The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 02-01h x W a;~ :~..5~ 1 ~+ ,y ~: f` ~i C:CI'Y OP . '_ . ~ ~~:, MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING -, ~'~j j~",j°j ~~ REGULAR MEETING " ,, ~~~"~ ~~ AGENDA ~. ~c ~~;' _ ~~ ~,F, ° &^ Tr~~,^s~:~u~ti d+~„`,r tip ~ ~ ob ,~ ~,,: City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho > ~~~ 'F Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ~. r all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected ' ' 51~tiL~nj`4 ~' to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." ~ ~ ~~y= r ~ T ~ *y •,, 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~,~_ ~~' ` _X Keith Borup ,X Wendy Newton-Huckabay '` ~~ _X David Moe O Steve Siddoway .~ . k~, X Michael Rohm -chairman ~: 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: ~. „. A. Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning a;~ .' Commission Meeting: Approve t~' B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning ~~ ~ Commission Meeting: Approve F? C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~~. 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: Approve ~:; _. ~: s~ 5. Public Hearing: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ~ ~~ 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street: Continue Public Hearing to February 15, 2007 };. ~'° 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 18, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 _~ zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 ~' `.V common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho ~ ; ~ ,z f Subdivision by Heron River Development LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho „ ~~~" .' ? '~. , Road: Recommend Approval to City Council , F ~ ~ " _~; ~'tf }~- 'k , , ~~ , r r ;: 1" 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 ~ ~ ~~ R .: kd f ` ~ ~~'' Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lot s on 142.97 acres in existin R-2 - - R8 R15andC- 9 , '~ N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC -north of Chinden s ~ ~ ,,.' ~~ Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City ~ ~s ~;,~, ~ ~~~;' ~~' Council x ;~ ~ £~` ~~~y 4~. t¢,~.~ ~ } 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 , ~ ~` acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR ~ b Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Recommend ~ r , ,~ Approval to City Council ~, ncSf' '` ~ ~~~~ ~'- i 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 ~ ~ `~ ~.~~-~~ 4 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 ~ ~`~ ~°~h ~` `~ ' ~' zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting Inc. - 4145 South ++ `~ '1 ~~' ''' v`` , J ~. ~ k~F~`~ _:3 1 X ' Locust Grove Road: Recommend Approval to City Council .. ~ ~~ . , t 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 r acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist ~ ~ ; ,. Meridian Plannin and Z i C i i M ti A d F b 1 2007 P . ~ k ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~t i'l ~ g on ng omm ss on ee ng gen a - e ruary , age 2 of 3 ~r~,t~., ,. ,~ s All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. j r ,~ `;: ` ~-~ 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. ~ ,.,~,~~ :::~~~`<~,, . '";y; :, ~ ~. '' " :~~ ~ > ~~L i-( `Y u Development, LLC ,SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 ', :~' ::~ t,,,,~ :;. ,, :.,x, -~; :~ ~~~, ~-` 9' . t.: ~ } •~ ,: ~~ ij f a ~~ ~~ ;i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 1, 2007 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. ~'~ 1 ~ ~ f : ,. ~.b. aTrv,' a ~ x 'S`~ ~~a - f rt ~F (r ~ ~ ~~~, .a ? ~; 44 }m Lea ~~Z ti r ~ 1 -~f n ~ 12 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ;. ~ ~ R '~a $ ' a . , ~ ~~ ~ :, ~~~,~ ~ ~r ~~~ ~ ~i F a 17 yyr~~ ;i ~ /+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'ii'L ~~~ ~4 4~~~ ?h 3 ~ Y^~F ' a ~A~ ~ r~ r~ it ~ 4'~ T"!' f: '~Y }tF ~ ~, Y O'lf~~G'. ~i !~~.(i 'P}'S f Y'..l ~ ~~YY '~ s1 p.~ ~ ~ j Ste' 4 ~ ~r ' " ~ s ~ .y. 4 ! ~ J . t U a ,7 t~ C~~f 1 N' tt~~ } Y ~sl+: cr ~ ..7 . `~ {a ]~ yn ~'~ ~ ~' C "r rCAC~d'Zr'~A... Sf J L 4. ~ ~~J :: ~;:: ;, u. ~: ~~ e s. ~~, CITY OF ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , -',""ter - a eri~i~-n ~- ~s~ ~~ 1DAH0 ~~ Ay F~,~ ~' ~q ~ TaeASi me V nuEY ~9¢i • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 1, 2007 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: _~ Keith Borup ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~ David Moe X, d Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~~U-~ B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: J~,~,~~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: ~~~~-y~U~ D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-032 Request fora Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 $ 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: /~.~.,~ U-Qi 4. Public Hearing: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC -north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: ~l,'~'> ~~H ~ v~ p~~ // 200`7 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 1, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. t K. '.; y i Y F~-, ' ~:v ; `.:; { , ty `~ ~ fi rt t~~ . ~ `S ~ ' k YY ' at . ;y ~~r : ?~ ~: an 1.f ,~; ~ w.n ~, +fa7~~;.. ~t~.(' L'd~ '/ ii} ji ~ t ~ . t. t 1 :..z t ~"yr ~~4~~i71- , Oyu .= `. ~ ~ WY~~.; 11 ti i .: R` ~~?sue ~iY?~hf 'Y n'I~OW; rt. Ya R ~, p ~~. e r t a; ~"~ ~ -. t ~~.. ~~+~i 4i ~c '~ +~ `L~ wit. 4 i t.~ l am- a M C ~_ f ' r 4,c a; ~~.. ~,' ~ ~ 3 e t a ~u W1i t j T4 ~. ~~~ ~?h~~f Z.~ y x s-. 7,. w.;. r ,.j'y,~GI ti ~ ~ .',: ~~~ :f ~ ..:_ r. ~ ti Y. { _' rr F'~~kt^~ 5 ~ ~~ ~- ~ ,~ 3'. i. ky! ~' ~.~ri .. ~' ?. 5Z ~ _ g ; ,;~ ;,, r y.,:.: r}.. ; 5. Public Hearing: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Stora a Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street: ~~~. ~~~ ~~V~` ~~ ~~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 18, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: ~ ~~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ C~ /~~ 2®v `7 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Roa,~dnand north of E. Fairview Avenue: r~G+~GvI~~OP VDd~ ~ro ~~ Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: ~~~ ~ ~ ~n „~~~ ~ ~~ Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: `~eGo~~~ ~2 .~~,2~yrr7voc,Q ~v G`~ Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC -north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Te Mile Road: ~Gn~~men ~ ,~~~vae~ ~ ~~ Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove oad: ~Ct9 w~vvLerv,,~ ~/I,~-,~~ U c~,~, -I~ C~ C~ Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: ~~~,~~~~ ~~,~ ~~ ~ ~~ 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 `';' acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin !:;7 Road: ~ ~,..-~ ~ ~ ~ -(,o )'V ~, a/l, ~ l~ 15 ~ 2 c~v~ j !_ . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 1, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. a '~'.~ "mo"o-°:r h .~~ lY tiJiJa: ~t i ~ ~ Z ~ `~Y~~ k~7 t~ k+ 1 L ~ ~,5 ~ 7 r ;,;. ' STS ' ~,•~'~ i ~ , I1. ~+~ 'fs 1.~~1j... x ~ 1 .a~., ~ ~~c3'+ S t i` T ,- ~~ T y~S Y ~r: t \ ~ -. ~ t `F- 4 ~ ~ S'" ~~ ~r~ r~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~~~~~ 4~~ l~~ ~t.~ r~. ~z r ~ ~ T'r F ,;.:r 43.3 .' `: bob Y F r1-y ti, `vY`~""'3~ fr. ~" K. a ~, ~?~<.' t~~ ~ f ~~ r ~7~ ~~ ~° {„8' .t ii µ .ice r i''. ~ ~i. .: '1' S 'S 1 L. i1*s'~ + ~~ d=im 5 ~ n }7 ~j~.'.~ til.N$H4Y~p ..ti..~., S ,=a -. s. {t '.. r 4 :i' i ~ Broadcast Report s Date/Time 02-02-2007 10:06:33 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5"x11" r'`~~,~'"PS~OP :.'~, ~AERIDIAN Pla4NNiNG AND ZONlN6 \/ YLGj7~Z~II RECiUi.AR IYIEETIN(3 moo AGENDA ~ ~ City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 1.2007 at T:flO pm. %iittaugh dhe City of Mertdlan no /orrgsr requkes sworn testirrronli, aH presentations bePore the Mayor ared CJIy Council are exp8cfed to be truthful acrd honest to best of the ability of the presenter. ° 1. Roil-Call Attendatm®; ,_,~' _ iCeitlt Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckebey ~_ Davtd Moe ~,. ,~9 Steve Siddoway Michael Rahm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Coneeret Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of Daeemtwr 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commis~on Meeting: ~„ B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 P-annirsg & Zonirtg Commission Meeting: LL„,~,,~~,, C. Findings of Fact artd Conciuslons of Law far Approval: CUP OB-040 Request for Conditlonai Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Serv)ce Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Devetopmerlt Services -983 E. Pine Street: ~.y, D. Findings ~' Fact and Conciustorrs of Law for Approval: CUP 06032 Request for a Cortdlttanal Use Permit for Commerolel Simpping Center on 8.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 & 4, Block 3} by Fairview Lakes, 11C -NEC of Fairview artd N. Lakes Avenue: r1.,,,_,~,.,,p.e,. 4. Publie Meaning: PP ~OBC~-0~84 Request for PraUminary Piat appmyal for 18 buUding bis and 3 common iota on 4.19 acres witldn the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC - earth of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: ~~.. ~~b~ ~ vpn piq,~ Jr 2.pD'7 rt4arwle~, wennsre ens zareo commtamon eAe~h,g >- retaumv a, soon ~ s ore All rlats p,tl et pab8a s becarns properly ~'me CRy of Nle>irLen. Anyoray da~r~ e¢crommadetbn tar talaebHtdes rel8ted }u doaumer~ erKttorhearhig, Dlaase camaet tarn fNty Cteitis Offlc®et 688-4433 at !ems 48 terra pdorto 8~a pu68c mesdng. Total Pages Scanned ~ 2 Tn4~1 O~..no r....A..,.....a . ~n No. 001 Jab 667 Remote Station 3810160 Start Time V 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 Duration 00:00:00 Pages 0/2 Line 1 Mode - Job Type HS Results FA 002 667 8989551 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:00:43 2!2 1 EC HS CP79200 003 667 8848723 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:01:03 212 1 EC HS CP14400 004 667 8886854 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 667 8985501 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:01:02 212 1 EC HS CP14400 006 667 8467366 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:00:33 2l2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 667 8950390 09:31:17 a.m. 02-02-2007 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 ~` ~~~y~ ,~ , F-';?, Date/Time LocaIID 9 Loca11D 2 02-02-2007 10:06:44 a.m. 2088884218 No. Job Remote Station Start Time 008 667 208 888 2682 09:31:17 a.m. 02• 009 667 8840745 09:31:17 a.m.02• 010 667 208 387 6393 09:31:17 a.m. 02• 011 667 2877909 09:31:17 a.m. 02• 012 667 2088885052 09:31:97 a.m. 02• 013 667 8881983 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 014 667 2083776449 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 015 667 4679562 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 016 667 2088886701 09:31:17 a.m.02- 017 667 8884022 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 018 667 3886924 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 019 667 8841159 09:31:17 a.m. 02- 020 667 2088840744 09:31:17 a.m. 02- ~ Abbreviations: HS: Host send ~r,;.' HR: Host receive ;;~,~ WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local M PR: Polled remote CI MS: Mailbax save F/ ~. ` h 1 ,' -, ~;i. ,~ r,'. ~; i. t ~_`-"' !h'; ~r ~;,. ~, ,.. -'; «:, - ~, n y ~~ x~ r ~r '. ~ , :,: ,f t ,t ~ s'4 t ~~} 1 n, I :. M1 ~: 7 ,; nt ~~ r ~ ~`n1' 3 ,,~,~ ~~ ,~ F ` i'N ire t i"'i h,~j y • s, v ~'..~ ~ - ~!! i } tr + s ,, , ~` 1,' fi 4 "r"i G ~~ X i ~ ~ ~ h ~~Fh l } a' C ~ ~, ~~ ~~~+~ ` {yam, ~ iii ?: y .. i ; N p y ~ .,. 1 _ ~` ~. ~rY ~~. { ~k~. J r ~ '. v_4: i l; ~ ~ iJ ~ r F d :'E+ r ; v c ; 3 e 3 7E+. r~ ,.- r T. .., ,....~ ., .. , a. „ee3d t .. .. .. ~ -. Y, ~_ ~1 ~S e ~ ~~ ~u.~t ~ c N ~~ ce~ - ~h~.~~s ~ fi~"~ tif' ` ~ ~ • s~, ~ ~~~ r ti tip. t -~ CITY OP ~~ ~"' _ "~, MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING t~~ ~j~j~j~Jj ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING ~: ~ -D,v-io ~ AGENDA - >~r ~R ~ rsensu~ vnuE~ City Council Chambers ~~ y~ ~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ' ~ s. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, r ~', all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected -Lr:: '~ ~ '3 to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay ~- David Moe Steve Siddoway :~ ,a. Michael Rohm -chairman :: ~ri = ~~,' ~'-' ' 2. Adoption of the Agenda: w.. ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning ~~ Commission Meeting: "'~~ ~, B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning ~ ~-'~ ~z::. , Commission Meeting: .; ~ ~ C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP ~ "`' ,; 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada ~. County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: -~ f J~- ~ ,; ~ . D. Findin s of Fact and Conclusions of Law for A 9 pproval: CUP ~~ ~ 06-032 Request fora Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 $ 4, ~~ Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes ~K Avenue: `~~ ~~, 4. Public Hearing: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 '~~~~'~ ~.~~ building lots and 3 common lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for `~`'? Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC -north of Ustick Road and east ~" ~`'~ ? :; Ten Mile Road: , Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 1, 2007 Page 1 of 2 ~ - ;~ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~ ` >~ Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearin g, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~. -,•,' ':f r .; ~_ `, :'i i i ~~ 5. Public Hearing: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 4~~= Yt 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St ; ~ it . Vincent de Paul Storage Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - ~t ;~ 213 N. Main Street: y .i._y ~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 18, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request Y N'~ for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G _ zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 ,ry, ,~ Waltman Lane: ,~ '~~~~ .z 7. Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1 12 ~ ._ . acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: =w. : t 8. Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 -~, Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 .~~~ zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 ~~ & 6185 N. Jericho Road: ~~ ~ ~~ 9. Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 ~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 <_l~ °~~~ ` ~`~~ common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Develo me t LLC 605 p n , - 5 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: <~' .~h~ 10. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 ;, ~ ~ ~'~ Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- t ~ ,, N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC -north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: =;.... ~` 11. Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 ~~ acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: z r 12. Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 ~ F residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 fi-_ ; zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South .~ Locust Grove Road: ,, ;J .~ ~~t' ' 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 -~f ~~~k,;~~ - acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC of the intersection of Ea le Road d F ` g an ranklin Road: , A~ ,; ,1. } 4~ ~~,. