~ ~~,y ftt~Ul nrr c l~ 89~ ~~C ea ~F a ~~ u ~~~ m n e 9 'J r-7 ,- ,~ ~ ~ ,~~ :'a' ; t -.~. ' - ~ '., 7 ' t i:{ ~ ~t~ [ti'r fii, " e~s3 q , ~ :; ~~ y _ 1 [4~ ..#') w` f1 £ M }N~ 4 h M ri~+`vT s A~ r ~ ~F 4 ; • VL C "T" ~ 4 -i. ~,r i as^p ~~k rS R Fw k'~ r~ N ~ Sr ~rl~+ ix 2"M} Y ' L l ~1 ~- ,~, r ~, ~~ F aj 1 w~ tly ~ s Y ~ ~.~ _ .~ ~~ ~: t', i J ~ ~ ^ r~,:. ~~ ~~, 5 y ~~~"~~~ ~ ,.i; ' r i t °"°° laaals oaoaas a a ~ _.. ~~,~ '-~ ; {,.s~. 54 {.~ ~:;,r~ , ,. =r ,:> ii ,;, E~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The site plan, prepared by Johnson Architects, dated June 18, 2008, is approved with the following changes: • The shrubs/hedges proposed along the south and east side of the surface parking facility shall be a minimum of 3feet in height at maturity. • 57 stalls shall be constructed on the site, as proposed. • Streetscape shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Meridian Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines. • Per UDC 11-3B-10, the Applicant shall work with the City Arborist, Elroy Huff, on designing, adopting, and implementing a protection and mitigation plan for the existing trees on site. Provide a copy of the plan to the Planning Department prior to issuance of occupancy. 1.2 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 use has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to commencement of the proposed use. 1.3 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-020 are complied with, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning Department prior to establishing a parking facility on this site. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.2 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.3 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The ingress/egress from the alley into the surface parking shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside turning radius and support a weight of 75,000 GVW. 3.2 Fire lanes, streets, and structures including the canopy height of mature trees shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6. 3.3 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with this application. Exhibit B °_ ~ ,,~. + i ' >i t : i, il.K. i 5 "' t!3 {.; L I~t~ ,;- ~ • ~ ~ ~.. - .. ,s ~,t u~ ~~; ~'~ ., s., ~ S ~. < ~ k - ~ `'i ~ ~ u i~ T = * ` .~ ~~ i r .s ~, ~~ ~~'4~~ a ~~~ .: ~,~ Lf u ~~ ~ wH.n e ~,; r _ ~' ~"> ,p f: c 'f't ~ J~ ~ ~ ~" .$ . t :" ~ r~e, r ~ `' ``11 YF ~C ~°~ s `Y~;Av ~`z' ~` ~ a> ~,.. ' .~~ : ~„ J ~ M •: ~~ ~ y.~~ q ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ .. r r- '~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ~~ 4.2 Alley improvements shall be able to support heavy daily traffic and support a weight of 75,000 GVW. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT ~~=~ 5.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. >;~e1 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY ~''~'~~ 6.1 Sanitary Services Company did not submit comments on this application. ~s~E 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT - 7 1 Prior to issuance of a buildingpermit ~re~are and execute a hold harmless agreement for the ~yosed on-street diagonal parklTlg on Broadwa~Avenue abutting the site. The agreement shall indicate that the diagonal ~aikinn~may be required to be removed at the discretion of the Ada 4 ~ dI County Hi way District. ~~:. , i , 7 2 Install vertical curb and gutter an 8-foot paver/planter strip and minimum 5-foot concrete ?::~ sidewalk aloes Broadway Avenue abutting the site. Provide a public sidewalk easement for any „ s>..~ portion of the sidewalk along Broadway Avenue that is located outside of the right-of-wav. Enter II into a license agreement with ACHD for the maintenance of the paver strip, tree wells and all '~ street furniture to be located in the right-of--way. t,,, , -`:- ,;:, 7 3 Install vertical curb and gutter an 8-foot paver~lanter strip and minimum 5-foot concrete `~ ~ sidewalk along; Second Street abutting the site. Provide a public sidewalk easement for any . ~,;r ~ i k nto portion of the sidewallc along Second Street that is located outside of the right-of--wav. Enter ~`^`' ~ a license agreement with ACHD for the maintenance of the paver strip, tree wells and all street ;~.r ~ furniture to be located in the ri t-of--way. 7 4 Enter into a license agreement with ACRD for an~ commercial uses (cafe seating) located in the ~'= ~. ,: -, i . right-of-wad s ` . N 7 5 Install vertical curb and gutter an 8-foot paver/planter strip and minimum 5-foot concrete ;: o-. r ``~ ~ sidewalk along Third Street abutting the site Provide a public sidewalk easement for any portion of the sidewalk along Third Street that is located outside of the ri t-of--way. Enter into a license agreement with ACRD for the maintenance of the~aver strip tree wells and all street furniture to be located in the ri t-of--wav. ..`;r~~ 7 6 Install bulb-outs at the corners where Second and Third Streets intersects Broadway Avenue Yk;, ,~a . ~.. abuttin¢ the site so that the curb face is no closer than 12 feet from the centerline of Second and Third Streets and so that it matches the existing bulb-outs to the west. The bulb-outs shall have a ~*~ minimum 18-foot radius where they meet the regular curb line. 7.7 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Ap rp~ oval. ~``` 4.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7 2 1 Any existing im~ation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-wav. 7 2 2 Private sewer or water systems are~rohibited from being, located within any ACHD roadway or 'r; ri t-of--way. Exhibit B Y C fit J ( ~~ ~ r ~ x j ~~ _ Y -. ~~Y~ S t 5~~ ~+r ~~rif~~ V 4` ~ ? is,. ~ 'SIY ~~.d yt ~ ~• '~ r.~~,, t .~. 'r~~1 j. ~f ~ N ~yyy~q~ ~ ~ F,~}~' r i` . •M lw; ~.: trig .~4... , r F r_ MR k jt~ F . '(.,F ~ . ~' ~ qt~ „ •~F ! ti Y ~Sy, , y ~~,,9,JJ 4~ 44 ' i ~+ f r 4~''~ .. ( -. \ `"' . N , ~ Z ~'' ~ it ' , ' . ~~ W]p~. ' j J`~T, _ yyg ., ~~'_ .. ~~p` ~'Y~t~ Y .'~ ~,, "~'.y'. ~ ~, t ~<,- r 4 M Ji~y ~ ] ~ aj~ ~ Y j.~ 19 h ~ L ' '` ~ 2008 PORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17 ~ `7 ; t CITY , ARTMENT STAFF RE OF MERIDIAN PLANNING 7 2 3 All util~ relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7 2 4 Replace an ey Jcisting ciiarna~ed curb gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. ~;,; 7 2 5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policv. 7 2 6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than fiveyears old are not allowed unless approved in writing x''-=' ~ the District Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. ` 7 2 7 All desiig~ and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policv Manual ISPWC Standards and approved supplements Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the ~Y ~ s State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all unprovement plans. < 7 2 8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff ~ rp oval prior to issuance of building Hermit (or other reauired permitsl which incorporates an~required design changes. I 7 2 9 Construction use and grope development shall be in conformance with all applicable ' _:,~`;' royal for occu anc istrict a oD requirements of the Ada County Hi hway District prior t pp p , ,?:r ,r ' " ~ 7 2 10 Payment of applicable road imnpact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed "' ` ` impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. ;~,;µ 7 2 11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged b ty he applicant. The , . ~plicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-15851 at least two full business days -,;. _ prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic ;~;i Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits spare or filled are compromised during r ry~~'t anYphase of construction. -; _ 7 2 12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada CountYHighway District The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. ~'~~:I 7 2 13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the uroperty which is the subiect of this ~- s laps or r lations ordinance a lication shall r uire the a licant to com 1 with all rules e " `~" ' other reguhr~and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest ~: r„ ~~' advises the Hi Tway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subiect property unless ;~_,; ,~: a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect ~~~;r ; at the time the change in use is sought. ' I Exhibit B x~,; -~, :~ ~~~~ 2008 HE HEATS OF JULY 17 , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR T S ~~'` C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: ~f . L That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional - A. and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. <t ~`~~"~ The Commission finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the required surface parking - facility for Phase one of the HUB Building as proposed. Staff recommends the Commission rely . . on Staff's analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determuung 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. 1,.,,= The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this ~u ~~ `~ '. property is Old Town. The property is currently zoned O-T, which complies with this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the applicable 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 eneral nei hborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general g g ,~' 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 proposed use as a parking facility should be compatible with other uses in the general area 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 fords 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 `~' w `"'` `~` 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 fords that the subject property is currently served by public facilities such as . I '~ '.' streets, police, and fire protection. The Commission finds that the proposed use will continue to be served adequately by those facilities and services previously mentioned. r ~ ''~ 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 for a surface parking facility, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. ;~ "ira' ~~'~~~~ Exhibit C ~~. r..hs 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINrDATE OF JULY 17, 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 continued use of the property as a parking facility will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C ;~. ~;i; • o August 4, 2008 CUP 08-018 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department REM NO. 3-F REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -CUP for a Parking Facility that does not comply w/ the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 1.07 acres in the O-T zoning district for City Hall Parking Facility on E. Idaho Avenue -SEC of Meridian Rd 8~ Idaho Ave. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~ /r1~ CITY SEWER DEPT: ~ (~J CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTW: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property o4 the City of Meridian. ,., cU`:.. r`~~;:,_ ;9 ~`i _4 ~~ ~-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ `~d ~.~ t ~ w 1.3~,_~ :~. _ , ~ '. `f~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER E I~~~~~~~ `p ~ ~ k ~®~-~ ~~~ ~ In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines, AND Alternative Compliance request to: 1) use off-site parking for new city hall, 2) count motorcycle parking area towards required parking space requirement, ,~'_,~~;` and 3) share parking stalls, by the City of Meridian Case No(s). CUP-08-018 AND ALT-08-016 ~~~ For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 17, 2008 (Findings on August 7, 2008 agenda) 4 ~ ,~ A. Findings of Fact .. 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 ./ ~ incorporated by reference) ~~:. ,,; 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 r? incorporated by reference) °~~ 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, F~ ~<> ~' ~d~ 2008 incorporated by reference) _~ i : 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the r, ; , hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) <:~ B. Conclusions of Law ~~ ~ ., 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use .~ ":~I Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (LC. §67-6503). `rx';; 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps y_;, _~ thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the r ~_ { Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, ' 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 4 ~• ~f~~ I 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. ;~1 o>;~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-OS-018 and ALT-08-016 ,~ , Page 1 <r j - L ; ~ i'+YS L~~~[A ~ ~~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~t;t J ~ ~]~ ~ t. ~~~ 6 !r L + - ~, , , ~ _ - H ». ~r ~ . `6.. 1f_/ _ J '~ .~T. ~~ t ice., :, ~i ,x! N 4 ly s PEiz,. ~ + ~~_~~. _ ~.~ r^,~~ ''. > ~ to- ~ ~~ ' .< - '~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~h r: r~ r t~ is ~ ~ ~ t K V ~ 3 .t L.~' ~ ~' ~ , y~ ~ ~ ~ ~" r:..Y F 3~~ a 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental „ _ subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. - 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not ~~; impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. ~.~:-r. r,- 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which ~~'` shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and {~ ~' ~ any affected party requesting notice. ~`-i-~°+ 7. That this approval is subject to Plans and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff ~; - ';~s.~ Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are R~, ~ concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition ~~ " of approval of the application. ~,,~:. ;- ,, . -, C. Decision and Order %: ``'"' Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City ~~~ ', Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein b`~'~ adopted, it is hereby ordered that: ~~ ~`' 1. The applicant's plan as evidenced by having submitted the plan, is hereby conditionally ~`, ,; approved; and, ~~ ''`' ~f' ~' 2. The conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing ~.~ ~ ~Y, date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. ""'" D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits f?4 Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration ~~ Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. ' During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the `~~ conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or ~,~ structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with - multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the `+'" event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year ~; from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the ' one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the ~`'` period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016 Page 2 ~: - 4 ~ F, "c,w, a F4. ~~ t ~ t v ~~ ~ ~ °Y ' j- a ~ ~ 1' ; 5 ~ f~5 1.Y il.' ~ r =~j. _ , .',4 ~~ U. 4~~ r - ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~'~~ ~~ ~ ! - ~ J T r ` 3 t ~ 4~~55:~. - ~~ t ., jf ~ - ~ ~ ~ /~` ~~ ~ i ~ ~. ~ ~ { ' TF Y 4 'aw r - ~ s ~~ i= . < y ~~, ~, :"s.._ C~ c w / ` Y ~ s; ~ k , ~~~ ' ~; . t ~. 9t `: -e ._. - F1 ~ ~ ' .i .. .. ~i~wc~l~ 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 July 17, 2008 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016 Page 3 -. ~~. `: G s } By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2008. ~ ~<" - COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ~ `i ,, „~ , + ~ ~ ~ n. COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED G~. COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED k f r: ' ~' COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED ~/ .. `• rN j~rt ~, 1 .,!~' f \~~„ ~ , i ~ CHAIltMAN DA ID MOE \``\\` ,, ~' o .~x ttest: . ~~AL M3v ^.*'f ~ Q~ ~ ara Green, Deputy Cl„~ r ~s~ • ~~ ~~~`~ fllllNl 11111 Co served u on A licant The Plannin De artment Public Works D artrnent and City eP g pY p pP P ~~~, ,° . ~ ~;. Attorney. ~~ ~ . '~~ By Dated: ~ ~f ~ ~Q 5 ~` `" Clerk's Office ~:';<,~ L CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016 Page 4 . " ~ = CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINC~r DATE OF NLY 17, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 17, 2008 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN%^'' FROM: Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager o a ~ ~ ~ (208) 884-5533 ~~.~'' SUBJECT: City Hall Parking Facility on E. Idaho Avenue • CUP-08-018 z: Conditional Use Permit for a pazking facility in the O-T zoning district that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines • ALT-08-016 =.: Alternative Compliance request to: 1) use off-site parking for new city hall, 2) a~1;' count motorcycle pazking area towards required pazking space requirement, ~~. ~ and 3) shaze pazking stalls °~ ~ 1. SUNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, City of Meridian, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a surface ,; "`~~'~ pazking facility that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines as required by UDC 11-2D-4D.3. CUP approval is required for pazking facilities in the O-T zoning `~ I district (UDC Table 11-2D-2). Further, as allowed by UDC 11-3C-7 alternatives to the standazd 1~~ parking requirements aze proposed (please see Alternative Compliance in the Analysis section below). ''' Currently, there is an 8,000 square foot City Hall building on the site with associated pazking. There are 44 pazking spaces currently on the site. The applicant is proposing to re-stripe the eastern portion of the lot to add two addition parking spaces for a total of 46. These parking spaces aze proposed to s,~} contribute to the total number of required spaces for the new City Hall, which is generally located 200+ feet to the south, and for the existing City Hall building that is to remain (see Pazking/Alternative Compliance in Analysis section below). The property consists of 1.07 acres of ~~ land and is currently zoned O-T (Old Town). The site is located at 33 E. Idaho Avenue, on the southeast corner of E. Idaho Avenue and N. Meridian Road. ~~;~ . .`~. f< ,~',j I 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP and ALT applications below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-018 for a parldng facility in Old Town, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, subject to the conditions listed in Ezhibit B. NOTE: The ALT application would not typically require Commission action, it is a staff-level application. However, because the request is not consistent with Resolution No. 07-583 (attached) Staff is requesting the Commission to decide if the alternative compliance request is appropriate in this case. Staff thought it would be appropriate for the decision to be made as part of a public hearing, rather than at the staff level. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17.2008. At the public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearine: i. In favor: None ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting. None City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 1 4,i d yM ~ . - ~ ~w~` , n 4~ # 4' i ~ ~ T y? fi ~ ~ p: ' ~~ t ~ ~ 'r i '..~.. 5~(I~ L ''4 ~f , `" ~'~ r~~. f ~, t r~ .~~ ~ ; ~,~ ~ ~ ~ :. 4 a ~' rv ' ~'~ ~ ~' - ~x ~' +~ ~~ - y~y `,,. 9 ~ It+~, ~ ~ + > ~y r' ~ ~; ~' > Jj S~ ,.~ 1** y', Yj~. ~~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~' . ~, ~/~ yY ~v' ~ ,. ~~ } r ~~ ' ~ ~` ~, , Y , ,.: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF NLY 17, 2008 ~ " '~~~~ iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting aAUlication: Caleb Hood vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Nary ~z~: b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriateness of requests. ~~~._ c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. The Commission voted to approve the concurrent Alternative Compliance request (ALT-08-0161. D MOTIONS 3. PROPOSE Approval "a ~ After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers CUP- 08-018 and ALT-08-016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, with `i the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications and ~,. clarification on conditions for the alternative compliance application). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning l Commission hearing on August 7, 2008. ~~r ~r, ~ ~~ __ ;~ , Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move deny File Numbers CUP-08-018 li,.y :;; and ALT-08-016, as presented during the hearing on July 17, 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 August 7, 2008. y-J Continuance ~~t~', After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- . ~< ~, 08-018 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you rte; t, ~, should state specific reason(s) for continuance) ~~ 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS wr ;y a. Site Address/Location: 33 E. Idaho Avenue '' Generally located on the southeast comer of N. Meridian Road and E. Idaho Avenue ,; ~~~'~ Southwest % of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East iF,v b. Owner: ~,,; City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue ~, Meridian, ID 83642 t ,- c. Applicant /Contact: ~~,';, Same as Owner d. Present Zoning: O-T (Old Town) ~'"- e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town -~ ` £ Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) { approval for a surface parking facility in the Old Town district that does not fully comply with the -,j~~ City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 2 ~~ r~~ E _ t~ `~ '~ ~" ;: _ s rj ~ 's L.~~[1 STT'' E ~~.- Y:t.:. ~iy~ .; t '...F~1 4 t ~ k.t •Ji~. t~-04 ;.:~. Y `~`i 3.r+' . _ .. .1..,i'+1't~. T i "' "~ ita} ~1~(.-(S . •.+ ~qrl ~r s~.~ r ,~ ~ ~ "~` r -~~' ti' ~~ ~ ti ~`~ ~ ;~,: ..~ ,r r 4.~ r 3 ~ ± ';~. ee,~4 ~ r 5 > w~ ~. ~ M' a , y ,' ..ik -~.,c ., xu x ~'~=! F MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 CITY O ~'~~ Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines, per UDC 11-2D-4D.3. Additionally, CUP approval is requested for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district, as required by UDC 11-2D-2. !~'"' Alternative Compliance (ALT) approval is requested to the standard on-site parking requirements r.-~, f~ ~, in Old Town. .:: g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: "The proposed surface parking facility will provide much needed parking for the new City Hall and the general public. No other improvements are proposed with the subject parking request. We believe that allowing the existing parking areas to remain, and to continue to be used for city business will benefit the current parking situation downtown." ' ~ 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11-SA-2D, ~`~ a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. - b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute an alternative compliance request as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SA-2D, a public hearing is not required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. However, due to Resolution No. 07-583 it is requested that the Commission, and not the Planning Director, act on this matter. `~=!::`. ~~' c. Newspaper notifications published on: June 30, and July 14, 2008 '`~~ ~ d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 20, 2008 ~;. e. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 3, 2008 ''~ SE ' ~:'r 6. LAND U a. Existing Land Use(s): This property is currently used for the City Hall and has an existing '`~1 associated parking lot. ~F .j b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is all zoned O-T (Old Town) and primarily consists of small retail and service oriented uses. - c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Commercial business libr and church site; zoned O-T ~', ,`, ~`~`i 2. East: Commercial businesses/offices; zoned O-T ',~~: .~.. 3. South: Commercial business (bank) and City Hall office; zoned O-T 4. West: Single-family residences; zoned R-8 '~~' ~ d. History of Previous Actions: City Hall has existed on this site since 1987. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities `= 1. Public Works F -~,j ~ ' Location of sewer: Existing building already serviced. ~ti:P, _r Location of water: Existing building akeady serviced. Issues or concerns: None ~~_ 2. Vegetation: There is existing landscaping on this site. The landscaping should be retained. 3. Floodplain: N/A ~:= 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 3 7 R ~. ,~ ~S~ ~~~.~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ~~.r 5. Hazards: N/A 6. Existing Zoning: O-T (Old Town) ~~ 7. Lot Size: 1.07 acres f. Conditional Use Information: ~" 1. Non-residential square footage: N/A - 8,000 square feet exists on this site 2. Hours of Operation: 24 hours aday/7 days a week _ g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: The UDC requires a minimum of 1 space per every 500 square feet ~~ of gross floor area. The subject application proposes to provide 46 parking spaces. (See Analysis below for parking and alternative compliance request). 2. Parking spaces provided: 44 exist today, 46 total parking spaces proposed (including 3 handicap accessible stalls) with re-striping the east parking area h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the parking facility is proposed to/from E. Idaho Avenue and an exit is proposed onto Meridian Road ,.;„ from the existing alley (no changes proposed). ~'~~ 7. COMMENTS MEETING On June 27, 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, and the Meridian Police Department. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ~.. ~~; ,1:;:;; j.; The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Old Town." Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Old Town land use category "includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Uses in this category would include offices, retail, and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential uses, new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be imposed. Pedestrian amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes a centralized activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings." Staff fmds that the requested use of the property as a parking facility is considered apublic/quasi- public use. Further, staff believes that the proposed use generally conforms to the stated purpose and intent of the Old Town 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): • Develop public parking areas in Old Town. (Chapter V, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) Staff believes that the proposed parking facility will provide the required parking for employees and patrons of the new City Hall, as well as provide additional public parking for downtown businesses when the City Hall is closed in the evening and on weekends. City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 4 4 1~ 5 h h y y Iff b A . ~:~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -5 ~ ~ Mf -', { iI t ~ ~',` ' i ~~ ~ ''~~ l, ~1 f' ~` 7 .: ~ ~~~ x Ji „ ~? . s ~ } ~ 3 ~~ 'F. ~ i y <^9 } ~ - ti'[ k ~C ~. Vipi sr~ 1 ~ L S ;N ry . ~ .'.fir:: .. ~~ ~~ -..-~ ~~f 3 a ~~ ~ ~ ~ +, ~r~ t:~ f`~; ~~ l CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF JULY 17, 2008 • Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (Chapter VII, Goal 1V) 4~~ Staff believes that the proposed parking facility should be compatible with existing uses in the :.`:I~ area. `~~' Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with '~' the surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or' written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate '~,'~ ~ for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE "Y`:a^ a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the O-T zoning district. Parking facilities are listed as a conditional use in the O-T zone. Further, per UDC 11-2D-4.D.3, all applications that do not meet the criteria in the "Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines" are subject to a CUP. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Old Town district is to accommodate and a;a ~, encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the O-T District is to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, ~'' `'' fmancial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi-public uses integrated with general _' business, and medium-high to high-density residential is encouraged to provide the appropriate `~' ~. mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center. „~,:.;: r `~`'`~~ 10. ANALYSIS ~~~; ~.- = - a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: ~'=~~~~ Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is requested for the following reasons: 1) Parking facilities require CUP approval in the O-T zoning district, per UDC Table 11-2D.2; and 2) The ~;~',~' proposed layout of the pazking facility does not fully comply with the Downtown Design `'~~~ Standazds (UDC 11-2D-4D.3). See Downtown Design Standards for Parking below for more _ information. t~~ ~ ; City Hall and associated pazking currently exist on this site. Access to the parking facility is proposed to/from E. Idaho Avenue and exits aze proposed onto Main Street and N. Meridian '"` Road from the existing alley (no changes proposed). A new City Hall is under construction to the -'=~ south of the subject property on the southeast comer of Broadway Avenue and Meridian Road. "" The use of the subject property as City Hall will cease when the new City Hall opens. This application proposes to use 46 total car pazking spaces as a parking facility downtown. If the ' subject CUP and ALT applications aze approved, 30 of the 46 stalls will count towazds the required spaces for the new City Hall. The remaining 16 stalls will count towazds the required ~~~- pazking for the existing 8,000 square foot building on this site. The pazking facility can be used r;t for general public business pazking after standazd city hall business hours (see Alternative Compliance below for more details). Downtown Design Standards for Parking: Standards for parking in the downtown (O-T) azea aze as follows: (Staff's analysis in italics) • Number of Parking Spaces Required: If off-street pazking is provided, the applicant shall provide accessible spaces as per federal accessibility standards. Three handicap accessible stalls are currently provided on the site; only 1 standard and '1 van accessible City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 5 day" s 7. = y, ~r~~ 3 ~ $ ~ t~' f ~ ~ y ~k( t Y ~r T ~ ~ h x ~ ~ [ ~, i F~ ~~ ~ .. 4 r ~~~ F 'Rti ' ~ ` 3 ~"~ T~ 1 ~ K `~ r'•H - ~_~~+. \C~d i J I * ' ~s ..{ J" Y . 'Rk ~a '~ . ~ 3 t : ~ ~~ : ~ ~ r- , ~ +~fl ~ -~ L t` -'Y ~' c -` t 1 ~3-~ F 1 ~~``.~,~ - { p ~ _ ~~ f 41^ , (f~F i , f a-1 f~ 4 t y ~, ~ { '~ 1 f ~Y CS 2 j CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 space are required, per ADA standards. • Size of Spaces: UDC Table 11-3C-5 requires 90° stalls to measure 9 feet in width by 19 feet in length, with 2-way drive aisles measuring 25 feet in width. The existing parking stalls comply with this requirement. In fact, there is enough room on the east end of the site to re-stripe the parking lot and pick up two additional stalls for a total of 46. • Location: Off-street pazking is allowed only at the reaz of building not visible from streets and in parking structures, Pazking is not allowed within street-facing facades. This street-facing area must be used for tenant space with active uses. Parking exists on the sides of the existing building. There is an alley that lies directly behind (south) the existing building. Because there is no room behind the building for parking, Staff does not believe that requiring the applicant to comply with this requirement is feasible. A parking structure is not proposed. • Screening: Screening of pazked cazs in parking structures above the first floor must include a solid panel up to 42 inches from floor levels. Structured parking garages will conform to the requirements of the Facade Treatment, Entrances section in these guidelines, except glazing is not required at floors above the first floor. N/A (A parking structure is not proposed with this application.) .~ ~`;, :~: ~~~,~ ;; ~~>:; I :k • Landscaping: Surface pazking lots shall be required to have streetscapes as described above and be screened at the street side(s) with minimum 3 foot high hedges, fences, or walls. Additional plantings, such as Class I trees, flowers and/or smaller shrubs, may also be included. (The classes of trees are defined for the purposes of these guidelines by the publication Tree Selection Cruide for Streets and Landscapes Throughout Idaho by the Urban Forestry Unit of the Boise Pazks and Recreation Department (latest edition). In general, Class I trees are smaller ornamental trees; Class II trees are medium/lazge trees appropriate for street tree planning; and Class III trees are very large). There is existing landscaping along both Meridian Road and Idaho Avenue. Further, there are hedges at the ends of the parking areas on Idaho Avenue and at the alley. The existing landscaping complies, and should continue to comply with this standard. Parking/Alternative Compliance: There are currently 44 spaces on the current City Hall site (see Exhibit A.2). The existing surface pazking lot is not proposed to be reconstructed but is proposed to be re-striped to add up to two additional stalls for a total of 46 stalls. Staff believes that when the parking lot is re-striped, it may be possible to add 2 additional spaces along the east property boundary (currently, the stalls aze wider than the UDC requires). Staff is supportive of the applicant adding up to two additional parking spaces along the east boundary if it is feasible dimensionally. Additionally, wheel stops should be added to the parking area as required by the UDC. As allowed by UDC 11-3C-7, the applicant is proposing three alternatives to the standazd on-site parking requirements of UDC 11-3C. As an alternative to the on-site pazking, or the in-lieu-of pazking fee, the applicant is proposing to use 30 pazking stalls at the current city hall site, 33 E. Idaho Avenue. (By City Code, at least 16 of the stalls should be reserved for the existing 8,000 squaze foot structure to remain. The other 30 stalls are proposed to count towazd the parking associated with the new city hall at 33 E. Broadway Avenue.) Further, the applicant is proposing to reduce the required number of stalls related to areas used primarily in the evening. Finally, the applicant is proposing to count some motorcycle pazking towards the required standazd car pazk requirement. The applicant believes that in this case it is more appropriate to provide pazking as proposed than pay an in-lieu fee. City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 6 E; 1, _ ,... __. ~~~ ~':t vV Via" b~ft ~'i-~ m i { i „~ ,y ~' . x ~ '~ ~ ~r ~. ~~~, , ~ , ~,kg1~Y ,t" ~~ ' y ~ Tl'A .yYT 5..! + r ~ ~ ~ `.