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - February 1, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become ro ert of th Cit f ~~ ~'~'` ~ x p p y e y o Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ~: -,<r.: please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ?~,, ;~; 4 ~~. _~-: f , Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting _ February 1, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 1, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Members Absent: Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Ted Baird, Sharon Smith, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Wafters, Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, Sheree Finch and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe -Vice Chairman O Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like at this time to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call of the Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: The first item is the adoption of the agenda and there are a number of changes tonight, as is typical for these type of meetings, and I will just read them off one by one and act accordingly. Item No. 4 on the agenda, Cold Creek Subdivision, will be continued until March 1st, 2007, due to improper posting. Item 5 on the agenda, St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building will be continued to February 15th, 2007, for the same reason. Item 6, Waltman Property, the applicant has asked to continue this item to March 15th, 2007, to clear up some lose ends with staff, basically. And Item No. 13, Ahlquist Annexation, has requested a letter requesting -- has submitted a letter requesting continuation to March 15th, 2007. All of those items will be changed to the agenda and the balance will remain as written. So, with those changes could we get a motion to adopt the agenda? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the amended agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. I!~.. " =s;,- ~- r~~ ~ ~t,:,~.2;r~ A{: ~, ~ ;_ ~.~,-x~~ sl -, ~° ~~~ ~' ~~.::.t t; f T~~ `;~Y Ek ~n .~ ~~` { ~~~:~. a.~, tr: ,~ , x: ~:~, ~ ' F , '~?] S _ , ;x'; t-*~. ~ ~, `5 r ~.,~< ~:z.~,, IhS~ ~•, ,, ,.ta ~< , ~ s Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 2 of 41 Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-040 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS by Ada County Development Services - 963 E. Pine Street: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 ~ 4, Block 3) by Fairview Lakes, LLC -NEC of Fairview and N. Lakes Avenue: Rohm: Okay. The next item on the agenda is a Consent Agenda and there are four items on this agenda and the first one, A, is approve the minutes of the December 21st, 2006, Commission meeting. Item B is approve the minutes of the January 4th, 2007, P&Z Commission meeting. Item C is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-040. And Item D is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-032. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Public Hearing: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC -north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. As previously mentioned, Item 4 on the agenda will be continued, but we first have to open it. So, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 06-064 for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1st, 2007. Moe: So moved. ~ ',,': ~~~ ~ • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 . Page 3 of 41 ~_ r~, Newton-Huckabay: Second. A !T Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item PP 06-064 to the regularly ~~ ~~ ~~' scheduled meeting of March 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same ~~~'-: sign? A lot of work there to continue these things isn't it. ~~ :!` r MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ' 7~;: - Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a ' `` 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St. " `~~~ * Vincent de Paul Storage Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - ~ ~ 213 N. Main Street: ~ - ~~ '~ Rohm: Okay. Item 5. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-041 _'<, related to St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building for the sole purpose of continuing it to ,. the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. t ~ ` Newton-Huckabay: So moved. ,~ ~}~, ' Moe: Second. `~- Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 06-041 to the regularly { ;~ scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. -~ ~~_ ,~ f - MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT ~b A ~ ~~y ~ F <:; . ` Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 18, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request ~~ for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G . Y ~° zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: 4~~ a ~ ~~~ ` Rohm: Item 6 on the agenda is a continued Public Hearing from January 18th, 2007, of ~Et AZ 06-063 and I'd like to open this for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the ""` ~`r~~ ~ regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. _< Moe: So moved. 3' Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~, , ry ~1:~ M ~' ` ~° Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item AZ 06-063 to the regularly ~~ ~ F scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? "' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT . ~;, _~ - ~~ ~ _ _; ~; ~, ~r ~-' ~, ~. ~~~~ ~ . .~. ~~: , ~, ~~, ; >:: ~: ,~_~, ~_ ,,~_ s X ~ ~r`o-~tk :~ t~~ .- .: ~~;, o,.,> ~' s` ~;, ;' ~~„~: a Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 4 of 41 Rohm: Okay. Good. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? I just have a question regarding -- we seem like we have been having a lot of continued hearings. Do we have a bottleneck coming up in the next couple months that -- Rohm: I believe we will address that to staff. Caleb. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, other Commissioners, the next hearing -- your next hearing, February 15th, is quite full. March is looking really good, though. So, I'm optimistic that we can make it through all the agenda. I think there is eight or nine agenda items on the February 15th agenda. It seems like we have one or two or four in this case that fall off, so if things go how they have been going in the past several months and we have one or two of those drop for -- to be continued -- I imagine maybe six or seven hearings -- and there is one or two of them that probably will have some testimony, I imagine. The other ones are CUs and should be pretty quick items. So, other than the 15th, the next couple of months are looking pretty good. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Before we open the next item I'd like to just talk to you a little bit about the procedure we go through when we have a Public Hearing on a proposed application. Basically, what we do is we will open the Public Hearing and we will ask staff to give their comments and, basically, the staff takes a look at the application and they compare it to the Comprehensive Plan and to the UDC, the Unified Development Code, and they give their recommendations to the Commission based upon the adherence to those two documents and there is a dialogue that has been established along the way between the applicant and staff and, basically, for the most part, most of the items should have been addressed prior to this hearing. Once the staff has given their presentation, the applicant, then, has their opportunity to come before the Commission. That's really their sales pitch. That's where they are trying to sell the project to the Commission based upon what they feel are its strengths and attributes. Once those two portions of the hearing have been completed, the hearing is, then, open to the public. The public has an opportunity to come forward and speak to each individual application based upon their perspective. Once that's done, then, the applicant has an opportunity to respond to any comments from the public. Once that's completed, then, we will close the Public Hearing and we will either act on the application, either via a motion to approve and deny or if there is not enough information to make a valid decision, then, we have the option of continuing it to a later date for additional information. But, generally speaking, we try to finish with a project after it's been heard by the public in the same night that it's been heard. So, with that in mind -- and, then, as each of you come forward, please, state your name and address for the record before testimony begins. ,s .: ; :.~t ~ .ry~i.~. t YStjRE ^r- Y 1 ' 'ti '- ~ . ` C ~ ~ ~y s.~ ~" ~ £~'~ I 7 F ~ ~~h ~tf.p a oqf n7+ 7 ~ ~~ . A 6 eli9y'•~~^ N .1~ ~ fk ! 1 ~r 4 ~ t } St ,~. ~. F / m~+ :~ fi ~+ 2 ~~ 4'~ ` r ;. x 1'~ ~ ,. ~r• k!'~~3' - ~, 14rN'~^ <t , t .. ,... ~ Ft ~~ a A F ~ ' ~ ~ S tis1~.~~ t e x ~ ` ._ 4 tiY~ Yr?q ;~ t ~r~~ ~ f1 i.~ u ~~ ~4 L Y -:,, ~~ ~ F 4:d- w~ R:iv ~r ~j ~~ ~ i. N D i ~'~ r .~'_/ ~$~9 ~ ~. i ' ~' ^^L^'~ b. ; E. ,..,, „~~'r ~" '-~ °° 1 . _ .:; ~P ~~... .~.r' "~~ . ~~ - { ~r ~, y: ~.~ :<< <, . a. '~ t". ' Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 5 of 41 Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06- 062, item for Hoyd Annexation and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, the application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and Carmel Drive, approximately a quarter mile north of Fairview Avenue. Fairview is right here. The subject property is right here. Carmel Drive runs right to the south of it. The site is currently vacant with residential property to the north, zoned R-1 and commercial property further to the north, Hartz Music Shop, zoned L-O. Just a little bit of information here. The property to the north, both parcels there, are currently in process requesting a rezone and annexation for commercial designation into the city. To the east is residential property zoned R-8. To the south is vacant land zoned R-1. And commercial property further to the south that contains a child care facility zoned C-C. Rural residential property to the west. It has a single family house and pasture ground. Here is an aerial view of the property. The property is currently zoned RUT in Ada County and the applicant is requesting to annex and zone the 1.12 acre parcel with a C-C, community business zoning district, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial. No new development is proposed at this time. However, the applicant is intending to construct to two story 14,000 square foot office building on the site in the future. The applicant has submitted conceptual site plan and elevations with construction materials, showing how the property may develop in the future. The site plan right here. The conceptual site plan submitted with this applicant shows access to the site being provided from Carmel Drive with no direct access to Meridian Road. A driveway is shown at the north boundary for future cross- access with the parcel to the north. Off-street parking is shown on the plan as you can see there. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but will be required on development of the property. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure that future cross-access is provided to the properly to the north, to limit the hours of operation for future businesses between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., since the property is adjacent to residential uses, and to insure that the development or the property substantially complies with the conceptual site plan and elevation submitted with this application and to require an elevation certification be submitted for the future building. And other just standard development agreement provisions. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning as requested by the applicant and stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ > ~ w }ail ~ ~= r zti ~ ~ ~ ,,: ~ W ~ :~. i~~~ in~l;,~~ i r ~4 _ ;,~ ; T ~t ~r ~ ' t~~ .y Y~i 1 ~~ t:, ^i^. 1 } h > Q~ k~'~S ~~' a . ~~ ~ t r t,~. t. ,.. ~KH i• . !Y r w, ~ 3`f .fi'LS ~ ii ~' ,:t ~, ~ . yt '~''~~' ~~ i R 1 ~~' ~,?~~ ~ z~i `F ~ :, c ,~y 32 .'~ ~ f R-b_I ~ ~ -4 r ~ rt'lf: ~y~ ~ ' ba~~~ f " ~; t t t :.~.;arr a e~ J 4 w~ y r ~ ~t _ to r r ~ 4 a'~xp~ S_. ~.f~~~c; SY? t 1' x 4 ~ ~~ ~: ~.e ~' 5.}} ~.51 ~., F T rt' ~~ ti~~ L ~~. ~~I~~ t" : .. _ ~ .~~ma ~ ~ t. ~~~ ~' ~ t5ti ~t'~~ Y~ S y ~ . . ', ~~wl % ~ ~ . T~.~'~.~s'~~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ G r sR ~ K ~ .. ~: ~f,. .. .. ,. K'f ~ .>-~' sc y.~-~~, ,1 ~.~ ~~ x'~fi ~'.'`Yr-. ~: ;~: _ ~ s Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 6 of 41 Moe: Sonya, I just want to -- the site plan that you had up there, that is the current site plan, not the one that's in this packet right here? Wafters: It is. There was arevised -- there was a revised one submitted. The correct one is in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Wafters: This is a copy of the elevation submitted here for the proposed building down the road. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Borup: Just one. Do we have any drawings on the rear elevation or whichever elevation is going to be against Meridian Road? Wafters: All I have is -- excuse me, Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission, the only elevations I have are those submitted by the applicant. It looks like they show the front elevation and kind of a front side view of it. I do not have -- Borup: Okay. We have got that. So, anything else? Wafters: Yeah. I'm not sure of how the building is going to be -- • Borup: The same -- this is still a corridor, so some of the corridor design standards apply as far as the -- Wafters: This is not in the entryway corridor. Borup: It's not considered that. Wafters: No. Borup: Okay. Maybe we will get some information from the applicant. Thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hoyd: I'm Kendall Hoyd. My address 10835 West Treeline Court, Boise, Idaho, and I'm the applicant on the piece of property. And so is there a particular question I can answer before -- Rohm: Yeah. I think, basically, you would speak to the staff presentation or have you had an opportunity to read the staff report -- i .~ ~~ ~ ~ • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 ~'~" ' ~:; Page 7 of 41 ~ ~= Hoyd: I have. ~ ~ s Rohm: -- to validate whether or not you concur with it or -- ~ ~: Hoyd: There is nothing in there that presents a problem for me. ~; Rohm: Okay. And, typically, on a single dwelling that would be the case like this. ~~~ ; : F..,_ . would ask you is your rear elevation, is it going to be similar to the frontal elevation? ~~5 Hoyd: The elevations are actually -- yeah, it's going to be -- the front and the back of this building are going to be actually a little dressier than what you see right here. We .~ ;:i have just had an architect start to work on this -- on the esthetics of this buildin in the 9 ~_~~ last couple of days and it's going to house an engineering firm and a design firm. From - ,~ our perspective that needs to reflect a certain professionalism with respect to design ~; and so it -- you know, there will probably be much more texture to the building vertically ~~ '! with respect to there will probably be a little bit more -- ;.. ,: ~~~~~~ Rohm: Relief? s~- - Hoyd: There will be relief. That's a good word. Yeah. There will be much more relief ~` ~ and I think that the -- the zone accents that we end up using will -- there will be much more that runs the height of the building. M1 Ft~ ~ Borup: And that was my question. I was a little concerned with the way you have µ Es }~ presented it now. Hoyd: Yeah. ~, ~ Borup: Are you familiar with some of the design guidelines that they have on the entranceway corridor -- ~" s l Hoyd: I'm not. Borup: -- buildings? It's basically -- I think it's some of what you have described, but it talks about having some projections and maybe some facades and stuff like that, but -- Hoyd: These are the things that are currently underway. Unfortunately, the box that's drawn there looks a little bit like a barracks and I don't think that would reflect well on either one of our firms that we intend to house there. ~~~ Borup: So, are you comfortable with going by the other guidelines, do you feel? I guess that's hard to say without -- Hoyd: Not knowing specifically what they are, I -- Borup: But it sounds like you're in line with what those would be. ~..,~, ~ r ~ = u ~t ~ . i is "1-, r i ~ ~~ ~ `" ~j 7, , t Y s ~~ 11 •fx h , F 1~t~i~, c', + a r , '~ ;'k ~ is ~ '; `~.' ` ~1 ~ h ,~~i~rvk .,~-~ ~, ~ s:~ t r7 ~/ y~9 ~J::~ ~t~~'~ ~~ ~ k 5t~-~ r ~ ~ t .. ~ I~r4~y n:~ 7 a'+-" 'w : - # ~}~. ~, r r J 1. ~ ~~ 4. k ~ I j,//a'yh f f: ~ t Y.a r ~ ~, ~ Y( ~~ may' ~r y;.. ' ,~ p .:, ~ 4 'y ~~ r { ~, h ~y~~ 5 bad' . d~ 7~F ~ y' .r t ~ ':5 ews~ r'~,. r ~,`i. ° ~ .~'~ ~r'~.~ + ~ e r ~x ; ~ - ~'n~ ~f ~' ~ ; ,~ - . . jj GN~ >. b $t..rj~.~. ~_~:s ~f~ ~ 4 ~:~. .~' } I F ~v~^t .~ ~ Fp y`~~~~~ }' s'rt~ t i &~ Z~=x ~ :;~t pt, ''~~~~: ,~.v~~ -. c - ~ C 4~ ~ a 7~ & ~ '.I% ~ to- k A ,; ,~ ~ yy t ~ { ~ ~~ ~ ~ h r:~~. d ~`l yy ; t h ~ f ~ r Meridian Planning and Zoning • February 1, 2007 Page 8 of 41 Hoyd: Yeah. Our intent is for this to be an attractive building, because, you know, that's necessary to its purpose. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. We do not have anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but now is that time. So, if there is someone that would like to come forward, please, do so. And seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I think before I make another motion, I guess I would anticipate that after hearing the applicant, I would anticipate that when they do come forward, you know, the designs will I think be looking what we are looking for as far as esthetics and whatnot. Or the elevations. Borup: Come forward of where? Moe: Well, when they come back through the process for the building itself. Not through us, I'm just saying that -- Borup: Through staff. Moe: Right. Borup: Okay. Yeah. Staffs been real good and careful on the other ones and I think have watched some of the other buildings going up and I think it's accomplished what we'd like to. Moe: I guess the whole point is I don't have a problem per the staff report. So, in that case, then, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~`~ ~ i Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 9 of 41 F Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 06-062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1st, 2007. :,: Borup: Second. } Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending ~ `; approval of AZ 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion ~~ carried. Thank you. _ .J -1 t. ~ ;-1 k ~ {: W~:=~. d~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from I~UT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: t~ Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open two hearings related to the same project. ~' Continued Public Hearing AZ 06-057 and continued Public Hearing PP 06-056 and _~ begin with the staff report. ~' Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Jericho Subdivision. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 7th, 2006. At that time the applicant proposed annexation of 9.52 acres from RUT to solely R-15, medium high density residential and preliminary plat approval of 73 single family lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots. The applicant also originally submitted a variance application for reduced rear yard setbacks for the proposed townhouse units. Staff had recommended denial of the project. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is more compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. The application proposes annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval for 68 single family residential lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots on 9.52 acres within the R-4, medium low density residential, and R-15, medium high density residential, zoning designations. The subject site, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation, is generally located on the west side of Jericho Road, approximately a fifth of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. And that is right here. Eight detached single family homes will take direct lot access from Jericho Road and that is these eight right here. Two streets will connect with the adjacent residential subdivision, Hightower Subdivision, over here, one at the west property line, this here, and one at the north property line. And these two i ~.;: ;~~}~,.i -''' ~ .a :' fi''`t ,~i4'!'"s. ':a. h I ~ ~~` i , u ~, ~a ~ t l h t S }~.\~k i~~'t~ }~~ 6 e t ~ ~ ~ „~ ~+, Y .~. 3Yw` s. - t ti '. r g:. ~ -Z;'. _ ~ ,:a; x i ~ t t ~r~ 4 ~F ~S A, 6 A S . ~ ~ xf- r~ ~$,~4-.. ~ ,•,~ a ~ '~ ~ ~~ {~~ 3nb'; F f Fs1'3's ~ ~ ti~Y ~ y y N ,1 ~t _~~!p 1 p ~~ 'i ' wr}. -'r : ~ ~, ~ t '~~ 3 ~~°~ E'ra' ,' `: ` ) ~ R j ~4 .~,:~ ,l ' ' }~+~ ', S , .s, ~ v S r..` ;. Lt . _ 'xIF a Ny ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ (fin!,. _ lrF Y :~" ~ -YI ". 3EI2V 'N.. 'Y~~''~4yy )-. y. SS >~ _ =. ,,_, ~: , ~'~- ~ k J;;;: «, .- .'~ ' ~~ 3„• :~~ .:~, ; ~~~ -~v , ~; .~ ~, ~a ,. kcf 1 ~.. ;.;_,. ;:-_ ^L. . ~~:~ Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 10 of 41 accesses will serve the remaining portion of the development. Two 24 foot wide private streets are proposed within Block 2 to access the rear loaded townhomes. And that is this and this. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 68 residential lots, between 2,300 and 8,725 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 6,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing to set aside approximately 6.15 percent of the property for landscaping open space, including, but not limited to, a micro pathway in a centralized common area. And you can see on the landscape plan this is a MEW design. So, the centralized common area will be here between the townhouses units. There are three issues to mention here. Per the Unified Development Code any tree over four inches in caliper that is removed from the property should be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of those removed. There are an exceptionally large number of caliper inches of existing trees on site, which the applicant is proposing to remove or relocate. Elroy Huff of the Meridian parks department is working out the details with the applicant, but no final decision has been made between parks and the applicant regarding mitigation. However, parks has stated that more trees should be installed within the subdivision than are currently proposed and 50 or more trees should be donated to a local park. Staff is supportive of this plan and staff would encourage the Commission to provide comment on this and suggest any changes the Commission would deem appropriate. Second, staff has not received comments on this project from ACHD. However, ACHD has advised city staff that Jericho Road is considered a residential collector. ACHD policy currently prohibits direct lot access to collector roads. This revised layout of Jericho Subdivision will depend on whether ACRD approves the development with front-on housing to Jericho Road. However, due to the small relative feel of this development, staff does recommend that the Commission hear and act on the subject application. Third, perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or preliminary plat. There is currently existing fencing running the length of the western property boundary. Additionally, fences are required adjacent to all common areas. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter or the type of fencing to be installed around the common lots and micro pathway. The applicant will need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Borup: Just one. You had mentioned on -- the redesign took care of the rear setback. Is this the same one that originally you asked for a four foot? Is that correct? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, yes, the original application originally proposed a four foot rear setback to the townhouse units. They submitted a variance for that. This is no longer needed with this application. They are able to meet all of the setbacks. Borup: So, get the -- and the 20 foot parking now. Hess: Are required. The parking pad as well. Yes. ~4 ~ ~,;~ if x .. ~' t~ w~ i'~ i ~ ~,~ ~ ,.7 ~~' x Y ~4~t,r. ~ ~t r E T a~ f i U~ ~ t..~.~ F ~° r ~f. rcr ~: { ~ 3Y.~o; A~ 4 s~ a ytF~ ~ ~- ~Yta'~ ~~~` ~ ~, 4 ~ - - s,w _ ~s,,.~ ` ~ r ~ ':y r : 4ry ~:~j:.;. S.S~,rt"'~ ~Ih~?r;l~. { r t hr i 7't.. ~: Y ~ IfiV 7 ; r l .~_ n ~ ~~. ~. t~# ~ F~ r ~. ,~x,.~, - u~~ ~.i ~7s ~ #~ r ~~: ~, r~ f !SS ~ Eat ,f. ~ 3 ~ ~ ~, . ~ ~ } n ~• '~ ~~ E~ZI.. .~ ~- ' ~ k~2.~ ~ - . - 7a h. r ~i "Cx;ei ~~ ~ ~ __ r ? d 1 ~' `~r rvi'c A~n~ ~ ~ r ~ ' .v 4 ~•~ ~ ~,~~ y 0 # alr"~l. ,~~ v 3 .;i yn:~ ~ r Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 11 of 41 ~, ,„ ~, ~`s u~a: s~~i ~~ .. ,M ~. ~~ , .. ~~, ~~ `:~ ~:~ ~. . k. ~s . ;z: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? McKay: Good evening, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular application that's before you this evening. As Amanda indicated, this particular site is right there on the edge of that neighborhood center. We worked with the staff -- I think I have had more pre-application conferences on this nine acre site than I have had on any large project to try to come up with something• that would work ~ for the neighborhood and work for the staff and still meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Obviously, with the neighborhood center it has that requirement that you have at least eight dwelling units per acre, promotes diverse residential type product and some creativity. The staff recommended -- on our south boundary we have Arcadia Subdivision. We have Hightower to the west and Hightower to the north. So, the staff had us look at those projects and kind of get an idea of what was done there and try and incorporate some of those ideas into our project. We submitted the project and the staff was still not satisfied. We have a unique situation on Jericho Street where we have five one acre lots that are directly across the street from us. We have met with those neighbors multiple times and they were still not satisfied, so we thought let's defer this application, meet with the neighbors, all of them, and do a roundtable discussion and see what we can come up with. This is what we came up with. The Jericho residents said we feel that our street's unfinished with this -- Jericho being single loaded, we were originally proposing that we would have some lots fronting here, but they were alley load and they said, you know, what we'd like to see are lots at least 8,000 square feet, no more than eight to complete or finish out Jericho Street and make a neighborhood, because we kind of feel like we are the odd man out here just with the - - our neighborhood on one side. So, we met with ACHD. The staff indicated that Jericho was designated a collector, however, there is application into ACHD at this time to vacate Jericho from about this point here up to Chinden and, therefore, the traffic will come and funnel through Hightower and go out to a possible signal location at the half mile. So, ACHD indicated that they could live with that. they recognize the desire of the Jericho residents to complete their neighborhood and they said we think we can live with that. They just have not had an opportunity to put their staff report together, but they did feel comfortable that we come here this evening, obviously, asking the staff to make sure that whatever report that they do come up with is tied to this application. But they were comfortable with us proceeding forward. So, it's almost like we have two different developments and that's what the neighbors had asked to us to do. They said, you know, if you want to go with some attached product, alley load, we don't have a problem with that, as long as you try to keep it in the center of this -- of the project and, then, transition to some smaller detached lots and, then, obviously, have the 8,000 square foot and up lots adjoining them. So, that's what we have done. We have connected both stub streets into Hightower. We do have a pedestrian pathway that will lead to Jericho Street, so we do have some pedestrian interconnectivity. We have got yh~ ~ r'. eFiz~r~'~ ~ i ~, r ~ 9 .. -,C i 1 k t.~'r r, ~ ~~ 5 S 1 ~ r l y~ u ~l_ ja}S ~ ~~ §a ~~ F , ~ 'e #~ ` ~ ~Yn ~ 1 !_ i t 14.` i. ~ ~l~ ~ ~_'f. .~ :i ~1 t t.: ~ 1 ~ t C ? ~ ~ •; `~ .. 5 ~ `; ` 2 F -- 4 GA ~ $ ` ~ ~~ +d~ 1 _t x r ~. r- ; v "~ `~ _ i. r t i ~. { ~< t ~ ~ Z ~~ 1 5 ~J ~ Z ~ ~ .i. i~;tf ~;. yz S ~ t i. Z ~5'r~. ' , t Y z x~ A~6 1. ~ . , ~ r t~ ~ y d' ~ 5 ~'' yy~~ ;j ~ , i ~' ~ ~ ~ ? ~r3 ~~~~ ki ~ i ~j { < i j ~~ ;:~ ;~ . `; .; :'I .::1 ,, ~... .:,~z,,~ ~~. . F ~` 5;: ~: • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 12 of 41 these lots here. These are both private roads, because ACHD does not allow it to be called an alley if that is your primary access. So, with the common open space, the MEW here in the middle, we had to come up with this idea, that these would be private roads. This has kind of been an evolution. We think we are there. The staff was happy. The neighbors were happy. We hope the Commission is happy with what they see. If Amanda could put up on the screen the elevations. These are the type of homes that they are proposing. These are the detached ones. The attached ones would look like that. So, we did submit elevations to kind of give you an idea of the feel and architecture that they are proposing in here. We do meet that overall density requirement of your Comprehensive Plan with our net density. I believe Amanda asked about the fencing. We did not describe the type of fencing we are going to have on the periphery, because we are going to have to coordinate with Hightower. They are on two sides of us. And, then, with our lots fronting on Jericho, obviously, we would have fencing on -- if Amanda could go back to the site plan. We haven't discussed what type of fencing this would be. But this is the Hightower boundary and, then, the west boundary and, then, along the south is Arcadia, an existing subdivision. So, I'd like to kind of coordinate with the adjoining developer on that fencing type. Obviously, if they can split the cost, it works out great. We reviewed the staff report. We are in agreement. The only item that I had a concern about was on condition number 1.2.8. We believe that with our new design that we can potentially save additional trees that are existing on the site. So, therefore, it's very specific saying 50 trees must be donated to the Meridian Parks Department. If we can save more trees with this new design, then, obviously, that number would go down. So, we'd like some type of language put in there, you know, to the satisfaction of the parks department and our landscape architect will be working with Elroy. The problem we had in our original design is we had a street going through the two areas where the largest number of existing trees were located. Now, by eliminating that vehicular connection to Jericho, we think we can save more trees. Other than that, we are in agreement with the staff. We ask the Commission to, please, consider this and recommend it for approval to the Council. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Questions of the applicant? Moe: Well, number one, Becky, what was that condition number again? McKay: Oh, I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.8. McKay: Correct. 1.2.8. Fourth bullet. I think it just -- it would just eliminate the last sentence. Or eliminate the reference to 50. Dedicate a required number of trees based upon the number -- you know, that are required to be mitigated. Something along that line would be great. Rohm: I think I'd like to ask staff if they could respond to that a little bit from their perspective. ~} +N L~~ ''Y' k~ rrrr t ~ t ~ {, .~ ; 2 r3 ~ t,y{ ~- i x,k i ,a ty~~y.~ t ~ ; C ''} ~;~ ~ n ~ ` ry „ . . ...~ t~ _. ,~ i. ~ Y -. 7j ~Ey.,, ~ s # @+~k ~s9 4. 1t ~i ~ ~ ?. t~ i~ t I }r L ' ~~ ~. a ~ _. . 1 x ~ f ? b a ~ ~ a i . c~ ,. ,~. ~' d~ >~ Y~ O r d :. ~ ~ ~ 7~iii F+, ,~ Y r ~ ~ ~ , ~ r.~ ~ r _ a ~'~ i ' ~_ 4 ~ '. 3 I ~= " ~ ~ its t- `' ~ ~ i! ~. ,iii ..,"~ ~ ~ uq~ j ,~~`~' l i L f-- Q~ ~N r} ~'~f i '4 t 2 t ~~{ ~. f i't D 4. If ,h ,y'dYSi'. t ; .~p ~~"; it 1j rxii ~. F n f~l i '~ J ti k f 'ti'1~, Meridian Planning and Zoning f, February 1, 2007 _,4 Page 13 of 41 Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm currently looking for the -- a .. letter -- correspondence between the applicant and from the parks de artment P di h `; _ regar ng t is. ~. Rohm: Okay. We have got a few minutes. We are all right. ~:.:. Hood: While she is looking that up, I just may -- I mean if the applicant's able to save `' - ti some trees -- I mean ultimate) the oal is to miti ate for whatever trees are removed -~' Y g g '1 from the site. So, if they are able -- if that number changes and based on a new design ~~ - #~ they can save 24 caliper inches or whatever it turns out to be, then, that's -- ou know, Y ~ ~ = obviously, they wouldn't have to mitigate for those. So, if 50 is no longer the number that the parks department deems appropriate, then -- not to speak for Amanda, she will `~~; ~ °= ~:a ~ come up with some more detailed numbers, but I think to work with the parks _ }~~~ department in general sounds like a pretty fair condition anyways and whatever -- as °° long as the applicant is willing to let the parks department deem what fair is and how ~x~ ~;: many trees they are responsible to mitigate for or donate to the parks department, I ~ ~ ^~'" don't know that we would have any heartburn over that. ;~- k~ ~" Rohm: And that seems appropriate. So, Amanda, I'm not so sure that it's necessary to get the exact verbiage, as long as the applicant and the Commission can come to agreement on that. I guess the applicant hasn't any additional input, so at this time I ~~ ~ ~ would like to open it to the public for testimon and here has -- J r y e ry Olson. Would you like to come forward or were you just -- just an observer from the audience and didn't ~ ? ' ;`; ` have any testimony to offer. Thank ou, sir. There is nobod else that h Y y as signed up ~~ for this, but at this time it's certainly open to the public, so anyone that would like to ~~, , come forward you certainly may. It doesn't appear as if we have anybody that feels necessary to testify. So, is there discussion amongst the Commission? Commissioner ~` ' Borup, do you have any thoughts on this before we move forward? ~. ~- ~ Borup: No. I think -- there has been plenty of time that thin s have been k d t g wor e ou , ~, ' so if the neighbors are happy and staffs ha `'- PPY, I'm haPPY• Rohm: Good. All right. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any closing comments? Newton-Huckabay: No. I just have a question about outstanding issues related to L public works and utilities and -- is that all resolved, though? ~::= Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~~ The one concern that Public Works staff had with utilities when they were requesting the limited setback in the rear wouldn't leave enough room for the joint trench utilities. Since that variance has been withdrawn, Public Works didn't have time to take that out, ~. so we don't have that concern anymore, because the setback is large enough to install ' those facilities. ~' i G..`. ~ ,- ,, ,. ~T i Lm `~'' i f J{{i a41~ ~~~~ t~ F.j-{. i r N .~ ~~ r~-G: G ~ r, ' "~ :] ~W.k~1 ',fit*Y ~.{ ''f. ~~ `I-. _ ~.~..C t ~ ~` ~ . ~,r~ M r R T '~~ !~ F ~~" `~' ~4 ~''y'' z ~,~ a< F fi w f ,. ~a r ; Y 1 r yY' S . 9 ~ ~.{r fi j ~ ~~~ 4 ~Y..~T ,~ 'el ti,. ~~:'~ - ~~,~ ~ M Z f k ~ L?.It Y' Ff I ~.` k x ' ~ lP +` ~~ ~~ `- ~~ r Y ng ,:. ~ _ ..u~' 'u~~ 1j~ r ~ ~~~ ; ~ ~ 9 ~~ *~ ~ ~M a~ of y a ~ t t rr i ~~. i` 3"",yf. ~yk`~ .. ;.. r{,y Lax,' -' • • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 14 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Good. Newton-Huckabay: I have no concern with this. I'm happy to see that it's able to have those homes on Jericho look like a neighborhood, because I have always -- I have always hated the way that whole thing has developed out there and so I'm pleased. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Moe? Moe: Quite frankly, I think it's a much nicer development now than the first time through. I was very glad to see that. But I'm going to be very honest with you, I am very confused right now in regards to moving this forward as far as staff recommendation in regards to approvals and whatnot. I can't seem to find that. Borup: There is two reports. I had the same problem. Moe: Oh. Borup: So, the one at the bottom where we normally are, that's not the one. That's the old one. Moe: So, I was looking at the wrong one, then. Borup: So, was I. You're not alone. Moe: Thank you. That's why I couldn't find it. Newton-Huckabay: I'll make a motion. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will make a recommendation, I just need some clarification. have that item 1.2.8 on the fourth bullet that we will strike the dedicate at minimum 50 trees to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department and replace that with dedicate a -- '~,; Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 15 of 41 ~:: . ;.,~ • • Borup: Can you just keep the first sentence that says work with the Parks Department? Newton-Huckabay: Coordinate definitive tree mitigation with the Meridian Parks Department prior to application for final plat. Borup: Just leave that is what you're saying. Newton-Huckabay: Should we have that they are based on the final mitigation of trees or is that statement alone appropriate? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, w q think that that sentence could stand by itself. It is repeated in the general requirement as well, item -- or condition number 1.3.7. So, just coordinate definitive mitigation plan with the Meridian Parks Department. You may even decide to strike the whole bullet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. How about I do that. Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. It's -- it's a little bit difficult -- for the maker of the motion, for staff, when we are looking at final plat for these, the site specific ones are usually the ones that we spend a little more attention on and making sure that compliance has been had. Quite honestly, the general conditions get glossed over and so if you want to just repeat it in there, that's fine, but to make sure that it stands out that there is a -- there were trees on here that need to be mitigated for. I think it is appropriate in this case. Just because I know when final plats come in, again, we spend more time looking at the site specific to make sure those are complied with specifically. Newton-Huckabay: So, you want me to modify statement 1.3.7? ~~ ->:_ _$ ,~, _ ;. :;_r ~~~~~ ~, ,_-- ~.!~! Hood: No. I would -- after you modify the fourth bullet of 1.2.8 -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.8. Hood: -- and if you want it to have -- to say the same thing, that's fine, but at least it's in the site specific conditions. Sorry, we just went in a big circle, but I think that's going to be easier for us to make sure we get a letter from the parks department when they do come in for a final plat and that condition does apply to them, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, leave it in and just drop the second sentence? Borup: Makes sense to me. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, I had a question of how I need to word the fence -- you were looking for a fence plan. The applicant wants to coordinate fences with the neighboring development. E,~ 'r ~ x ~. ~- a~ ~ t .~ ~,. ~'~ ~'~` r ~~~~ 4'f ~ Y a t K % ~;. +.. t ~ F~-: +. ~ }r~ 4 ~ ~,~~~ ti~~~ v1 r = at w ~ ~.~n ` ~. Z-~ k ~ h ~ y;~ a y ~~~ N i ~' ~ ~ ~ t ~ 4 ~~t ~ , y ~.: ,> ~~ ~ ~ +:~ ~~pi ~ 'S N y~ SIB d- .t., 4 ~ F ~ . t'sd f '! ~~ A ~Y _. A . f ~T. i7 A. ~~ ~ Y ~ 1. ;`:j`•~f~ 3 ~.' ~ ~ `!may ~~) ~ ? ~~ IW~y~ t ~i, ~ ~ ~ ,SF'~i iy; 4. 7' r G .,~ r. r r ~ ~~. ~~~ wry .. k~ y.~t;. ~ *~ ~3. ;` 7~,. y, ' _ y ; ~ ~tx.r ii Xe .~xr- a. ~~:. ~~:~ :;- • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 16 of 41 Hess: I'm sorry. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Could you repeat the question? Newton-Huckabay: The fencing. You made comment that we needed to address the coordination of -- that there was no fencing plan. Applicant stated she wanted to coordinate fencing with the other development. Where do you want that stated? How -- Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that could even be added as an additional bullet under the landscape plan under condition 1.2.8. The other thing that the applicant did not mention was the type of fencing along the micro pathway that is required per UDC -- and I apologize for not bringing it to the Commission's attention while the hearing is still open. Newton-Huckabay: Micropath -- standard micropath fencing. Hess: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Not a problem. We have resolved that? Moe: The ACHD report. Newton-Huckabay: What about them? What do you want me to -- Moe: Well, ACHD still has not approved the roadway through. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to take a run at this. If I say anything, Amanda, that's going to confuse you when you're rereading this, just jump in. Oh, we didn't make comment to the private roadway. Do you still want that? It says on here: Commission make a formal recommendation to Council on annexation and preliminary plat. Plus, also review and make recommendations regarding the private street application. Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commission Newton-Huckabay, the private street application is an administrative type application, so if you have concerns about that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Understand that. You have on this staff report that you want the Commission to make recommendation regarding the private street application and we have not done that. Hess: I'm sorry, which page is -- .'t -~: ~ s Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 '~''' Page 17 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: It would be page one. Hess: Commission Members -- Borup: It says they may. ~, ~ Hess: That, actually -- yes. That, actually, says the Commission may, if they so ~` choose, make comment on -- `~s` ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. < ` ~'''~. ~;~~~.:. Hess: -- the private street. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ~. r ecommend a royal to th - pp a City Council of file numbers AZ 06 057 and PP 06-056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of ap royal. Bullet 1.2.8 -- or excuse me. Condition p number 1.2.8, bullet number four, we will drop the last sentence, dedicate at minimum h, 53 to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department. We will add a ~~.~~~I bullet to 1.2.8 regarding the applicant coordinating like fencing with development to the ^ north, west, and south. And that the micropath fencing will be in line with the current UDC micropath fencing guideline. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and second to forward onto City Council with a recommendation for approval of AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, to include all staff report, '~ with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. • Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. R MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial ~~ ;' lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- p.; ~ N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC -north of Chinden n Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen on the continued Public Hearing from December 21st, 2006, Item No. PP 06-058 related to Jayker Subdivision and begin with the staff report. ~= Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant has ~, _:; "' applied for preliminary plat approval of 277 single family residential building lots, 27 ~, common lots, and one what we are calling a commercial slash common lot, which will contain -- that lot will contain the proposed community center. The site is located on the ~`~r:' ,n ~~• ~ R=~ ,~5` I ! ~h~ o .'fir ro f r 4 •F• .: Y,'+'`•.i4ati5,'S:i s V :- t 4 II.: •~i.J' ~ tw7*~r1r ;-~r ~t`;'•r~S i° ' ~,:, ;y LF5' .1i ix~Y ,'T~ ,~~•.. •Y~RY;+r., '~r' pp S2. •~ •.~}^'' :':~ a,:r•s. :,:.f,. • 4W :;r •• ~;~.4,.;;:.'}~ .'~,'+ry i ~[ r '.~? 5..,g:3n':T~.~??4x@~''., ,-'r : ~ ~e •i" ~ rQ 5: ... . ": f'... `~. ,~ ~, :a~:% ~ . •'r, r • ~;~ Nr. s ~ -. .~r''r.' ~. 5:. ~ + ~~?el•.'~",,+~~e Ffy, ;~. .. [kF I i~a.SV F;,br.i'j, d Y' ,++`gg J ~^~ '}:'~'u ~^'#hi~'• Y^.s5:~ ~~~4 "~ 7;~r'e ey5ur•'~ s,Y b;l ` pl ~''~ ~~ ~y. , (`p ~ "~. ;tN,Ti~*:r"he"K4"i~~g` ;';~'.e,U . '.p~ .. ,Y: `. ;, ~u r~ji5pp,~~ "~•.1i ~~ .. ~,. ~±y!s(;~LJ;!~ ...~~~~~'r~",'~',',~r~~4i9. lµ~. 1 L.' r -$ ~ ' . ; , ; i. . .. M1 ~f~ ;{?v'9 ~F"r~if idc ~y'nr~' i c : ~ il. k ~ St `~ YFi +,'4,a;~e "~',F%~.''~^*.. :~%a `,: Y` x I II'• ~ ~~+~}'dLf«~:~„k. w 3 ~ ~' ` '. 4:;, ~ li' K,, Y 4 i t• L 1 t ~' ~ -~' ; r+ •- r . ~+ . ~ ;..n s.~ ~.G',:~. alfrv^~+~.••: g , ,v '% ~ ~ ' - •S , x~•;+`~`~f ;r~r ~ i • . v n { c ~ a .~ F '? Q`~4•~~ ~$ y~ ~~.'~ ~,S~~ ~k. iC ~ } 4 ; ~ F s:;ai2x t ~ ~"iFl' , i'( ° ' ' ' 'A ~ Y y i., ~ f >~. •.r~' '~ ~H",yrtjn •• I 'A `~ l ! ` .~~ ~ ms' X4 1: .>: ~ ~;,J,yZ ,gyt%r iY''^•S~~V '~~i~L~''o~~ 1 ~ j~, cy< .s f "i Y'~.y '~W [N M~^m"5` 4 C JYG 1 : ?° ~ . s i~: 1 r~~i .;,~'c`,'~v a:~ ° ~' ~ ~~ ~ .t I .w + . i d ~.. .+.<;- s ;.rY;,r.^;w.1;v3 y~'R i ~, z a 0 r ~_: ; :y ~3. K . 'w; 4 „F • ' %' y ;'! 1:'3 i'i 's , i , . , .,;. It ,: •: : ? • . . i .., L~ ~ .p ~ r . ~ ~ =+,~, r ~ ~ , . . a ~ F r~ ~ i ~ f 1 t.i{' ,~ V~ ~~ .? u ~ ~~sj u °a i r '~ .~ Ai~„y~ .fir'. .° •t ~` I ,:. ~. 1 ~' t !,~ ~'• `~i ~ i:`' 7- 's ..., .. ... .,. , ... . ;k: ,s.. +.5 . . . . j .rte ..r.. %~ r` . ~ ~ ~`!'N. ' ~ 'b ~~.{' d'Z~. • : k Y ' ~ ' . t ( : r . .. ; ~~'•~~ ~ 7.41 s' "=~° ~' _ . a~. 04..x .ik.+*:Tj ^ ,(..qp.. }; :'txr. "°`'M x t~'e-4 R •fY binr;~t+.-~.CC i~ S 9 ~ ~ x:u4 .[j•~, ~~S~y nh ~ ;'•.~'~r :}~,t ` . . u „ y ~, .. ~ . ~ ..~ ~"~'~~~..'^'~" :2.. V , 1•," F.~ ~::".. a. ~..`4'i. '.4,•g ti.. }j •I` ;~ y ~,' 1 ' ~F _ xa ,i '[ • ~;•~: s-.$ ~~' z '~ :'~ I ,„ ~ 1 u' • i t`~9%:~ 1 i~ ' •,~ ~* ~ , . t S~ 1 I l . . r' , C }, ~ ` V ' a r ' , Tv .