~ w. ~ ~ . y w y~ y~ h~j f 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 f r. t t..r 3iry c^f ~ {,.r [~R ~ ~' ~; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARiN~i DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ~~, The two city hall structures (current and new) together total 87,870 square feet. Therefore, by `? City Code, a minimum of 176 parking stalls total should be provided. As an alternative, a total of 166 parking stalls aze proposed to serve both buildings. The applicant's justification for the `~~~`' r~ . lessened parking stalls is that a substantial squaze footage of the new city hall will be used after ~''~ normal business hours. Council Chambers, Historic Commission meeting room, and a multi- - 000 square feet. These areas are not generally being used from 8 am purpose room total almost 5 ~::,~: , to 5 pm, but aze instead used after hours. The applicant contends that sharing the parking stalls for standard business hours and after-hours business is appropriate in this instance. k,~.':; The Unified Development Code requires 1 parking stall for every 500 square feet of building "` azea. The new Meridian City Hall will contain a total of 79,870 squaze feet of azea. Therefore, ~~`= ~ 160 pazking stalls are required for Meridian City Hall. There aze 120 on-site parking stalls "" proposed on the plans for CZC-07-036, Meridian City Hall, which includes both 33 E. Broadway Avenue and 641 N. Main Street. This leaves a shortage of 40 pazking stalls for the new City Hall. The applicant believes providing 30 of the remaining 40 stalls for Meridian City Hall off-site, at F~,r 33 E. Idaho Avenue will be favorable for several reasons. First, the properties aze approximately 215 feet apart. There is only an alley, the Bank of the Cascades property and Broadway Avenue between the two properties. UDC 11-3C-7 allows shared parking for uses within 1,000 feet of "'^''~ each other. That standazd is met in this situation. Second, as required by UDC l 1-3C-7, the applicant believes these 30 stalls will be convenient for ~~'` ' the users. Should the on-site parking lots be full, patrons and/or employees can park at 33. E. ;~;~: Idaho and walk to new City Hall. There is sidewalk along Idaho Avenue, Broadway Avenue and Meridian Road, creating convenient pedestrian connections between the two properties. Further, °" the applicant proposes to ask ACHD if striping and signing amid-block cross walk on Broadway Avenue is possible to create an even more pedestrian friendly relationship between the off-site pazking area and the front door to City Hall. If approved, Staff believes signs should be erected at 33 E. Broadway Avenue providing notice of the availability of parking at 33 E. Idaho Avenue, as well as signs at 33. E. Idaho Avenue indicating that the parking azea is reserved during business ''~ hours for City Hall. ~ ` Finally, the property at 33 E. Idaho Avenue is owned by the City and no lease agreement or other contract is necessary for the proposed off-site parking. After city hall business hours, the subject t~.~r parking lot can be used for general downtown public pazking needs. To mitigate the 10 pazking stall shortage, and as an alternative to providing standard car parking, '.v;~ motorbike pazking is proposed. With the cost of fuels and the need to have some designated motorbike pazking for city hall, the applicant is proposing to make up the shortage with ~" ~ motorbike parking. The proposed motorbike pazking is proposed on the southwest side of the new ~~~ city hall site at 33 E. Broadway Avenue. The applicant believes that motorbike parking is consistent with the objectives of the alternative transportation section of UDC 11-3C-7. To even ~s' further the goals of the City and improve the pazking situation in downtown, the applicant will ~~~° also look into additional alternative modes of transportation to/from City Hall. Carpools and vanpools as well as future access to both bus and rail routes aze alternative long-term options. ~;'~' NOTE: The ALT application would not typically require Commission action, it is an administrative-level application. However, because the request is not consistent with the pia'; terms of Resolution No. 07-583 (attached) Staff is requesting the Commission decide if the alternative compliance request is appropriate in this case. Staff thought it would be appropriate for the decision to be made as part of a public hearing, rather than at the staff level. If the Commission approves the alternative compliance request, some conditions of ~4_~ approval should be considered such as: 1) requiring the applicant to inquiring to ACHD if ~ striping and signing amid-block cross walk on Broadway Avenue is possible, linlang the City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 7 ~ ,~~ ti,.r .~ ~' a }~ _, .::~ .: ~ ~.', n }' z _ , `M ~T fit: i. , x r _ ~b Inc 5y F ~f, k i V ~Y 1 M1r 2 '~ ~x ` -. ~~ _` ,~a ~' 4 ~ ~ take 2008 ORT FOR THE HE ATE OF JULY 17 , CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REP current city hall parking to the new city hall site, 2) requiring signs to be erected at 33 E. ~, Broadway Avenue providing notice of the availability of parking at 33 E. Idaho Avenue, as well as signs at 33. E. Idaho Avenue indicating that the parking area is reserved during ; _! ~` business hours for City Hall, 3) providing designated motorbike parking at 33 E. Broadway c , ~~ Avenue, and, 4) requiring the applicant to look into additional alternative modes of transportation to/from City Hall, such as carpools and vanpools. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the proposed use are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Parking for City Hall should only be needed Monday thru Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. After that time, the proposed parking facility should provide additional public parking for downtown 'w-° businesses when business is limited and/or when City Hall is closed in the evening and on ;,', weekends. Staff is supportive of the proposed hours of operation for the proposed parking facility. '.'''~<~ The Commission should rely on any public testimony to determine if hours should be limited. ~~ 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 F , r ~ : Planning Department prior to re-establishment of the parking lot for new City Hall use (NOTE: CZC requirement only applies if the ALT application is approved). ` } ~~'i f b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-018 for a parking facility in y ~,~ , ~,;{Y ~ - Old Town, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in .h,A - „ '"~ ~ Exhibit B. NOTE: The ALT application would not typically require Commission action, it is a staff-level application. However, because the request is not consistent with Resolution No. 07-583 (attached) Staff is requesting the Commission to decide if the alternative compliance `~ `~~ request is appropriate in this case. Staff thought it would be appropriate for the decision to I be made as part of a public hearing, rather than at the staff level. The Meridian Planning r ,°~ and Zonins Commission heard this item on July 17, 2008. At the >aublic hearins, they F , , :~- moved to an>arove CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016. r~;~: ~~ 11. EXHIBITS A. Exhibits 1. Vicinity Map . wt ill: 2. Aerial Map II 3. Resolution No. 07-583 I ~~ ,~~, B. Conditions of Approval x.;,~ . 1. Planning Department ' - ~ ~ 2. Public Works Department s;:~ ` ~ 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department ~:~ a 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District '~="' 8. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District ~' C. Required Findings from UDC City Hall Parking Facility - E Idaho Ave CUP Page 8 ~x ~: j yT l ( ~ ~~ 1 4 ~~ 2 w, 'y e+cr t ~ ' ~ rt' ...r ~r CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~DATE OF NLY 17, 2008 ;; A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map iy~ 4~;;; '~'UU~I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I ~ i i i i W PINE AVE E PINE AVE ti z _. z~ ~ W IDAHO AVE I E IDAHO AVE rv ._ ___.._______.______.___._..._____.__________.___._._~___._ i ~ w z z li N i I O-T G W BROADWAY AVE ~ ~ E BROADWAY AVE 1- - _- i ~ z O-T ~i i i f i : : : i t r: t O ~ ~ U~JION PACIFIC RXR i II II t . : : : ~~ Exhibit A +~~ - ar tj ~" 1 ~ hf Y~~ '~ 'y`. ~ ~ R ~.; k ~ f ~ 1E ~~ t '~/ ~ ~ 5 y ~ ~ J~, YrV-,y ~~ [' a~~ ~~ ~ ~ (~ s Pl ~ ~ ( ~ '~L~ JJ ~~},H~f ~ + s Y,. k { ' { {.S~ } ~ ~ '~I { { ~ A~`L , ~R ~ f ~~ ~ yyy~~~ p yy~ ~fv%.1. V~ . ~.~ ; l ~'~ 1 s k , F F ~~ µ j ~ gp "3? ~'1 A +16~ j} 'i~- j ~ ? p ~ yy~~ ~ I , d. + 444 ~~~... :: " : 4 yj [ Fe ~ ~~tt~~ ~ t~ r., f~ ~ [ ~~ Y r .~~?tt r i ~ ~~ p lf~ _ _ '~~r.~ 1 ,'~?; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~DATE OF JiJLY 17, 2008 2. Aerial Map A Exhibit A its'` ;; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF JULY 17, 2008 _, 3. Resolution No. 07-583 t: ;~ , ,~ :~:; l~r ~~4 .., 6: CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. ®7' ~S BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, ADOPTING THE MERH)LAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S PROPOSED FEES IN LIEU OF PARIONG POLICY. WHEREAS, the Meridimr Development Corporation has developed a policy for Fees m Lieu of Packing, which outlines the desired goals of providing an additional option that may help Downtown developments solve site parking issues; encouraging shared parking through use of a mammon parking lot or structure; iangroving urban design by reducing oa site parking, by increasing the continuity of storefronts and by locating parking where it minimizes traffic and pedestrian disruptions; limiting the number of requests for redncerl parking requirements; and preserving historic places through adaptive re-use rather than demolition to create all required parking on-sste; and; WHEREAS, these same goals are expressed in the Downtown Design Guidelines addendum to the City ofMeridian Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, tike Meridian Development Corporation has reyuest~ that the City of Median assist in the implementation of such Fees in Lieu of Parking; and WHEREAS, Secdon 11-3C-6 of the Unified Development Code t;UDC) lists the required number of parking spaces by use; and WHEREAS, Section I 1-SB-SB of the UDC allows for alternative oompliaaee to fire provisions listed in Section 11-3C-6 where the proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism," "neotraditional design," or other site designs that promote wallkable and mixed nse neighlmrhoods; and WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a policy with regard to payment of in-lieu few that does not require additional staff to implement and monitor over time; NOW, THEREFORE BE 1[T RESOLVED by The Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, that the City of Meridian adopts the following policy with regard to the Planning Director's approval of alternative compliance for required parking spaces within the Old Town District; 1. Per UDC 11-3C-6, the required number of parking spaces is based on the gross floor area. In determirring the number of required parking spaces within the Old Town District, the Plamung Director shall subtract'the square footage of structue that will be saved, remodeled, andlor restored. 