~.. , •'i, F~ .,, ':: '~ ' ` " I .J ` .:e.. ` ~ ` ~ ^ . , m: 5 f., r 5 ~ Fi 'i• ~.~:3 ''~`' ty: ~^~-k l.F:, qE'1 1. ~.. y~ ~~T `~ ... %. Y' %7~ . •'ti.' , i.• ~r ( r',a V:'~~.: r "^ 3 ~' . g f s6°S ~ q .w:' v ~-!a• :~: ~ '1 i+ . ~ I - ',:, I • .4*, t ~ `a `I~`-5 , ,c ~'^.':ri~+ P; ', }1'•:. T '~ ~ ~~i { • :v'^'. Y,~,~.Cay. h ,r~g~tu ` , . I 7• r ~ a ...,; _ ~ , y t: ; `: ~~ i 4 .~ ~ ~ • ~ ~.. .x4' ;.Y;Y'~t a ;. , ; ~ ' , ~ I , ~ 5. ~> ~ ,cam ~ A x " ~' ' •• ~ ~ ~ ~ A is.°~ ll~ ~+. ., ~"Y, ; C ~ Y .k ~ ti'f':F. .e.~:'{° .~°' A .;f,e: '} l 3 tf. ~ `'11++'e"'~ 4 i `' ' • ' } `#~ 4ey'~ h E ~ ?'Ybh ~~ F a ;~%Y'J t Ri4 ~Tt^Yx ' . v~ J~ r'r!.+~y.~ef1S'.~ '„^~.~ S.. .., : ~Y' 4 4 fS .~'~.. :"p'n (+ . ~, .. ,~ . 1 I• ~~A';~Ld'%'S - '~~~`±:i~M1%.,{`;?o.~~`,}.~ ii - 5 .~ ~ A . `.x s:i~•U, agA . .. ~~: :. +4' ~. ~~ " t ~ • Meridian Planning and Zoning ~ ~, _. February 1, 2007 Page 18 of 41 y N +° f north side of Chinden Boulevard. It's located on the north side of Chinden Boulevard ,°- . approximately a half mile east of Black Cat Road, extending east to approximately Ten ~'~~! A . s Mile Road. And Ten Mile Road does not extend north of Chinden, but it's where that ~ -` eastern point would be if Ten Mile were to extend north of Chinden, that's about where ~ this site terminates. Thank you. This area is -- basically, what we are talking about is ~ this area right in here, not including this area down here in the southeast corner. This ~- area was previously annexed and zoned as part of the Tree Farm annexation. As part ~ ~~ ; of that annexation the property owner was required to enter into a development , agreement in which it was agreed that this land would develop in general compliance r~;~; ~' ~ ~ with the conceptual plan that was submitted at that time. The proposed preliminary plat t t . is located within various zoning designations, which include R-2, R-8, R-15, and a very ^ ~ :. small portion of C-N. Unfortunately, the map before you doesn't show these zoning i x ' . ;;~~;~ designations. The way our maps are updated is through the county and, unfortunately, ~. this -- this area has not been updated yet by the county. So, it's shown here as RUT. ,~`'~ That's incorrect. What I will do is I'm going to move to the applicant's concept plan ~~w~~{.` , which will allow us to kind of get a feel for what those zoning designations are. This is a ~~ . ` the area we are talking about. This would be R-2 up here, which the applicant calls ~`~ _. -' estate housin Much of this area in 9• here is R-8 and, then, this area down here is the ~ ~..~ ~ R-15, with one band of R-8 adjacent to this parcel to the east. So, I hope that helps the _~ Commission know what the zoning looks like out there. It's -- unfortunately, we don't have a proper map yet, but that's, basically, what the applicant is proposing. The ~,: subject preliminary plat is the first phase of the Tree Farm and it's, basically, the first k ~~ :. ~~ phase of this entire development, which is going to encompass all of that area ~ described earlier. Let me go back now to our -- we could probably do it through the ;; aerial photograph also. To the north of this site is the Phyllis Canal, as you can see t ~ ° here, which runs across the northern -- much of the northern property boundary. To the ~~ ~ east is one acre lots in the Spurwing Subdivision, which can be seen here. And, also, to ~. ~ the south and east is the Westwing Subdivision, which has a line of one acre lots and ' '~ ' , then, a large parcel that's currently used for agriculture. To the south there are several , - ~~ ~ ~~ ' rural properties zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is agricultural and rural -s t ~' residential, zoned R-R in Ada County. Much of the area to the west of this -- of the , subject subdivision is currently being operated as a nursery, the Jayker Tree Farm, and ; ~ ~~ that nursery will continue to operate until this subdivision and all the subse uent lats q p that will be put forward on this property kind of move to the west. Let's move on to the plat now. This is an overview of the plat and we have various detail sheets, if the Commission has specific questions on specific areas. As mentioned earlier, it's a little '' - bit easier to see now that this is the R-2 area, the estate lot area, the R-8 area, and ' ', down here the R-15 area and that small portion of C-N is kind of located on what we are .: calling that community -- or that commercial slash common lot right here. There is a ~~ small portion of C-N, which is located there. But as stated it will be -- that lot will be ~~ ~,:_ used for the community center. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is requesting x , preliminary plat approval of 277 single family build-able lots. I'm going to break those down a little bit, so we have an idea. It's a lot of lots and a lot of different types, so we will kind of break it down. All the homes within the development are proposed to be :, ~. single family and can be broken down to the following categories: 28.2 percent or 78 ~~ 4 building lots in the R-2 zone up here. These are designed as estate lots and will contain e M k Y+~ `,_ ro~;c .i= ~ ~-`a;YTK~~. . ~w J e -.. i t rr ~ ~ ' ' a TeJ K ` ] - ~ j~ f 2 1 .; ~ .ij ~'- ~. k:~y p ]fir i ~ r~ ~~ ~ ~; 1' ~ J i { 1{ r ~f~ ~ ~[~, ~ T f,,~ .k ;t ~~, r.. f~ . ,.,{ . ~rKI s4 i_izL` .y. #w . i ~ y- r t ,t t y . f s '~, ~: a~ 5 ~ I a y f Y. . p a~, 11 s 3,. '.itti~li'i 1_ ~ ti 0. n ~ ~ ,1.~.~ ~il~ 3~ r. ~.:~. ~ _ ~ 'f ~~~~ I. ~, .. ti a~n z; h 9 t ~ ' p ~,~ ~ 1 ? x 1 Y +~ }t ~ t ~ ~:. ~~ ~ ~, fY ~ ~ } S ' ; ~i ' ^ ri " ~ ~ .. . . - ~, .~ , r ~o- ~ 5 ~ r - c ~'~-fr f~°., ~' ~ i ~ ~ ' f , a ;:. ; ~~_ s=: Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 19 of 41 s -: ~ large -- large homes. 33.6 percent or 93 building lots in the R-8 area, designed as ~~ ~r ~ single detached housing. The majority of that is located right there. And 38.2 percent ~ or 106 building lots in the R-15 zone designed as lifestyle house, from which what understand will include some attached units. But all of the lots are single family. There is a great range of lot sizes being proposed, with lots as large as 29,000 square feet `r~~ ~ located in the estate area, and as small as 4,000 square feet located down in the lifestyle housing area. The total acreage of the plat is 142.97 acres and the total gross density of the project is 1.93 dwelling units per acre. And approximately 39.1 acres or ~~ 27 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. And those open spaces can be ~ ~;~ ,- seen as these large swaths of open space that run throughout the development. This is ~r, ,~~' Y I ~ ~ also a good exhibit to discuss the street system. Along with the building lots the : `; >i ~M1 ' applicant is proposing to construct various public streets as part of this project. Two ~~ ._-,:~ collector streets are planned. The first would be Tree Farm Boulevard, which is this `~ -`° street right here, which will be the street that connects with Chinden. The other ~.,~ collector style street is going to be called Jayker Way and it's this street that runs up and around the subdivision there. And each of these streets as mentioned are designed as l , , collectors and will not have front-on housing. A number of stub streets are also ~x proposed for this subdivision. You can see numerous stub streets here. There is one ' }~~'~ there, which is Jayker Way, which stubs into a future subdivision connected to this ~~ ;~ development. Jayker Way also has a stub street to the north to the TICO One property. . F ~ - ~. ,. There are a couple of stub streets located to the -- that connect to the West Wing ~,: . ~` Estates Subdivision, one located here and one located here. As the staff report stated , staff is recommending that these two stub streets be shifted a little bit to better accommodate the development of this -- of this property. This one we are recommending be shifted down approximately 200 feet to somewhere in there and this ~Pa ~ stub street we are recommending be shifted over, so it does not align with an existing ~~===` private lane that serves these one acre lots here. We are recommending that be shifted "~~ . over to allow for this -- that undeveloped area to develop a little bit -- a little bit easier. ~~<-:~ a ,- _ think we can move throw h these detail sheets. If there is an g y questions, we can F~~ always go back to these. This is the landscape plan as proposed by the applicant. In general the landscape plan provided appears to meet the minimum standards for a development of this size. The applicant is providing a large amount of open space and ~.'~: various ponds and pathways throughout the development. Furthermore, a community ~ center complex with multiple facilities is included with this proposal. All of these ` - elements combined meet the open space and amenity requirements for a subdivision of ~~r this size as described in the UDC. I'm sure the applicant may have more details than F~``.. ' do about that community center, which will be located on this site. Currently it's shown ~` ~ as just kind of an open field, but I know there are plans for this area to be developed into a community center with multiple facilities. Other than that, let's move on to the f~ Comprehensive Plan. This whole area is designated medium density residential and low density residential and a small portion is designated mixed use community, which -~' ~<, x would be right down here, that small C-N area on the Comprehensive Plan. And along . ~ „ with the Comprehensive Plan, staff, when considering this application, also must look to the development agreement on the property and, in general, this is consistent with both _ r` ~~- the Comprehensive Plan, especially when you consider that both the Comprehensive Plan and development agreement, especially when you look at the concept plan as ~. ~` ,~ _ ~ ~ ~~ ~: , ~ ~ h .~,,, k4 3~a ~, ' 1 ' '~ . r r ? ,r ,~ r .i. fi ~ ~+ ~ F t ~ q~ l r ~ ti~ ,'~:~. t r_ C..7 ~- 2 k ~ » i ICY ~~l W [~ i ^ ~( .I~y.A ~ t '' h ~1 1 ~ 1 , ~~ ~i;"~ ~t = ~ o3a : 1'.,. ~Y F b ~ ' t ~ 1'- ~ ~~ ~ }'S t 1 ,}'~s G N ~ ~T3 . t ^rr'`. ~ ,a { ~3i ff {~ x -'o v ,. ~ ~ t ~ ~,... s..~`" ~ti. . r+ !'. r'` ~lt Y ~_ ~;, . ~ ~ L '~ ~ ..~I 7 T {~G~/A Z. ~ ~'~,~3, Y'. Ma idg',~ +. -. wx: ^( f ~: v: i.a Y'4, p. 4 ~ i.l lk JIB r'S,',': ~. k b ~ ~-4 s ' ~} qty. P :~ .'.'. r_.~.. ` ~: _, r>f~*~ .~"~' ':~ ~; -.; :e -r: :~.: ``~ Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 20 of 41 provided by the applicant. As you can see, it's very similar to what is shown. The plat matches the concept plan pretty well. Other than that, there were no other major issues when it came to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or the UDC. Staff did just want to bring up a couple issues that came up as we -- that are outstanding for the Commission. As currently depicted on the preliminary plat, there are several lots within the proposed subdivision that are split between two zoning districts. As mentioned, the zoning for this property was done at the time of annexation. It was very conceptual. They weren't exactly sure where the streets would go and where those lot lines would be and because of that when they drew the zoning lines, they did them the best they could, but when they came in with a preliminary plat and were able to do some engineering work, it turned out that those zoning boundaries didn't exactly match the center lines of streets and along lot lines as you would usually see. So, what staff is recommending is that through a development agreement modification that the applicant be able to submit a revised zoning legal description that would allow them to correct or clean up those zoning boundaries without going through the entire rezoning process. It's kind of a unique solution to this problem and staff worked with the applicant and with the legal department to try to come up with a way to move these zoning boundaries without going through that full rezone, because it's technically not a rezone, it's just a `~ shift of those boundaries to try and match the proposed preliminary plat. That's one thing I just wanted to point out that was a unique thing in the staff report that if the Commission had questions on that I was willing to answer. And the other thing is that condition 1.1.11, staff is recommending that condition be amended to allow the ten foot wide pathway along -- proposed along Chinden Boulevard to be located within the preserved right of way area, which is that 100 foot of right of way required on Chinden. We'd like to see that pathway located instead of within the 35 foot buffer, as it says in the condition, to be located within that 90 to 100 feet or the first ten feet outside of the subdivision. This came about -- at first staff -- usually we have these pathways within the subdivision, outside of -- exclusive of any right-of--way areas, but after speaking with ITD, Sue Sullivan, and talking to the applicant, it became clear that, really, the intent of that first ten to 20 feet of the right of way is for pedestrian movement and so it seems to make sense to place the pathway in that area and ITD verbally confirmed that that would be okay and through that -- through their permit process the applicant will work with ITD to get the exact location on that. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Jayker Subdivision, with the conditions as outlined in the staff report, and I'll stand for any questions. ,' Rohm: Thank you. Good job. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~ ~`,`. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ,w. Moe: Justin, I just want to get my bearings right a little bit here. Where, in fact, is Basco Lane within this? ' ~ ' ; :~ ~ ~ , ~ }~ ,~ t ~ ~ ~ F~, ~ „:h:; ~ ~ _, r { ' ..1vL 3 !i y ~ 3a 4'+ k ~c , ~j~ 3'~ti~'M1 v 'y ~ j> : f .R 77S7S 3 %%h 's S ~ r y .1 ~.R ~ 1 f..4F ~( ~, i ~ h' ~ 1 t ~'` h '-Si' - a , ~ ,; .~. ~ ~ ~ ,, ~» ~ ~ )1 ~ S 4 ~.li k "n. ~ ~ ~ r a i " ~~ ~ rya d A'.. i. v ~ ~Z-: -: ~t ^'7 1 - ~~ ~ 1i7- ~ i ,~ ~ ~, . r 1s.`; ti ;i;t'r ~~ e~? ~ .ts ; ~ '"N!• ~x~~~ v , Fir a '~'~` , F3 "~ ~ `~1 ,~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ S '~ " "''1`*` y t ~ . yy 4 h ~ro ~, [`~ o- ~ ~f Y~ i. ~ H x~;1 ~ ? ~ ~ ~~~ ,w~ - ~w~~ > :~ s r .~i! 1 t ~~4~ '1S1 ~~ ~. f t . {. ;. '` ~ J Y r ~~.. ~._x` ~ i"x`~ ~ ~ ~'rd r ^t~5 t~'~~, y~i K~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ f t ~~~'~ Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 21 of 41 ={ Lucas: Let's go back to the aerial photograph. Basco, as you can see is about -- well , , actually, I'm -- this gets me -- here we go. This shows Basco Road really well right w> ~ here. The subdivision -- it kind of cuts down and swings across Basco a little bit -- just 7 over a little bit on the other side of Basco Lane and so if we go to this area here -- this -- Basco would be somewhere around right here. That's not exact, but it's to that area. Moe: And, then, so it goes away? ~' S Lucas: Yeah. There is a condition in the staff report requiring that any easement or , public -- any type of movement across Basco Lane be vacated through -- prior to final ~ ' ~' plat of this property. ~ ~ : =l Moe: How do they, then, get to the north? ~= Lucas: The northern property owners would use the circulation system provided by this t ~ i subdivision to access their property. That's what I understand. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And that was an ACRD requirement also. I~; L° Lucas: Absolutely. ~~<~ Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? ' ^ ~~ O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick O'Neill, 2242 East River F ~ Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. Thank you very much for allowing us time to speak with you ~''' tonight. I'm going to give you a little history and go through a couple of things and, then, s:: ~- _ ~~ ask your thoughts. We have been working on this project for over a year and a half and :_ you guys remember we were in front of you a year ago with the annexation and the .,: 4`~~' concept plan development agreement. Since that time we have worked very closely with neighbors, with the highway district, with staff, including police department, fire y' ' department, parks department, et cetera, in the start of our preliminary plat. Our concept plan and development agreement was improved in September of'06, as Justin said, and our preliminary plat is consistent with our concept plan and development agreement. We made very sure that it was. We have had a ton of meetings with staff and I'd like to acknowledge them. They have worked through a really complicated ~,~ application and done a very good job. In fact, to the point where we are in agreement with it, which is very good. That's not normal for us. But I'd like to compliment them for ": that. So, that's been very good. The other thing I'd like to mention is that we delayed this hearing with you guys a month or so ago, because we didn't want to come to you without the highway district having recommendations, because we know the stub street issue and the connection was a very important issue and still is an important issue, but we wanted them to weigh in and have closure to that issue. They have done that. They ~ had their hearing last Wednesday night. They unanimously voted to approve the project s~ : , , '. ,.p.1~~:: ~. Y f !Y ~ "*Y' 1 , V ~ " i4 ~ r- r 4't 1 ^ tY- 4 ~ ~ ' • ' r F ':,'4 ~A.: ~, ~4Y :.~ ~ a ~ \ 1 T '~~~;F~~-~<`i t': `.fir ~~I ~ ~ ~ ~ r. . ~- `"' ~ts i9i~` ~fi•~µ$;t- rd..i~Yl~dr +d ~ae'Fe~ ~` ~t rL"~5 ,} 'i(x-f•'ivi~~,• ' i O k ;L 'g+? . '~ ~fl `::y ~ ~ ~ \> .:~ ', a ~ k r S c'+ p 4 '4.'Y~. d ti1. •, Y, S-} y7 p N E, { ~~ .r +~..r Y 4 I ;; z C ~ 4'• '~ + 's ~ ~ 4 , . . , , ~,i %.. ). 1 . a ~w i~~t ~ ~ #i 'F ~5 .~-`j.~ "te„` ' ~~. ,;, ~ TT 'FE { t, ~.t~, , a: .' •d • ,~ ,~ T , 4r sh.,t `,: ,, "f xss R day ~ L { . ~; 3 ! ar< ...v~{ ry~ ' ~ t'~?".,: 51,.E :r; • 4jk. L'~ti- n. ~ i ., ~~,~ ~ ,,~',r ,;.iY,~ '"": ~ ~I.' . F ' l ~ ? ( ~ ~ ~• ~ ' ` ` ' ' ` ' ~ ~~ xb 4'f,'-.-,~ ' ~ s ~~~ 1 fi i • F , '. ,^e+~~ .fr'i? T t 5^':: ^i r', . ~ r ~ r.~ r: 'i}x». •~«.. ~~4:~ a4 1 r ' a ~' ~ ~;~ f"•~= r0., rc^(° r '' li • i ~{5 ~+ it j ~ A u +1'Np+Z ; ~ %~.'~'Aw~' y~8'~ .~.d`1v~...; S.~Yf+[~~ ~ ~ "[' .k '~"`},ri, A{ .'~~y'. `1r~~ .Yr w~.~~~i'_ 'Y+iR `~:: ~'i y:'~'x'SrJ '~`', { r~( k. K~ .~ '7,1.': G;~if i:R.'3.}.~,4'.'.y~~,'^e%s:~shS N,°.i 1 11. ~ '.~ ^ F5q f ypF,:i;~}; fy ~,.i . 5,:rx.'~,ti•': r=. Y ~ iN S,~' t.~~3. s + e ! . ~ r . I I , .`~' '~~ ~ n". ~4•-.~•5 . ~ ' ark. M~ t r3 ~ } ~(~. '.h" k,t 1 • , ~~ . ..:. g i 1 xx..i ` ` ''~ ~ • ' ' ' ~ ~ +j! .t .4 . s ",; .I4=n" " irR` ..~. :`3~1:. ~„ : ~ r ~ ., " ,.• ;, ;i 4 ~ • w .f ,. , a ' ~ ' ~? ~ t -Y:vr` ~.aa4 te 7~~ : ~: =f. ,Y ,~.. . :3' 4:Z:a: ~`}. ;Ya.~s. r ' . ~~' . .. ys •-,~ '~i.v, [~.y~a~+; ~~ i ,~ , , ..~ a, .t ~ ia.. - '.' in `•E+ ' . t.' ..: :. ~,-:f.:-.rF ~'' .v+. " iG.r ti . 'k _ e :~ ~` td, '•...~ • e ,. ~ 'a ~ n ' + ' "S> ;t '< ~ ' ' j ~ '~` .`T-~-' y~ ,. ~ , iii § +`~~ S4`, ~}"5~~.t ' `~ s ~ ~ ~"S x4 ~i• ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ~ x ^ ~ ;; .. .~<r y3{, :,/~~13:: ~ t A . y x F . f ;y M1 y t ~` 1 7 Y' s A~' r. k'A,.,a r' [ 'S 'pin :'`' @: t , ~.~b;'~ a{~ ~F :a7v ,yY~y~" .~S`t;~i~'%~•.y'R.:s:~ +c ~ 'i " , ! : _ ..: r. l„°;'rx? ~ k, ~ . ;y .ty4T L4~yv''L. ~ Y ~ b ~. <. ..1 . ~Y Yx ~- AF S L f.;~ , M . ~ ~ . • ~ r ' i V I'. ,rl v o ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ .. ' . - r L .:+. p~. ;an. . t. ..1r..~ . ~ ~ '~ r { ,~ ~ . a :f .y~gN"y ..t, ,~. ~. eT1. y y ~ ~ ~~ . 3 Irw ~ \ 'A:iP' 'f ~ Y'~~~g~~~~~IDNi`#'4k;:M,}q ~4 k,' xf R k':lyx~~.. p !~ q .:a (~i "~',{j5.•.~: ~ r.~~..~. ;n~; v.}4^,~-,k. Y Y. 7C x!'.*_ ~,nF sY µSl, !~~,'. F,rN:e~ I '~.. is e`n PL h` '!t ~ "" 5 i I"D~~ j, - . ~ F= J ~W!;~ ~ ~1' ~~; n~S.,X%ny r' L °~: ~T. '~}." t.#~±~.~Z 99 ~~, d ~~ 4 -~1§ f ~~•. ; . .j L~* f alt ):~' a.; . r,'~~`..+~.: '.~. > ~ i . $ &t ~. t.~' r `~'w- ; ~.~.e.~.. i ~ :.: i ~)•~ „ + Fem.;. 5~° . .-'4r ~ t~, 2, fi;~ N.i.`'~ ~S i• 'R Y y ~ , f y~ „~ .r t ~~ e~~^^d ~ ! ~~ Y; . r r I ~~,f , 33 G ~ 1 ~ YY f `i ~. p` r + {,, r~" ~~,, { } pp ,y~' ~4 i'Y~`'}~~nFR~~Y ~'v .,`.`~":.~•1+„ .'"4es,~• ~ I ~ ...:: 1 ~'.. .. .. ., .•~ ,• y i ~.k:~ . `' ~ 4 tl: as ~ Hirc~ ~i~d`~i f .'. ~~ 1~. , .. .y Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 22 of 41 ,1 i • as we have shown with conditions that you have in your staff report, I believe. And we think that deals with those issues. In respect of time -- I have got over 40 pages of slides that I could put in front of you, but instead of doing that, I think what I would rather do is if you have questions I can respond to them, let the public testify, and, then, I can come back and rebut. I have a ton of detail, but I think the staff report covered it. We are in support of the staff report as suggested, with the modification that he suggested at the end regarding the pathway being outside of the buffer strip that's consistent with the Department of Transportation's comments as well. We have come a long ways. There is some neighbors here that you will be familiar with that have some testimony. We have met numerous times with them and I think we are at the point where we have respectfully -- and I mean that -- agreed to disagree on a couple of issues. And they will bring those up and I will be able to respond to those, but compared to where we were and where we are today, I feel very good about this. I think it's going to be a great addition to the city, so I'm done. I'll answer questions and, then, I'll come back, but I do have a ton of information if you have specific questions. Rohm: Boy, that sounds good to me. Any questions of this applicant before we take public testimony? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm just going back on what I remember when we went through this thing and I 1. know that there was concern on -- I guess there was one lot that the ownership was still ~~ :> unclear as to who owned it. Just kind of looking at your project, do you go around that ~w lot or just what happened? f~ O'Neill: No, we don't. You might -- try the first slide and see what comes up. Maybe can put it in perspective. Do you have a -- so, the lot in question was this strip that we call the gulch strip and it was not clear as to who had ownership and as you recall -- or I think it may have been at Council, one of the items was is that we figure out who owns it. We went through a quiet title process, which took quite some time and that's part of the reason we have taken longer to assure that we could find out who owned that. We went through the quiet title process, we have title to it now, we did that, because no one wanted to take title to it, but we said someone's got to do it, so we went ahead and did that. So, this area -- we did bring clarity to that. As it relates to that, the next question was, well, is there surety that there can be a stub and connection down to the Aldape property. That was the issue at hand. And what we have done is everything we can to assure that. One is we got control of the property, so we could have it and make sure we give it to the highway district. Two is we have agreed -- and this is coming a long ways from where we were -- we have agreed with the highway district that we will be willing to put in a road trust and it's a condition in there, the allocation or amount that would be responsible for us to build a road on that property and we have done that. Unfortunately, the highway district wants to collect -- not unfortunately, it's a smart thing, they want a collector road and a collector road will not fit on our property, it's going to ,t;~; I; ~ r f ~f~, ~ ` ., ~ t , ~ F ~ ~~~~ ~ r.:~~ 1 f" r y l i~x ~.r C '\ t> +{ hr •. bft~ ~ -%~' 1 ~ ~~1: ~77s S bF''. ~ }ty ., ~~ ~ ~ P ' t +'; ~~,,,~. ~~ YL$lYit ~~ J ~~ 1 .- t re~,";• yy,,~~F + ~1'Sk 1 -:, 7s 1 ~~~ ',+,~: , ~F Y 9 ~ ;.~ Y F ~ ~.tii ~ ': to (( Sir 4 W t ~i ~~ y r i,' ~ '' ; , ,1 T ~~ r r4y ~ ti+t - `~, ~ ~ Y ~~ ab _ ' ~ ~~yY. tM r ~ c ~ri '~~ ~ x ~~ ~5'y~ ~~ ', ~ . ~ ~% E ~i i ~ - 1 ' u ~ h `5 - } .,'3 i f J ' , ~ ~i ~, r lx ~ ~ f p't, a « ~ : fps:; ;ii~r~;.; ~ r t - ~ ~" ~, ~ rk F . f ._ ~.~.r, ~ ...... . ', ,~~ .. a ~` ~'~ . `_:. , ,, Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 23 of 41 take more property than that. So, it will require the TICO One folks, who have agreed to add the additional property, and we have agreed to pay for the road that can be set on our property. I don't know if that brings clarity to that issue but -- Moe: Yes, it did. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. I like your idea of -- we will take our public testimony and, then, invite you back up to respond. Thank you. Gary Hinkle. Hinkle: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, there are only a couple of items that -- Rohm: Could you give you name and address. Hinkle: Oh. I'm Gary Hinkle. 9109 West Burnett Drive, Boise, Idaho. With regard to our adjoining property that is to the east and south of the proposed development, which is identified as Lot 10, Block 1, of West Wing Estates, you will see that as the open space area to be this area right in here. Our main concern is to make sure that the alignment of the stub streets worked with regards to future development for our property. The current alignment of this street here we would like it to be far enough to the west of the east boundary, so it does not line up with -- with that private lane, which would be Double Eagle Lane, to allow us adequate access onto our property. You will see that we have a -- I had it there. You will see that we had -- we would like to see it no less than 430 feet from this property line over, just to get it passed this -- what is now the Double Eagle private lane. Those people are not wanting us to be a part of that subdivision right there. I even know that that open space was there to acquire their development at the time. So, anyway, we have had a chance to talk with those folks and they are not real comfortable with any changes out in that area right now. The other one would be the Silverlace and this is just something new that we learned from Justin. The proposed alignment of that street, apparently, Derick is considering shifting that further to the south, which was fine -- that's fine with us -- further to the south closer to Chinden would accommodate our needs better than what we originally were looking at there, so -- the other item that we are kind of concerned about here -- in the development agreement it states -- let me get it out here. The original development agreement. It states that the adjacent following parcels, which include ours, the Hinkle parcel -- let's see. Let me read it here for a second. Required are part of the preliminary plat approval. Basically, what we are looking at here is making sure that there is some verbiage in that to -- to regards to our current status on that property. We have a -- we have a farmer that's operating that property right now and he's going to need some access on that piece of property throughout this development process and we have talked to ACRD, they, basically, have given us instructions to apply for a driveway approach request. I'm not sure how that all is going to evolve, but if there was -- just for the record, I would like to have something possibly in writing there that would give us -- give us the ability to get that gentleman that currently operates on that property from an agricultural standpoint access in and out on that stub street, which would be Silverlace. That would be the most appropriate stub street to come in off of. F 44 j. k '.+~~'• ( ~{ 5 S-F t '' Y ' ~ A -~YG tt7 $ s !a ~:~G: ~;~ ,~ tip ~' t t t t~ - ,~ ~ t r , ~s 'Sn!f i. ~ r ~ ~ 1 Y ~ Y ~... T 1j~ W:lh... - L ¢ 1 K.'..,.~t~'. Y. 't § V U x~ ? "F :9 1 ` ~ ' tt u P'~ ,~ *,4. . ,7 R. ~ .t A:~1 ~ , r c. fix r Y ~ 4~ _G~ t ~~ ~ ~~ ^~ ~ 35 ~ Y ~M1 ~ ~~~~. ~ 3 ri ~ T Y ~}.. ~ q~ r.~ . ~ ;q, ~ S~ F.1 i "' 7 '~ , G~~ ~~ ~ ... , ~z~~~ k`4 r ~~0. ^ t j' ,~ ",~. ~. .>, „r„c. `'~~' 1 A '- f- ~~ ~ ti ca r~~. , r ~ , y r. ~~ r z ~ Px.,. ~:3~ 3 , q , .,~. ~,y;...;4- ri xt tl [~ .:i. S.. 7 ~ ;ti r e • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 24 of 41 And to make sure that we have the means to get passed the -- as far as the -- the deve9opment agreement states where they put a -- basically a sign at the end of the road, we need to make sure that that sign can be breached or we can get through that area. Okay. As far as anything else, I think we are in good shape, so I appreciate your time. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions? Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yes, Mr. Hinkle, I just wanted to make sure (understood -- you're talking about moving the stub street at least 430 feet? The north stub at least 430. And, then, the west one, the ACHD report talked about moving it to the east to connect to your property I think. Is that what they were saying, ACHD? Have you read their report? Hinkle: Well, there is -- Borup: I mean they said they did that at your request, I believe. Hinkle: Yeah. Well, that's what I'm saying, that the east -- I think the verbiage in that staff report, the directions may have been got a little bit confused. We don't want that street to be -- Borup: I'm talking about the second one. Hinkle: The second one. Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: Well, we are looking at -- we are looking at north to south here on the west side. Borup: Silver -- whatever it was. Silver whatever it was. Hinkle: Yeah. Silverlace, which -- Borup: Yeah. Hinkle: -- is this one right over here -- Borup: That's the one that ACHD had talked about really. To the east, I believe, wasn't it? Hinkle: Well, it's extending from the development, which, eventually, would go to the east, but it's my understanding, from what Justin mentioned, that they are considering at least -- Borup: Well, that's what I was getting to. That's a staff recommendation that that stub shift to the south. ~~- ~;~; ~:; ;< ~- ~3 Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 25 of 41 Hinkle: Yes. And that's fine with us. Borup: Which would make a preference either way. Does this way work just as well for you or -- Hinkle: Shifting it to the south would work better for us. If this stub would come down further to the south it would make us a lot happier. Borup: Okay. And, then, how does the individual farming the property now, how does he gain access to it at this time? Hinkle: Well, we currently have worked out a verbal agreement with Derick. There is -- before -- before this property down on this corner was purchased, the gentleman down there was -- basically it was the Eggers property and there is a gated entrance right here off of Chinden and -- ?:: ~ Borup: So, it's going through this property presently? ~~. Hinkle: Yes. Right. And Derick O'Neill has agreed to give us the means to access h~- through that gate down here until we get some kind access from a permanent stub a~-;' street there, so -- does that make sense? . ~;: Borup: Yeah. So, that's the way it was originally platted, it was a land locked piece of property that had no access? ;` '~ V~_~, ~~ a,~ .