'this policy shall apply to any RFSOLUTIQM-F):ES IN LIEU OF PARKII+TG FOR THE OLD TORN DISTRICT Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A ' , ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ` ~ 3 ;~;; Y a ~ riy FF y 7 ] ~/ v~.~: ~.` ~S# . ~~ y~~3 ~ rT+ {i~ i r J y l ~ ~ImY {- ? YI - .. Yh r fx ~ ~ 6 yy mil} ~ / fi j = L.. ~ NY ~]jr f ~ f ,, r.- ~~ ,} : 1 V `, ~~ :...:a... .. ~ ~ r :.r r` f eB ~f ~ ` ,yc, V .. . ~ r~ 7 ~ ~' 7?~~~ Y ~ ~ rf ~'~w s n ~ ~~ ~ ' k - ~ ~8r t~ts '~ . ~ . ~ .+~, h r r k, ~~ yy ~- u ~~ y ~ ~ k-- y ~ ~ ~ E R` ~r~r . ,., ~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ,i,::~ development within the Old Town District seeking alternative compliance, ~;i regardless of whether or nat the applicant seeks to pay fees in-lieu of the repaired parking. (Planning staff shall initiate a UDC teat amendment to formalize this - standard such that alternative compliance is not repaired.) _~= ~ 2. All applicant seeking to pay fees in-Gea of providing the required Barking must submit as alternative compliance applic~tioa to the Planning Department =: -: ' coneanrent with a Certi$cate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) for the promised site : = ~~.: aardJar building improvements. 3. All pto~sed projects mast provide tire required number of parking spaces thmagh a combination of on-site patking a~ in-lieu fees. 4. Prior to issuance of the C2C, the appli~tion mast inclade documentation from the MDC Administrator that states the rmmher of parking spaces purchased through in-lieu few and the required payment amount. ' 5. Planning staffwill coflect will oollect the fee and provide a r~ipt to the : °:' applicant. ,_; 6. Accounting staff will deposit the monies into the Meridian Development Corporation Restricted Parking Fund to he spent pursuaztt to the adopted Fee-In k't Lieu of Parking Policy, and as provided by the agreemcet with the applicant. ADOPTED by the City Cannel! of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this Z~r day of ©~ ~ , 2007. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 23 ~~day of OG~' ~+~ .2007. "f ~ APPROVED: „~d~~taiupu ,7. ATTEST: ~ CI' ~ i~ t, r.-:; ~'- " ` ~ e ' m ~h r William ®. Berg, Jr., C. .Cl ~ . , .~ ~ ~ JJ ~~1~f ~ ~~,~ ` ',1 .~.. _ i;''J~ . C. ~~ ~ de Weerd RESOLUTION-EWES IN LIEU OF PARKING FOR THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A f , .; a x ~ 4 ~ ~} W. ~ ~ ,'i~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ ~~ ; r ~ ~~~ ."R! ,~ ~~ }x~ ~ yti -r [t *j C 1 ~, L 4~ ~t 5 ~: A ig r l Y: ~ 5 is-: ~ 4~ r. r ~.. ~ < Xw Z ~~ ~*7ar ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~" -~4 ~ 4 ,~a~, ~ k . ~ T; ,j} 1 h _ ~, ~t p I St ,T ~ t~,.~ :.] ~: t.; - - - r,~'• ~ k .i. /; .~ ~ 1~~ 1 ~Z.~ a /C re~. L ~ "-a ~~ ~ti ,~ +ft~d~ : ,r 1 ~ r ~ ~ i ~ k ~~~ .4q} ~~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEDATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ~ B. Conditions of Approval ~;r~ 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall add up to two additional parking spaces along the east boundary, for a total of 46 parking stalls. 1.2 In accord with UDC 11-3C-S.B.3, provide wheel restraints to prevent cars from encroaching upon - abutting private property or overhanging beyond the designated stall area. {f 1.3 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 use has not begun within 18 months of _ approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to commencement of the proposed use. r '"~ 1.4 Retain the existing parking lot landscaping including the hedges along the streets being 3' tall. ~,~~~ 1.5 ALT-08-016 is approve~r$ved for off-site, shared parking as described herein for the ;~,° ~ new Meridian City Hall (CZC-07-036). (~€-a~~r-aft conditions are included in the >~`~ Analysis section, pages 7 and S of the Staff Report. --~ rr'• -~ ~rrY r Fx-;': 1.6 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-018 (and ALT-08-016, if approved) =~~`~ ' 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 City Hall use. ~~ `e' _ '~~ 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~~ Z.1 Public Works has no concerns with this application. ~:c , . 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 4:r~ Y :{~ fi d ... . epartment concerns. re :~'--; - 3.1 The proposed project has no `r~'#'" 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT ' t::~; ~~'~"` 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to this application. ia. '~' S. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. . i 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY ~-~ `! 6.1 Sanitary Services Company did not submit comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ;~ _ 7.1 ACHD submitted a "no comment" letter regarding this application; all required improvements exist abutting the site. 8. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ;~ 8.1 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on the above-referenced application. Exhibit B `~. [ Yi f ~ ~~~~ = '~i,U •- "'~ ~~+R. - ~ 1 ., ^T"~ ~~, _.f . f .{` ~d ~. r.. -~ _ ~~ i~'& (° `8i 'i~' y. . f '~ M y 1~ t h, ~ :L ~ of '?v ~ 4 ~ c ~' ~ r 'i ' :1?! ~ ~ ~, ,~ i ~ r~ ~ i .. '~"~.. .,.. Y«-".: , ; r- a "1 iF' {Ag x ~~ ats ~~ ?; ,r, 4 `' , -~ ~1fi a, t ~ rya i- - x~ ~s.~ i~~_ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINrDATE OF JULY 17, 2008 "' C. Re uired Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC q The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the ~-> following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional ~~?~~ and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the site is large enough to accommodate a portion of the required ~~=.", parking for the new City Hall. Because the existing parking lot is not proposed to be replaced, s'~' current UDC provisions pertaining to landscape requirements are not applicable to this site. Staff " recommends the Commission rely on Staffs analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use, ~t including the alternative compliance request. '~ ` " 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in . '`,`~',~ accord with the requirements of this Title. ;.~,»- The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this ~~ property is Old Town. The property is currently zoned O-T, which complies this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the applicable 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, I ' the proposed use as a parking facility should be compatible with other uses in the general area ; ~. x~,, ~'^''' 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. `~?'°^I 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 ,~ ~~~~~.I other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services I such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, ?` ~ ~' -~ ~ refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission fords that the subject property is currently served by public facilities such as streets, police, and fire protection. 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. The applicant is not proposing to replace any of the existing parking area at this time; some additional striping is proposed. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. Exhibit C -° ~. ~ ~ i~}''ly ~ Y ~ y ,4 ,;:-. is 4'{ ~ 5~•.~.p 1 ~k F i,., ~~ ~ ~ v t:%3 '~i. . IFS ~( t ~ h ~ 5 ~' f9 f ~(, ~` r r~ Y? k '~; `. ~~ ~ , x " ~j ^~' ~ t s' a kb ~"'~ ~~ ~ r i~H ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~~ ~ Viz.- ' F ~ _ `, ~r' ~~ ~ .4 ~. ,~. .>, ~*'~ ;;~ ~ ~~x ~z ~` a~~ ; CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAATE OF JULY 17, 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 continued use of the property as a parking facility will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission fords that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C • • ~ August 4, 2008 CUP 08-017 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING AUgUSt 7, 2008 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 3~Ci REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -CUP for a Parking Facility that does not comply w/ the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines on 0.71 of an acre in the O-T zoning district for New City Hall Parking Facility - SWC of Main Street 8~ Broadway Ave X641 N. Main Street) AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTQR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ,,'~ :~„_ r~r ~;.~.... -.: ~~~;.._ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF E IDIAN;r--- LAW AND o ®~ ~, ~ DECISION & ORDER t In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit for a parking _ ~ ~ ~ "".k ~` ~ facility in the O-T zoning district that does not fully comply with the Dovyauoj~1Vle,~i~i~n~~ ~~~ ~+ Design Guidelines, by the City of Meridian ~;~ ~s,~l~ '~~ ~ se Nos .CUP-08-017 ~,~~ .. ~j \ q ; ~ ~,,5'. ^.9, ~. _ .~ ~ , , ' ` For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 17, 2008 (Fiddiidig"s do =' {~''`' August 7, 2008 agenda) -, ~~_`Txi A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 `~-> 'r incorporated by reference) `ys, . 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 ~~T: ~: ~r ~ ~`j incorporated by reference) ~~~ `~%' 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, t~;ti'. ~"~.~ 2008 incorporated by reference) ~,F 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference) f~;: B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-O8-017 Page 1 r f ~{ a x ~ s ': r~ l ~ ', t Z'L ' Y ~° }, ,. i~~ ~'` C r~ >, a7' ' ~~ i r'. ~ '~ ~ ~ s 9 ~ t" i.t .. ~ ti:.~; ~a ~ '~ _y;K "~ i '' ~~~ ~~T - ~ ~, } e h'f r 4yf >Q5,'5~~ ~, ,r i~ "$~ E r . i 4 D':1 ~z~ciG i ~~.e ~ w `obi '~ ~ ., a rr.:~ ~r Rake, - ~ x. ~ ~~ r '~-` ~ ~~ ~~ r wv _ ' ~ ~~ `,x ~ { , .~S - ~~+ " r f Y.. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ y ~ n }j 1 i it Ql ~,C",~ .wti', .~ ._ frl...,~ ~`~ 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not x;,`I impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 4`~' 6. That the Ci has anted an order of a royal in accordance with this Decision, which y tY 1~' pP ~~`~'' shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and s~"° i any affected party requesting notice. ~, ;; 7. That this approval is subject to Plans and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff ~F~. , Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are -~ ~_~ concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition ~~: ~ of approval of the application. ~' ~ C. Decision and Order '4~i .~ 'an Cit Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission s authority as provided in Merida y ~~ ~::y; Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 'i ~~IL~ ~~i 1. The applicant's site plan prepared by LCA Architects, P.A., labeled Sheet L1.O1, dated May 5, 2008, and the landscape plan, labeled Sheet L1.72, dated May 9, 2008, as ,~ ~ ~, I evidenced by having submitted the plans, are hereby conditionally approved; and, ~` { 2. The conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing ~t ~ date of July 17, 2008 incorporated by reference. d ~ ~ * D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits =x Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-017 Page 2 ~ , V Z 4 r ' ~ f £Sk ~ •~ 'h P`. r ~ 1- a k. .. ~ k - ~ ~ ~ y l ~ V ~o'~> l fEYf~' } W x~+~C ~ f 4 6~~~ 3 ~' ~ ~~ ~"~ . S ~ ~~; ~ _ f r; '~ `~~ - , ~„4„ ~ .~, x ~ ~ ~y ~. ~ _ ~ ~ ~~-~.~ ' ~ ~ ''' ~ , r ; ~. s~`", x ~~ ~:: w( :o h ~;~' y { : ~':;. k7 '~ fish ` ,~ ~' ~ i ,~ ~, r ~ 1~ t `~ ~~ ~a ~ " ~ 3"" r ~~ ' ~: , .~ ,a , ~, r G' LK ~~f} 4 .: } 7' b :~ t" ~~... ~_ d 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. "~r . ~ ~ E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis . ~:~b: sue' 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 finah 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. ~,r -;r~ ' ' 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. ,.,~`I F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008 ,, ~~.~~. ~ ~ ~;~ . {, ?~ .y ~,_ ~ •:.~ ~~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER s `"~ - ` ~ CASE NO(S). CUP-08-017 Page 3 Y~~; r t , P~~:~ . _ r; ." ~:'.I ::. ~,: ~l, ~k `: _ ~ t;.:s COMMISSIONER JOE MARSHALL VOTED CHAIRMAN DAV MOE ,. est: ~qr~ ti 0 ara Green, Depu#~.~ erk ~~ ®~ r psi . ,. Copy served upon Applic"d9+It~ASTdis~Pl~anning Deparment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By Dated: ~" ~ ~ - City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-08-017 Page 4 r`<° ~~;-: By action f the Pla ,i~.g & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2008. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED i~/~ COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED ~ ~ ~' ax CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ?~:_`' STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 17, 2008 ~:~F TO: Planning & Zoning Commission E IDIAN ~- FROM: Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager :~ ; (208) 884-5533 ~:l SUBJECT: New City Hall Parking Facility • CUP-08-017 Conditional Use Permit for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district that -~=; does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines - 1. Si.T1VIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST s"~~` ` The Applicant, City of Meridian, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a surface parking facility that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines as ` required by UDC 11-2D-4D.3. Conditional Use Permit approval is required for parking facilities in r* ~ ..: the O-T zoning district (UDC Table 11-2D-2). The proposed parking facility is proposed to have a total of 52 surface parking spaces. Access to the ~~'~=i. parking facility is proposed to/from Broadway Avenue and an exit is proposed onto Main Street from an alley. These parking spaces are proposed to contribute to the total number of required spaces for the new City Hall, which is located just to the west. The site is located at 641 N. Main Street, on the ''Y'''' ' southwest comer of Main Street and Broadway Avenue. Previously a fueling station was on the subject site. Currently, this site is vacant. The property consists of 0.71 acres of land and is currently `~ zoned O-T (Old Town). r; 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION ~r,z Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-017 for a new parldng facility in Old Town, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, subject to the conditions-listed in Ezhibit B. ~`N Y The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17, 2008. At the uublic hearing, they moved to auurove CUP-08-017. `'''~'~ a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: None ~..a; ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting. None ' ~ iv. Written testimony: None %~<, v. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood `: ` vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Nary b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission: -r ''' i. Appropriateness of request. c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: ~' ~` ~ i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval `' `'~ After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-08- 017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, with the following r modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to _: x,. s~~ New City Hall Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 1 yfo.. ,gyp t ,~ ~ ~ , der ~. ~ 1~ `~y t` r~ ~y ~~ Y \ ~ - l 1 ~^ ~ i S _ hE ~ N ~d;~~Yl.~ k + C ~+ ~ ~ ~~ ~ S i^~ , ~ ' ~ ,.t , _ - -. .. ,,µ ~, ' r r' ~'Y «' L'' 7t .. - ~ fkt~ •ij w ,u #~< x' JKJpF !y +~ ~ ~' ! ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ y 1.1 , 1 ~ i k 1 ~. w. ~~:i ~ ~ °~ ~,! r - ~~ . 4 f~7 w~V~ ' f Yr' ' . N,, ~ F ~ v )1 (r ~ ~ 7 ~' A t y~ ~ "~ t ';t tF ~ '~ ~~ • ~~i + { ~ . ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 °,~~~~ direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 7, 2008. Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP-08-017, as presented during the hearing on July 17, 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 ~~'~ Plannin and Zoning Commission hearing on August 7, 2008. ~~:,~. g r. . ~'' Continuance ~4 : After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 08-017 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 =, ~,,~ 1~'.;;.~5,.. ~. ~.::: a. Site Address/Location: 641 N. Main Street ~a~ ~` - Generally located on the southwest corner of N. Main Street and E. Broadway Avenue `"~` '- Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East ' ~ b. Owner: '"~~'~ ',`~,~: City of Meridian fit" ~~< 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 ~:~ :;, ;: ~; c. Applicant /Contact: , ~```' Same as Owner d. Present Zoning: O-T (Old Town) ~`"i e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for a surface parking facility in the Old Town district that does not fully comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines, per UDC 11-2D-4D.3. Additionally, CUP approval is requested for a parking facility in the O-T zoning district, as required by UDC 11-2D-2. g. Description of Applicant's Justification for CUP Approval: "We are applying for CUP approval for a parking facility due to the UDC requirements for all parking facilities to obtain CUP approval, and because the subject parking facility layout does not fully comply with the adopted Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. The proposed surface parking facility will provide much needed parking for the new City Hall and the general public." 5. PROCESS FACT5 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: June 30, and July 14, 2008 New City Hall Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 2 ` ~ ~ ~Y y~~ }I ¢ K'~ { {~ ~. +s I~lf y, ~ y~ ¢ ~ ' ,~. 5 ~ J.~ i+tiq , r ~ L , ~k•ry w- ~.'.T 'b~f "lA x ~~ 4+T'~ 7 t !~€ ~. ~ a: _ 4, ar ~ ~-~! • ' ~a ~ ma ~~' y, ._~_ .. titi~ Jfc~ .1~.~ 1S1.t'±`~,: ~ i +t ~• ~~ ~ ~~~. ` x ~~ ~ F~ . ~ ~ 4 Yt~ J ~ ~ Q~ ~• ~} T ~ 3~ ~~. ~ ry, _"T."a ~ z at. s,: i ~~ .' .. ~ ~~t ~ . mot` - ~ S • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 20, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 3, 2008 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant. Currently being used as a staging area for construction equipment associated with the new City Hall. b. Description of Character of Sun ounding Area: The surrounding area is all zoned O-T (Old Town) and primarily consists of retail and service oriented uses. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: City Human Resources and Legal Department offices; zoned O-T 2. East: Commercial businesses; zoned O-T 3. South: Commercial business (coffee shop, Zamzows); zoned O-T 4. West: New City Hall, zoned O-T d. History of Previous Actions: CUP and VAR applications were approved for this site in 2005. The CUP and VAR proposed amixed-use, vertically integrated project and parking on this site. The City has since acquired the property. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: No additional services will be required. Location of water: No additional services will be required. 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: O-T (Old Town) ' 7. Lot Size: 0.71 acres £ Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: N/A 2. Hours of Operation: 24 hours aday/7 days a week g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required/proposed: The UDC requires a minimum of 1 space per every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The subject application proposes to provide 52 parking spaces. h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the parking facility is proposed to/from E. Broadway Avenue and an exit is proposed onto Main Street from an alley. 7. COMMENTS MEETING New City Hall Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 3 ~` Y%,' • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 On June 27, 2008, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this azea. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Meridian Police Department. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ~- rehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Old Town.." The 2002 Com p Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Old Town land use category "includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Uses in this category would include offices, retail, and ;`'` lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of =' residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential uses, new construction of ja~, ~,, , , t~~~.,, multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate ~'"'~ preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be imposed. Pedestrian amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes a centralized t-~'.:=, activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The boundazy of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several azeas, ~'' both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and ~'~' ~ complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings." - Staff finds that the requested use of the property as a pazking facility is considered apublic/quasi- y~,.y, F`~`' ublic use. Further, staff believes that the proposed use generally conforms to the stated purpose and p `~'~`", intent of the Old Town designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff fmds the following `' _~ ~ Com rehensive Plan olicies to be a licable to this ro and a 1 to the ro osed use staff P P PP P Ply PP Y P P ( '`~=:, ~~ analysis in italics): ~~ ''. • Develop public parking azeas in Old Town. (Chapter V, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) >~ Staff believes that the proposed parking facility will provide the required parking for employees and patrons of the new City Hall, as well as provide additional public parking for downtown ~:'s ''~"~ businesses when the City Hall is closed in the evening and on weekends. =~5 • Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. (Chapter VII, Goal a, IV) Staff believes that the proposed parking facility should be compatible with existing uses in the area. Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2D-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the O-T zoning district. Pazking facilities are listed as a conditional use in the O-T zone. Further, per UDC 11-2D-4.D.3, all applications that do not meet the criteria in the "Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines" aze subject to a CUP. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Old Town district is to accommodate and encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the O-T District is to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, New City Hail Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 4 ~ ~~,~:, 5Yf x ~ r~~ °£~ ~ e ,~ R `~ ~ yt -r.~Y~:ji: ~~; - f ,~'' > ~.; _~ 3s rr _ ~ ~ r r ~ e.