~N __~ , Hinkle: Well, my father, he owned all of this property at one time and he sold that off to that West Wing Estates and for some reason it evolved. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hinkle: So, we are kind of stuck. Rohm: Thank you very much. Jerry Olson. Okay. From the audience he's just an interested observer. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Commissioners, I am Sherry Aldape Ewing and I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and, first of all, I would like to say that the O'Neill -- Derick O'Neill and the TICO One group have really worked very very hard to get access down to us and we are very very happy with that and so our -- my concern is, though, that it goes to the river bank on the south side of the Phyllis Canal and not across the river, and so, actually, right now it's my belief that the Phyllis Canal actually owns the land in the Phyllis Canal, so their land comes to it, the Phyllis Canal company, the irrigation company, and, then, my father's land. So, what I would like to see is that they help us build half of the bridge to the -- to meet with our bridge and the reason that I think that you should help with that is because if -- on the river bottom the land will probably turn ~~?~Y r j r., t~{,~I a"''} 4. ! !! r~~ ~u~. 1 s , ~;. .du 3y~ q ppp q '~' 9 ~A _ t f r ~ ~ ~, f ??~ ~ , ~ : Fair` }% f i i t ,4v .'~~ ~ 'C ilk '~' -^.. ¢~x ~~t' ~ t ~f ' tJ j ~:: ~yl~ -_ . r ~~4. f ~ _. i ~ ; h; K~ i~'~~.e ~ ,~,~ ~ ' _ ~ } ii'r ~i~ , ' ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~,, ~ ~~; . gJ~ 4 d7'ii'9J:'~l.'~~~. ~? ~t t } u Y . 4) { ~ ~~} r ` r j :" , ~~~~ ~ s ~ ~ Iq~a~' t ~ ~ k ~ ] i ~Ik v R .ai{ ti~~!4:~~ d 2 yl~ y ~=1 ~~. ~..~ TL F f `. I~-~c+, at ,` ! Y ~ ~ f 1 ~?~~' t-~.s rt ~ ~~ syl ~; i E~ ~1. ' _ ~~.:-irrA~,t =~ 9~ ~" i 5~ir ~ ~F in ~ ., ~r,c"o.: : R - c~ ~~~y ~_ ~, _ ~, -~ t I °+ ~r ~ . ~~_ ,., `n :- ,, {; - ,~;; w ~ ,_:: .,;~ -zt f ,~, ~~ ~~~r~ , t :~ ~ << e • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 26 of 41 into parks, green belts, wildlife preserves, sporting complexes, et cetera, et cetera, and the people in the Tree Farm will definitely be coming down into that area to get to the river. I mean everybody loves the river. So, that's one thing that we would like. And beings we are not pushing for two access points, which they definitely have enough frontage that they -- if it was on a flat piece of ground that they would have to give us two access points -- we feel like half of the bridge would be there. The other thing that I need to make sure that is in all of the verbiage here is that power, gas, and phone utilities are brought down to meet our -- my parents property and I don't know if that's in the verbiage or not. Right now we -- we, the property owners down below, are starting to work to get into Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and so at that pint we would also need water and sewer, but we aren't that far yet. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this -- Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Where do you gain utilities now as far as -- Ewing: Well, they are coming down that way now, but I want to make sure that they continue on after this whole subdivision goes in. I mean right now they are going straight down Basco Lane is how we get our water -- or not water, our phone and utilities and power. And with Basco Lane, you know, not going to be there anymore, want to make sure that those utilities are still brought down to my parent's property. Moe: Okay. f. Rohm: I think just in short response, the utility companies have a requirement to serve all properties within their area of influence. Ewing: Okay. Rohm: So, Idaho Power and Qwest both -- they have to be able to figure a way to get into your property. That's just the utility agreement with the Public Utility Commission, so -- Ewing: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. John Ewing. From the audience John Ewing said he had nothing to add at this time. Tuck Ewing. T. Ewing: Commissioners, Tuck Ewing, 7200 Basco Lane, Meridian. I'd just like to start off by saying I commend the applicant. It has been a long road and I will agree with Derick that we have agreed cordially to disagree and I guess I'd just like to make the point that at this time I'm not totally happy with the agreement we have come up with. hope that they are not either, so it's probably an okay agreement. So, we are good -- at least from my perspective good with it, me and TICO One. The only thing that I wanted to clarify -- and it kind has to do with -- and I think ACHD did a fairly good job of stating it in their report, was I believe that area between this development and TICO One's j s • Meridian Planning and Zoning ,r ` February 1, 2007 Page 27 of 41 _ property, ACRD did take into their area of impact -- or their -- whatever they call that. What do they call that? Right of way. There you go. Because we do have a little bit of ~~~~ unknown at this time where the access points to the TICO One's parcels will be. I think ~, ACHD has accommodated us there, but just for the public record, I do not anticipate the ~_;` existing Basco Lane or whatever it will be called in the future going down the gulch ~ J -' being the main access to the TICO One property. I anticipate it being the access to the properties to the north, but potentially not being the access point to the TICO One, depending on, number one, what the applicant does with their adjacent property to the east and I think it creates a good separation and so I wouldn't want the separation limited to an access, if that makes sense. I can see some different types of zonings, I ~x'~ guess, from the west to the east, with the Basco being the separator and so I think the access points that you use to get to those should be separate. So, like I said, I think ~~ ACHD did a good job at trying to take that in for us, but just as a matter of record I just 3:: ~..~ ' ~ wanted to point it out and I know Derick thought I was probably going to have something ~~ -: different to say, but that's it. ~ Rohm: Thank you. T. Ewing: Thank you. .~;~ Rohm: Okay. There is nobody else that has signed up, but at this time the floor is still `'~ ~ open, so if someone else would like to testify in this application, please, come forward. ~~ ~ Lazaris: Commissioners, Linda Lazaris. I reside at 9948 West Targee Lane in Boise. -' And I am the sister to Gary Hinkle and Ijust -- I'm a little -- on this West Wing Estates, ~~s with the staffs recommendation, Ididn't quite get that, how many feet down you're "`~ proposing for that westerly -- for the east stub street to go in, Caleb. What would -- == what was the dimension on that; do you remember? ~ Rohm: Go ahead. _,: -.;k, ~{ Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I believe the recommendation in the staff report was to shift that stub street Silverlace Drive down approximately 200 feet ~~~~ where it would align with kind of the peak of this curve here. ~: ',_: ~: Lazaris: Okay. Is that 200 feet from the northerly boundary? -;~ -.~1 Lucas: No. No. Two hundred feet from its current location. Lazaris: Okay. >~~"=! Lucas: Two hundred feet from its current location. There is also a discussion of moving this stub street over approximately -- a minimum of 100 feet, kind of leaving -- just as ~ - ACHD said in their staff report, so -- ~~fY t k a~{ ~~+ Fs •:~3: fs L~^K t ~ ~~, t ,., -, ,, d3 _- ~~ k . ~~ t '?~ ~'~ ~t' k kf4 ll ~~ 'K i-"~ ~' Safi 1`n::: ~. VY i' ~ ~ ~~, `tai a y,. {~z ,•; F ~ ,;~ ~~ ~~ Y i~ ~~t~`. ~ ~,~ ~,s; I [ t C f ~i.( i ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~;, r xxa~~ k~ Y , ~, K ~#'Sµ r#"i' ~~ ~n iti ~'. 'SPY'} i} '`~s_ Mr ~ ~~~~: '.~ k ~'' _ ~ "~~. a 2r'j.r '~CZ3 i ~ h .* i ~Grr +~ t a r ° .{~4~ r I +:. „~ ;~' ~ • ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning fi,. _+, ,, February 1, 2007 ~• ~•'`- Page 28 of41 ~'? _ Lazaris: Okay. Yeah. I remember that that was what they said, but I didn't remember the Silverlace one coming down. `- ~_ Lucas: Correct. This was -- the movement of this stub street was not discussed by ~~~L ACHD and it's not in their staff report, that's a staff recommendation from city staff. Just looking at the future redevelopment of that, we saw that as a more --abetter spot. The E idea is creating more of an offset between the two stub streets and allowing for a little r,' ` bit more of a clear circulation pattern through that site and avoiding, as the staff report says, any long blocks that would have to be required to get down to this area of that property. ~ ,~ Lazaris: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I guess my other question, beings I'm not ~~;~~ one hundred percent familiar with this process, is when you approve the preliminary ~:_ ~. plat, are those recommendations that staff makes, then, put into place in the -: ~ I development agreement at that point? Is that how that works? That's my question to ~. ~ i you guys. r. -, `~ Rohm: Our motion that we forward on to City Council for approval will include the staff _~ '; report and any adjustments to the development agreement or any others in the aspect z Y;;i of the staff report. So, you will know what is going forward onto City Council. ~,.~ ~,r Lazaris: Okay. Okay. That's great. That was my main concern is I wanted to make rr;~~~ sure that it -- it was somewhere in writing and it was going to be something that would ~~ be followed through in that regard. Rohm: Absolutely. As a matter of fact, in previous hearings that we have had tonight the staff has even asked that we clarify our changes, so that it could be tracked into the ~~ future and that's just as we will -- or would with this staff report as well. .~ Baird: Mr. Chair? `,~ Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a point of clarification. The development agreement is currently in place and is not before you for modification y-, tonight. Your recommendations are purely related to the preliminary plat. But what you just said does apply; however, they are enforced through the preliminary plat/final plat process. Lazaris: Okay. And so where does the verbage, then, go as far as -- is it on the actual plat map? Baird: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Go ahead. ~ L ;; ~ JA_ ~~ d ~ ~ y~ ~~3~ T4fr tj ~ n ~ 4 'y ' ,2i:r,~ k s - r , a+i~Jr " i i ~' ~ t. ~ `I z r~ f ~ y~ ~ r ~ / 4 Fti ~l '~ ;- i X' l ~ f ' .. ~, ~Y ~ r )Y' T -: ~ y i~k~ Y y~ i H + 'i f ~-1 r f ~`~ # .,IFS. srf i ~ r„J,} -i1° gt .. j iqx ~.+'~ ' ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ',~ S j ~ '.'P h Fy ~. n Y ~ ~Kw ^ f,. . L i e~ ' °~ s -~t~ fiti: ~' t trr +~ e}~j h ~' ~~ ; 4 -- ? 1. ~„ . Y:z~Y.~.3 ~~ ~ a :HL ~ ~ ~~;?J% f r~ rt ', .~ ti, F s ti?~yT > > i w?~w { ~ ~V1 ~ f:r:, D F ^ r,~z a ~~~ F jj F~~y '~ t ~ yS~F~ n . +~~ r p`p` 1 l ~~~1 Y,~~i yr( p'-' S~,I~ 1 q . J ~~ ~ r ~ ny ' 3 .'~ > ~ ~ ~Ft ,~r rr ~i~. .,w ~~ ' • x , Meridian Plannin and Zonin g g ;~;~ February 1, 2007 .-rz Page 29 of 41 ,~:_ ~, Baird: Perhaps the planning department would be the better one to respond to this but , , basically, it's a checklist that they go through to make sure all the requirements have been met before they approve the final plat. ' Lazaris: Okay. So, the preliminary plat requirements are there and, then, when they go r . •; to do final plat those things have to be -- have met -- have been met before the { °~' y can stamp it and say this is your final plat approval, basically the process? ;,; ~t ~~'~ 3~ ~ Borup: And, Linda, are you concerned -- are you speaking specifically to the location of those stub streets? ., -.; ;, ,, ~ :~ Lazaris: I am. Borup: Okay. They will be drawn on the plat at that location. So, how they are drawn ~'"=~`~ is what will have to be built. 7' ~. N, _. ~~~°~ Lazaris: Okay. Okay. .: Borup: So, they will be redrawn from this configuration to that new location ~; . ~~ Lazaris: And, then, these minutes are all -- .,~5 ' ~~~ ~ Borup: And what's drawn and what's submitted at that point is what will apply. `~ Lazaris: Okay. `~4,~:~ ` Borup: When the plat is redrawn or redesigned. .; r ~ ~ ~ Lazaris: So, where they say they are going to move it down 200 feet or whatever then ~ a='~~' , , that's documented and then -- ,~. -;ri~< ~~ `'~~~~ Borup: Well, it will be redrawn and that will be the plat. - ~ ~;: Lazaris: -- their engineers redraw it -- -'~.} Borup: Yes. And, then, that's the document there. ~~~ti s ~3, Lazaris: --and, then, take it in for a final approval? ~' Borup: Those drawings will be the document, yeah. ~ti ~ .~ Lazaris: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that, because I think I would have been disappointed had I not seen that and the development agreement chan ed g . I would have been confused. So, thank you. That's all I have. ~- Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come back up. ~~~" ,~~.... Vii,.-. W~} ~ t rte:,. w • ~~z~ Meridian Planning and Zoning . ~ February 1, 2007 '., Page 30 of 41 r` t;' H.~v ~~ ~ ` Moe: Mr. Chairman, before the a licant, pp I do have a question of staff. Without folding `~'~ °" ~ out this set of plans and scaling down, can you give me an idea where 430 feet from the east property over on that north stub street would be? Is it where you want it or -- Lucas: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, I think it's these -- ' _ ` these lots, it's almost hard to tell on this scale. These are huge lots. They are almost 20,000 square feet, a lot of them. This distance from there to there -- I don't have it ~ ~ ~_. exactly, but it's significant, and so I don't know what the exact distance is. The ACHD ~.r ~: staff report comments call out a specific distance and I believe it is over 430 feet from ~;. , ~' ~~'~ the eastern property boundary. So, I don't think we are too concerned about that being ~::~ located. I think it's going to be more than 430 feet is what I'm trying to say. ,a l - Moe: Okay. u;_~ Rohm: Thank you. Yx ~~ ;h., Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, I just wanted to make sure that everybody who wants to ~r ~,~~; ~ ~ testify has had a chance before we get the rebuttal. I may have missed your call for _ that, but -- c•; tit;. r ~~.,,; Rohm: All right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. I believe that now we are now clear. r ~~''~ 4' } ~ ~~~ O'Neill: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Derick O'Neill 2242 ~~ , East River Walk Drive, Boise, Idaho. I will try to respond to the questions that were y~~- raised. As it relates to the Hinkles and the stub streets, it is very clear in the staff report ~ and the highway district staff report where those stubs should be relocated to In fact ;, `° . , we have already started the design process of changing those. So, we are completely comfortable with those conditions as written in the highway district and the staff report. h ._ , And, for clarification, that is a condition on the plat and will have to be done before we i. can move our plat forward. So, that's going to happen and we are very comfortable with - that. As it relates -- ~J `?~ Rohm: Before we leave that subject. '.;; s ~~ ; O'Neill: Yes. Rohm: Once you get that map redrawn, could I get you to -- <<n~M1; ,,,. '~ ~.j O'Neill: Be more than happy to share it with the Hinkles. ~1yp`~~ Rohm: -- share a copy with these folks here? O'Neill: Absolutely. ~s `~ .