~ k ~ 3~~ ~x ~~~. € ~~ °, ~ - ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~-~ . ; t ~ ~~ ~ ~.: ~ tit , ,~ w ~,: ~~ _ _ Y ~ ~4 `' ;' ~ ~~N` ~~ ~ ~±. ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ l 4 -µ~ t t , y - I-Y' S ;} I + ~ f, . . ~a ._..r ~fa~: F yH ~]]yy.~~ "F4 ~ - ~~°, ~~ ® • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 financial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi-public uses integrated with general ~`~' . business, and medium-high to high-density residential is encouraged to provide the appropriate -., ,,,, mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center. -'~ 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the Qy proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: a;, Conditional Use Permit (CUP): A CUP is requested for the following reasons: 1) Parking p'',' facilities require CUP approval in the O-T zoning district, per UDC Table 11-2D.2; and 2) The . ~ proposed layout of the parking facility does not fully comply with the Downtown Design . Standards (UDC 11-2D-4D.3). See Downtown Design Standards for Parking below for more 3 -'I ,~ information. Access to the proposed parking facility is to/from E. Broadway Avenue and an exit is proposed w"{ ~ onto Main Street from a public alley. A new City Hall is under construction directly to the west, ~, .> ~"`~'~'r on the southeast corner of Broadway Avenue and Meridian Road. This application proposes to use the proposed 52 car parking spaces as a parking for city hall. If the subject CUP application is approved, the stalls will count towards the required spaces for the new City Hall as required by CZC-07-036. The new City Hall building consists of 79,870 square feet. Per UDC 11-3C-6B, a ~:,: . minimum of 1 vehicle parking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Per this I r.;.;>,. requirement, a minimum of 160 spaces are required to be provided for new City Hall. The existing City Hall site, the new City Hall site and the subject site all have parking areas proposed ,iµ` ~~ to serve the new City Hall building (see CZC-07-036, CUP-08-018 and ALT-08-016). ~~~ Downtown Design Standards for Parldng: Standards for parking in the downtown (O-T) area are as follows: (Staff's analysis in italics) r ~ ` '' • Number of Parldng Spaces Required: If off-street parking is provided, the applicant shall provide accessible spaces as per federal accessibility standards. Three handicap :~~:;f~ accessible stalls are currently provided on the site. • Size of Spaces: UDC Table 11-3C-5 requires 90° stalls to measure 9 feet in width by 19 ;~ v:: feet in length, with 2-way drive aisles measuring 25 feet in width. The proposed parking w y ~~ stalls comply with this requirement. '`~ • Location: Off-street parking is allowed only at the rear of building not visible from '< streets and in parking structures, Parking is not allowed within street-facing facades. This street-facing area must be used for tenant space with active uses. All of the subject site is proposed for parking, no building is proposed. Because there is no building, it is `~' impossible to comply with this standard, Staff does not believe that requiring the '' ' applicant to comply with this requirement is feasible with the need for parking. A parking `~:'; structure is not propose, but maybe the surface parking lot can be converted to a '~ structure. • Screening: Screening of parked cars in parking structures above the first floor must `a~:' include a solid panel up to 42 inches from floor levels. Structured parking garages will conform to the requirements of the Facade Treatment, Entrances section in these guidelines, except glazing is not required at floors above the first floor. N/A (A parking '~:Y structure is not proposed with this application.) • Landscaping: Surface parking lots shall be required to have streetscapes as described above and be screened at the street side(s) with minimum 3 foot high hedges, fences, or walls. Additional plantings, such as Class I trees, flowers and/or smaller shrubs, may also New City Hall Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 5 :Y sf., e ~t < y ~ p y •':'. r: SiJi ? 'k i ~ h Y ? .;~i,a ~, , yy ~r ~ , ~~h ;, ~:~ ~~~5 d~3 £ ~x ~s s;.i : , ~~y^..~ `F~~ ([7a ei twt~ X„~s :~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 be included. (The classes of trees are defined for the purposes of these guidelines by the ~~~ publication Tree Selection Guide for Streets and Landscapes Throughout Idaho by the ~~ Urban Forestry Unit of the Boise Parks and Recreation Department (latest edition). In `` ~ general, Class I trees are smaller ornamental trees; Class II trees are medium/large trees appropriate for street tree planning; and Class III trees are very large). To be consistent - with MDC's goals for providing a commerce area along the adjacent streets, landscape ",`.~ hedges are not proposed. Some trees and other landscaping are proposed around the parking lot, with tree grates along Broadway Avenue and Main Street. Staff is supportive of not screening the parking facility as it will allow visibility into the parking area as well ;_~ - r.~ as to city hall. Site Plan/Landscape Plan: A site and landscape plan were submitted for this site. Except for the ~`: ' Downtown Design Guidelines mentioned above, the proposed parking area and landscaping rovide wheel B 3 3C S h UDC 11 i '; ~ . , p - - . t generally comply with the UDC requirements. In accord w restraints to prevent cars from encroaching upon the adjacent sidewalk or overhanging beyond the ~ -';~ designated stall area. Wheel stops should be added to the parking stalls on the north and .- south sides of the proposed facility. Also, the exact design of the entrance into the alley and the =:Ar ;. alley design itself still need to be reviewed and approved by ACHD. Some modifications to the -:,, .- } y; alley and the driveway leading into the alley may be required by ACRD. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the proposed use are 24 hours a day, 7 days a ~:~':.;. week. A vast majority of the parking for City Hall should only be needed Monday thru Friday from 8 am to 5 pm. After that time, the proposed parking facility should provide additional public parking for downtown businesses when business is limited and/or when City Hall is closed in the `~;~ evening and on weekends. Staff is supportive of the proposed hours of operation for the proposed `' parking facility. The Commission should rely on any public testimony to determine if hours =k{~~ should be limited. ,._, 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 'f~~, 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 (or modify CZC-07-036) from the Planning Department prior to construction of the parking facility. All improvements should be installed prior to occupancy. ~"~ b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-08-017 for a paring facility in Old Town, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 17, 2008, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval listed in " ' Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 17, apt. 2008 At the uublic hearing, they moved to au>arove CUP-08-017. New City Hall Parking Facility -CUP-08-017 Page 6 ~"`~ f `~ r :,~ , ' ~ N r ,~ r .; ~ a a -3~ '1r.t S, J ~ ~ ~~_Y Ff' l ~~P ii \ ~ . .rC vF,., r yam. i ~}~i! ~ ~1 ~ ~~~ n 4.-i LN' t~. t ~ ~ ~~.. ~~ 'Yr, 't y ~ ~, ~ ['~k~~ i '«;: -~: -~i Y ~_ ~~i ,:...x . . :'_ tif` i K=. ~~~1 r~~,. ~r. -;,t t ~ ~ ,,~~ c.; :' ~~=¢r ~ i ~^ ~,,.m 4i `,' c i ~ ..~ rig x ~ ~'~~'` ,Z'i~~c, i~'': CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map -$ i CI-T ~I IL f __ _ _. E BROADWAY H z a N ~L i J ~~~l~~= Exhibit A `~ `~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 :;,# ^,~ r ,, ~~,: _ tip: ~'~' a.~ ~~~~ ~,~ .~ 2. Site Plan Exhibit A 4'"C ~ 3++ ~;. T k i >.l x :3 C 1W~w ~ ~ C - ' r ~~ K'~ r~lk 1 ~ .C ,, ` ` }~yi- . ~ ~~~ ~ `L+"y _ i" ~ } ~ id+ ~ _ ~~ i. ~ -~' ~~~ , PLC s +~ J a ~ ~~P 1 ` t, 1 ~1Y4~iwti ai; ,`~' ~t;' 'Y :.;~ s S+ i," - • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 3. Landscape Plan 5- ~ -~ e -'- _'~ _ 9 t r H F t j 1 X89 4 Z P( ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ° .I DH ~ ~;~ ~ - i ~ t ~ __ ' i a P > ~ ~ - ~ v ~ r- m ~ T _ e i - - - -- 1 "~ a ~ ~ _ ~ ~ gg I ~ 9 "~~ ~ -- r. ~ - ~ ~ - Q ~ $ _ ~ °~ ,. ~ie -. _ ~ <~& n ~ 1~ ~ M t ,_~'yJ I r S 1 t I ~ t f i 1 ~ ~ ~y ~~ ~ ~~~~~ _ I ~ ~1 ~ - ~~ -~-~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~- r . f -- C ~ HFI ' ~ _ _ _ _ - A Ql A~ s,~ t I t ~ C _ ~ I I~ ~ , B.~ 61nRJ AT. ~ ~ MAIN ST. 6y ( ~ ~ { i ~ B ° ~~jj RR 1l I H++rr.P.~aav ~ ' 1 rr ~ g ® V ayes pp~~ ~gBp f ~u ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ! 3 ~~ ~~~~ Y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii +~~ ~ ~ a S`~ p IfIII I ' e~~S ®~ ~ ~ C° ~~ ~ ~~ ~~p ~ ~~~ o ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~a~ Y ~~ t Y E ~ ~ ~~ B ~ ~ 3~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ H ~ ~ ~ tl , ~. .r~>~ '~ ~a 1•P a 1 ~ B ~ ~ a6 ~~~~ ~~ ~~ s~ ~ .F-- } v ...1 rr ~ ~ ~ ` ` ~' ~~ .. ~ ~t 1~ ~ ~ p I s t' ~ ~ ~~ ~H ~~ y ~~ siar~ ~ ~ ~ ,.,,, e ~~ - ~' ~ p9 II{{ ~ _ ;- a' r~ ~~~ 8~1~i~ ~ 1~~~ 1 ~ ~~1~ ~~~ 1 , r ~ `_r_ a ~~ ~~~1 uae• taw ~ O 6 t ~ ~ p ~~ ~ p pp g 8~~'~i~~~~~B~BN i~ ~~~SI~ 19 ~ ~ ~ .; ~ - $ ~t ...... ~~ el .. ~ ~ ~r~~ ~1f9 ~~° ~~~ ~~~~~ e a ~ ~ ~R~i ~~ _ _ r i° aseee sees ~ Z g_ ~ ~~ B ~~~~9~ S~ ~± ~ ~~~~ 9 ° 8~ ~~ ~ ~ ~g3i 0~ ' - ... ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ e i ~ $ ~ iii i g ~ j6~ 8 ~ a ~ 1 ~~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ MRIN 8T. j ~ j S ~ ~ ' ~b• ~• ° e• ` r e ~ ~ ~ t"~°°° '~°• MERIDIAN CRY HALL ~+~ ~, ~ ', 80'~ P: 13f PAlxNCi L6T I m;,~c---•-• Exhibit A ;~ .~ :' }- • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The proposed surface parking area is approved as proposed, with the changes listed below. 1.2 The site plan prepared by LCA Architects, P.A., labeled Sheet L1.01, dated May 5, 2008, and the landscape plan, labeled Sheet L1.72, dated May 9, 2008, are approved with the following change: 1) In accord with UDC 11-3C-S.B.3, on the north and south rows, provide wheel restraints to prevent cars from encroaching upon abutting sidewalks and/or overhanging beyond the designated stall area. 1.3 Protect the existing and provide additional landscaping along Main Street and Broadway Avenue consistent with the Streetscape Designs adopted by MDC. 1.4 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-08-017 are complied with, the Applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit (or modify CZC-07- 036) from the Planning Department prior to commencement of the new use. 1.5 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 use has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to commencement of the proposed use. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Public Works has no concerns with this application. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 The proposed project has no fire department concerns. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to this application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Sanitary Services Company did not submit comments on this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 THUS FAR, NO OFFICIAL COMMENTS HAVE BEENRECEIVED. Exhibit B , ~ -f ~ ~x '~ f Z.L ~ C.{~.~ `~ f ~ ~ S ; `~ +S , E - C 3f.'W~Y 1 _ ~ ~ vY~" r. ~ ~v ' ~ ~ ' 1 1 l , n k~, ~ ' ~ ~ ,~ c,~ E ' ~,~.;~ ~;ti ~~ , _•~ cif ;~ ~ ~ ~4~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ,v a a~ - ~ ~f~ ~'fIF . ' - 3. ~ ` _ < ` ~s 4 o-' ~~~ ~ ~~'~ ~ P ~~ p., - s t' ~~ ~ 4 S YET ~A ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ r }j - r S ~ f7 ~y ~i Ja Gns'I(.tly~: ~ t y ~W' . ~ S~ K~'2• • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 2008 ~- C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC . The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the l ~ following: _ 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the site is large enough to accommodate a portion of the required - parking for the new City Hall as proposed. The Dimensional and development regulation in the ~ - .~ O-T district can be accommodated; the Downtown Meridian Design Guideline provisions < pertaining to location and landscape requirements are not feasible on this 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. yynn, ~ The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Old Town. The property is currently zoned O-T, which complies this designation. The '' ~''" proposed use is generally harmonious with the applicable requirements of the UDC (See Sections ~~ .: 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). A.>':~~, 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 ~r°Y 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, s; ~ the proposed use as a parking facility should be compatible with other uses in the general area ~:~~ 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. r 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not ' ~ adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the ~~° ~,H other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission fmds that the subject property is currently served by public facilities such as streets, police, and fire protection. 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. The proposed parking facility is aquasi-public facility. The costs associated with the proposed use are not excessive. The Commission fmds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. Exhibit C h~ , ~ . ;: c.~ ~w. ~~ v' y ~t t' ~} ~ ~ ~ ~: Y ~ C •.. ;~ ~' r. "5;~= a j '~ ~ ~. }_ ~ ~ ; :ka ~~, ~'µ ~~`i, d 1 .... .~s o • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 17, 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 constructing a parking facility will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission fords that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. 1 Exhibit C . ``~~ August 4, 2008 CPA 08-005 ~ . MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING AUgUSt 7, 2008 APPLICANT DBSI Meridian 184 LLC -Herman Treasure Valley Business Park ITEM NO. 4 ,; REQUEST Public Hearing -Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use `"' ~" designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kennedy Commercial Center /Western ., ; Electronics - 1250 W. Overland Road ~..`~ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: .~~~s CITY ENGINEER: r . CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~ f M A' ~ V ~~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~® " '' CITY BUILDING DEPT: ;: .. CITY WATER DEPT: ~ , f~ ! ~a CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: a: SANITARY SERVICES: ,~ s ,'~ "'' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments :~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: " IDAHO POWER: '~ ' `?~'~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting / No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ;;w ' '~' Ntaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CI1y of Meridian. x •: t "'..~ r- ;`, M, ~':. .. ..r.. .: -:: I_` o e August 4, 2008 RZ 08-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING AUgUSt 7, 2008 APPLICANT DBSI Meridian 184 LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center - 1250 W. Overland Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See CPA Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: n ,/v'~ ~ ~ ©~ l ~f' ~~~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: ~ CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clay of Meridian. ;~;t 0 0 Q{~• ,. . August 4, 2008 CPA 08-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Richard Kartchner ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waster Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/-acres) 8~ Low Density Residential (9+/- acres) for Kartchner -4325 8~ 4315 N. Ten Mile AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~ 6 CITY ATTORNEY ~ (~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting / No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '~:~ ~,~,. r ~_ ~:~ ~;r ~j ',, I ,; ;~;;: August 4, 2008 CPA 08-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING AUgUSfi 7, 2008 APPLICANT Janicek Properties, LLC ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Amend the Comprehensive Pan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use- Community for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property - SWC of N. Ten Mile and W. Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Staff Report No Comment No Comment See Attached Comments g~~D~ ~ k~ ~~ OTHER: See Sign Posting /See letter from ITD /See Revised Preliminary Site Plan Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Mertdlan. ~~, ~ ~~~ .: _ x~~ ,' ~ ?r 'wx~' ~, ~~ "-e _ ,: ~: r:r ~_ ;w ,~ ~^ ~M ~ i '`~~ ;,; ~~.~ ., >~" ~t ,.;~ ' ;:,: : ~"~ .'L T„y ~~~ • i.' ra "_ <. ti ~, ~~ ...r _ .;4~ r.t 6.r~ ~,.;; August 4, 2008 CPA 08-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICAM Primeland Investment Group, LLC ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 94 acres for Volterra Commercial - w/o N. Ten Mile S. n/o W. McMillan Roads AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY Q' ~~ 1 ~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: v ~ `~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments 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 Sign Posting /See letter from ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the City of AAertdlan. l~;i ~ o August 4, 2008 CPA 08-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Hawkins Companies ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation of approximately 40.5 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional for Meridian and Amity - NWC of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: /~~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~i~~ CITY ATTORNEY I P LICE DEPT: C TY O CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: GOWER: See Sign Posting /Letter from ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of AAeridian. ~_,' ; wra; ~~'*; • o August 4, 2008 AZ 08-005 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Hawkins Companies ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 72.67 acres from RUT in Ada County to R$ (Medium Density Residential) (5.52 acres), L-O (Limited Office) (3.11 acres) and C-G (General Commer (64.04 acres) zoning districts for Meridian and Amity - NWC of W. Amity Road 8~ S. Meridian Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See CPA Packet ,~ ~l]~ CITY ENGINEER: ~} ~~~ ~1" CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: (~ CITY ATTORNEY lJ" CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. y' ~..f :1 1. ~ ~ ~'~ +4t -:; i.' ~ _: ~~ .~, 3r „: "-ra~ .,.N ;,: ~-f`- ri "~ 0 0 August 4, 2008 CPA 08-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Greg Johnson ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for Biskay -south of Harris St., west of S. Meridian Rd (SH 69) 8~ north of Amity Rd AGENCY COMMENTS ~~~ CITY CLERK: Q~~ CITY ENGINEER: ~ U CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign hosting/ Comments by Boise-Kung Irrigation Disc/ No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. o • it August 4, 2008 CPA 08-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT J R, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden -south side of Chinden Blvd, 1 /4 mile east of Meridian Rd AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ -- CITY CLERK: D / CITY ENGINEER: 8~~~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~~ CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting /Letter from ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clty of Meridian. 0 0 i August 4, 2008 CPA 08-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING AUgUSt 7, 2008 APPLICANT Rose Law Group ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation for approximately 10 acres from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Eagle and Vctory - NWC of E. Victory Road 8~ S. Eagle Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~~~~ /D~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR See Attached Staff Re ort ~d/N : p CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: NO COmment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached DRAFT Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting / No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • -~ - August 4, 2008 AZ 0&010 l~`` ~~ ~~~"=~; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING AUgUSt 7, 2008 ~~ APPLICANT Rose Law Group _ ITEM NO. ~ 4 #:Y REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 3.75acres from RUT and R1 to C-N ~~~ zoning district for Meridian 8~ Amity - NWC of E. Victory Road & S. Eagle Road .K:.~: i'~ . ,;t~' y AGENCY COMMENTS rY?F, ~~` CITY CLERK: See CPA Packet ~ CITY ENGINEER: ~`~ 4~r- ~ ~ g .. CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: f 'moils' F CITY ATTORNEY ~' CITY POLICE DEPT: ~~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: 'e~`~, CITY SEWER DEPT: ' CITY PARKS DEPT: y; MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~`~.;:: SANITARY SERVICES: '; ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ,, r~r' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: r ~:,_- NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: '''` IDAHO POWER: "'" INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: €~;",. rte, OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: iv++'~~ AAaterlals presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan. .. ~t '.:.,,..r~4 ai p ~' . ~~ xr i ~ L ~~ ~ - - ~ t 'i, ,~' ~~ i'E'w,k ~ i s~, ~ ~i #~ ~ x , ~' . ,~ ~, J~ - .y~ ~ .. :. ~F ~ x ...~ ~ a ~~ ~i~t' ~ i ~~.. IW` ~ ,' t `~'s3.~F ,` Y + + ~ - s. ''~i~ _ F ~} ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~`:.t ~y ~'~~ - i ~` ~ - ~ r~ - r . ~~~ '9~id . { .c. Nhltia ' P , . _ , vin. ~ ~ a ~ i, ~ ~~ -I;~ ~} ~lx ~` ~~ r' o e August 4, 2008 CPA 08-008 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Jack Gish ITEM NO. ~ Jr REQUEST Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 5 acres for Postal Annex -- SWC of Meridian & McMillan AGENCY COMMENTS ~- CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Re ol't P ~~ ~~ CITY ATTORNEY g~ CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Sign Posting / No Comment by ITD Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CI1y of Meridian. 0 0 August 4, 2008 AZ 08-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING August 7, 2008 APPLICANT Jack Gish ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 5.56 acres from RUT in Ada County to L-O (Limited Office District) for Postal Annex -- SWC of Meridian Road and McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See CPA Packet CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Legal Descriptions ~" CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: (~ I~[ CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~' 1 ~ ~~~ (''i CITY POLICE DEPT: 'L CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~