~,~'__ ~~~`' ~~ ~ y} ~. ~c4'+' .ti z4; <<~ € Meridian Planning and Zoning ~ February 1, 2007 j Page 31 of 41 w i~ Rohm: Thank you. =.2 >~ "'7 ~.;, ~:, O'Neill: As it relates to the current access, Gary was right, they currently don't have access and we have agreed that in the interim or temporary period of time, until we have this stub street, we have agreed to work out an agreement where we will give them temporary access over our property down here. They are in the process and we'll work that out. As it relates to permanent access to the property, when we stub that in there that will be a public street and clearly they will have access to that. So, I think that issue is taken care of. As it relates to the comments on the bridge and the Phyllis Canal and whatnot, I have a few comments, but I will try to keep them short. One is we are putting in a traffic signal and well over two million dollars of infrastructure to gain -- to stub into these properties to allow them the ability to develop and we think that's a -- and, then, they are not contributing to that or participating in that. As it relates to the cost of the bridge, the highway district report is really clear that that is not a responsibility of ours. In fact, I have had to build several bridges across canals that the canal company owned. If I wanted to develop my property I needed to do that. So, I'm not sure that that's an issue. As it relates to the utilities, I think your comment was right and we are in agreement with that. As it -- I think that's really it. I think.Tuck said it best is that if neither of us are happy with the solution, it probably means it's a good solution. And I think he's joking, I think we are ready to move on and beyond and get moving forward. I think it allows them the opportunity to further develop their property, it allows us to do it ,and we are comfortable with it. So, I think there is a lot of work that's been done here and I'll leave it at that to answer questions if you have them. Rohm: Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Commissioner Borup, do you have questions? Borup: Not real specific, but just to comment. Both of you agreeing to disagree, I didn't really hear a lot of disagreement, other than the bridge. Is that pretty much it? O'Neill: I think so. And who is to build the gulch road and we have worked through that. Borup: Okay. O'Neill: So, maybe we were a little strongly saying disagreement, but -- Borup: Thank you. Rohm: I don't have anything further. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have questions? Newton-Huckabay: None. Thank you. Moe: I have none. ~ ~„ ~~~~ r.'~~ r Y ~.~, F s ~.,°~ .; ,; .~~ 3 M >. ~ S 's. G't!~ I t ~ ~ r ,~, ~, F r~ ~- }} ~ ~ j~ ~ +~ [ tt u "` l J N J C ~ ~. } i ~~~ ~ ~. . ~ , ~ ~~ c ;'" ~ e r , ~ f ) I`j ? f ~+4. ~.K .~~ ,. r 'S a `~ ~ ~ Y- } ~~ ~ } { ,~'r_ '~ v w,d'w T 'x i ~ ~ e ~~ ~ 5 , 4E~ 7~ s X21' ~'-~~ ~ d r ° ,.,w`* $ ~ C' A-+T x~~'. ~~ ,ri U -: r ~ ~ryt~;5 ~;i 'i 4~~ ..a ~tir '• ~' $ ~ ,, , ,~ ~.;. ~ o 5 k ? ~ r +a n- F r ~ ~ ~, ::~, ~` .,, Yrr ~~ rf? ipG tS ~ ? *_ ~ - ~ ~ S t 1 t ~ { trF{~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ ~ M !tt ~}. f`~ ~, - "JY z,~i,.i 7`~ rY't'y+: . iY~;' ~,._ #;_: .. '.it-: ~~ , Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 32 of 41 O'Neill: I guess I would be remiss to say that one condition at the end and Justin can move the pathway out if you can make sure that's covered in your motion. Rohm: Absolutely. I think we are all in agreement on that. Thank you. I think at this time we are ready to accept a motion to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-058. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: This project has been before us a number of times and I would have to say that I commend everybody that has participated for doing a great job of meeting in the middle. It's been a -- it's been a long road and I'd like to thank you for the Commission for all of your cooperation. And with that being said, I'd like to poll the Commission for final comments. Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I don't really have anything to add, in addition to the staff report. So, I'm in agreement with ACRD and Meridian staff on the report and how they word things, other than the comment on the pathway. I think, you know, that's -- staffs in agreement with that and it sounds like ITD is also, that that pathway can be within -- within their right of way. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I just want to inventory the outstanding questions. Half the bridge for the canal. Is that the only -- the stub street alignment is already resolved, they are going to move them. And the right of way with the TICO One property, there wasn't an issue -- an outstanding issue to resolve there tonight. And Hinkles were satisfied. I guess I would -- I don't think that the bridge -- they would need to pay for half a bridge. Borup: Will, ACHD -- yeah. When I said I meant I agreed with ACRD report, that's part of it. Newton-Huckabay: That's pretty clear and I have to agree with that. So, I guess I have nothing of value to add. Moe: Not to belabor this. I would submit that I am very much in agreement with everyone that, number one, you guys have worked real hard to get a lot of this resolved and I do appreciate that as well. And, again, I also do agree with ACHD's report and whatnot on this project, so -- -.~ .~ -:.~ y ah a. ~ ~:~' 2. j ~~~ ., .y J C ~~ ~ S 4 ~ i ~i ~ y - ~ ~ r .~ v t f# ka , ,~ a, ~ n Y Y 5 . ~ ~:~ ! ..~ x{ C ,l j~ ~ .x' s~ -;~ ~~. S+ ~ y } wr ~~ ~ ~` ~; ~' ~'4 Y4 k 2}r1h. ~ S `' `~ ~ 3 ~ ~k ~ ~ `rG ,, Y F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~k ty .~.~ ~ ~~;~ }.; `~ ~ k a~'' ~`~a~' • c ,r i `~ t ~ ~ r ~ i. r3' ~ ~ i ~ ~r'"c. .~..~p~k.:. ~N ~ ~ y F ~ ': t' ]d ~y`, M w r~~; ~~ ~ r ~ ccy~t.r aas L ~1 xgttg ~- ,., , `+ {: ~.' ~~ ~r. ~ ~< ,_;~ Y~ r,', ,I~ ..'~ ~: ~. ~` ''~ `? F pS>; R ~': r; ~~:.. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 33 of 41 Rohm: I think if it wasn't for the fact that we have a canal to cross it would be typical to any other project and the development takes their roadway right up to egress to the adjacent property and the fact that there is a canal at that location doesn't change the fact that they have taken their roadway up to the property line and albeit that I can certainly see the testimony from the public as in -- the canal is not theirs either and it's -- a hundred percent of the cost to cross the canal is being put on their shoulders when they are not the owner of record of the canal, it doesn't really seem appropriate, but I can bet you that the canal company is not going to participate in the cost of a bridge across it. So, all that being said, I don't have any substantial reason to disagree with Ada County Highway District's report either and so that kind of concludes my comments. And, again, I want to reiterate that I commend all of you for working together and this has been a long process and I think the product that's before us tonight is a vast improvement over where we were a year ago. So, thank you. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make a motion? Borup: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 06-058, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1st, with the following modifications: On 1.1.11 change that, essentially, to say construct a ten foot wide pathway along Chinden Boulevard and maybe without getting too specific, that this pathway may be within the ITD right of way. End of motion. Does that cover that? I don't know that -- f mean the applicant may necessarily not want to put it in the right of way, but they have the option to do it is what I was thinking. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, maker of the motion, absolutely, I think it's appropriate to leave it open to allow them to do that, rather than requiring them to put it in the right of way, it's wise to just say that that's available as an option. Absolutely. Borup: Okay. That's what I was thinking. Okay. End of motion. Moe: I will second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-058, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time I think it would be appropriate to take a ten minute recess and we will reconvene at ten minutes until. (Recess.) t,~ ~ L ~ _L .:.;. _ F, ~~k f i~lY t~•L ~ ~] ~S ~ j %t l~'r .t i y ~ Ste` r~~ ~~~~ } ~ yy , :. ~ ! f.PL~rl S: * ~ ~ H ~1' . 2 - ~ 'i1i ~ ST l i >i'~i ~ l~ J ~iJ1 ~r~ ~.;IS1. 1 ~- 3 ~ A ~ { f n f}I ~-ti~~.,. l S ~j Yf x ~'l a,Y.} 4 ~ i i~,.~ i i~~ ~ `; 4i , ~,}„r r3a~p, ~i s r ~ _~4.. ti~~a N s, ~wz a` ~i""~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ s,i4: 1 t z f'3i; . ~ j~ ~ i.l, > . . ~} ~ ~ {~ r ~ ; ;1: ~ ~ ~ y;xya. E'~ yy~~ ^~S c C ~" ~ Ly+l~}y . , ~t ~b r q~~ ,c 1 . _ ., +=t~ ~~ ~,.. ~"~~ A .ti ! f ' ~~ i . ~ } ~ 1 ~ . ~ ~ S .~µ i Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 34 of 41 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: k. '.. ~'~~ Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, both items related to the Normandy Subdivision, and begin with the staff report. ;- a~~- „ , >> r;?. I k. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Normandy Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, as well as preliminary plat approval of 110 single family residential lots and seven common lots. Normandy is generally located on the west side of Locust Grove, less than a half a mile north of Amity Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation. To the north there is the existing Chatsworth Subdivision and Pisa Place Subdivision. And south of the Ridenbaugh Canal, the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision. And that is right here. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 110 residential lots between 5,200 square feet and 12,000 square feet. The primary access to the development will be from a proposed public street intersecting Locust Grove Road. Right there. ' The secondary accesses to the development will be via Picasso Avenue, a public stub constructed with the Chatsworth Subdivision. That's at the north here. And via Reflection Ridge Drive at the southwest property line here, proposed with the Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The applicant has provided 15.5 percent of the property as open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the property is -- the majority of the open space is provided in the form of a central club area. Sorry, I got that one a little turned there. Sorry about that. On Lot 5, Block 4. And that is with a tot lot and a basketball court. There are two issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission. The first is that the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which designates the area as low density residential. However, per the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, the Commission and Council can consider a step up in residential density on a case-by-case basis without the requirement of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To approve this development a step up in density from low to medium is required. Now, to clarify a little bit more here. As stated above, the subject site is bounded by Chatsworth and Pisa Place at the north, which are zoned R-8. Right here. And Reflection Ridge to the south and west, which is zoned R-4. Staff believes that the Ridenbaugh Canal, which runs between the subject property, and Reflection Ridge -- and that is along here. It may be easier to tell on the aerial photo. Staff believes this serves as a suitable dividing line between the low density residential uses and the medium density residential uses and this is why staff is supportive of the step up in :ate:'.';.;:`` „ ~~:.:'y.•• ;., y.: yr..:... ..~ " f~ .J." ' f' ''.y. : . ~ ~ s"t_ {'• ~'} .i µ ~~ ~aF t:41 5~ .•°.: '~~,..',R.: ".`$:%'.F~ J, a, ~ 5~,~~~ § -,1 ~ Y ~ t r. p9~ i r;ti Y4 Sr,rt~ Y ~ 3 ~ ,~ : x~ a' 4 ,h ~. r~,5, rtir ~ r .4 ~i , 'Y+ ~ ~~ ~~ ~.? ~ ~ ~" ,~:: `~ r ~ '# y '-o " ' ~2 rj i ~ ! ` r My f 17~;~ ~S ~ ~eY,~ y~ (vx PI [ ~ 9 ~ p r . E•Y . ~} ~.T_ap'~. 1 `' M9 yo- ,4 i , ter - ~} ~~~ ,ti•.sr ..' -. a.. ~. ~ f..) yry r 1 h r ~y5 ~;; 4,k ~.k i- f r i < t < f ~,,~, - ~ t ~ 4~ c , ~ 11 11 T x 1 b~ .c,. I .: T 'up. j{ L '`+ r e ~ r ~' ~:r 1. s _ a~ ~ , _r~ 'firz^ ~ ~ ~ } t t M I^ ~h dh~ "~-4 , i• ~~ . si ~ w :a 9aa ` r t4'Y ij~7'r[ '` ~~9~Sa r 1 } ) p k ~ S v !'. ,. .t ~>: ~`, 4 y ~ '; ~. ~i r: 7 ~: z~' ' Meridian Planning and Zoning ~~~"~ February 1, 2007 "~; Page 35 of 41 ,~, residential density for Normandy. Second, the applicant has requested a variance from ~;w~ the UDC standard to allow a residential block length within Normandy to exceed the ~~_}°~~` maximum 750 foot block length. The proposed subdivision has two blocks that exceed ~.' 750 block lengths and that is Block 1, which is 900 feet and Block 2, which 875 feet. `~r And these are located at the north property boundary here and this long one at the south property line. The location of the approved stub streets and the lack of provision of pedestrian walkways in the surrounding subdivisions do not allow these blocks to be broken up by street connections or pathways. So, staff is supportive of the applicant's o` `` variance request. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. .;`~ -i ~' ._ rF~~ n` "- - Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz. My address is 2127 South Alaska Way. I'm with RMR Consulting, representing this application tonight. Our site -- if you could back up to the zoning map, please, Amanda. Thank you. Our site is surrounded by Chatsworth on the north, which is an R-8 subdivision, Pisa Place, Seychelles, and, then, Reflection Ridge to the south, not an in- full, but it is surrounded by the City of Meridian. Important to note, too, that this is an R- 4, but it has R-8 side lots and it was, actually, an R-4 PUD. So, as you can see in here -- I mean if you look at these lots here it kind of jumps out at you that they had something -- those aren't R-4 lots, which is another good reason to justify that in combination with the Ridenbaugh that this was a blended R-8, R-4, if you will. They chose a PUD route. But it is compatible with neighborhood at R-8. What we are requesting matches what's out there on both sides, really, even though they do have some bigger lots spread over here, the overall density went down. They do have R-8 lots. So, we felt like we fit with our requested zoning and the bump up was something that was pretty justifiable. We are limited by our connections to what is already out there. Reflection Ridge is under construction and they have a stub street here. Our entrance on Locust -- we made sure we didn't come out here in front of the existing residences and they were the only people that showed up at our neighborhood meeting and they were very happy to see that that was moved to the south and after that they said great, you know, it looks good. They just wanted to make sure we weren't driving out and our headlights would be shining on them. So, what we have is.some extra long block lengths that are -- I believe this is the one that's 900, this is 850. We have broken -- if you were going to drive this, it wouldn't feel like an extra long block the way we have -- the way we have broken that up. And, plus, we don't have any way of breaking that block up with -- we are kind of hemmed in by what's been approved already. So, that's why we think the variance should be granted for that. Our density is around four to the acre. We had a mix of 6,000 and 5,000 square foot lots, about half and half of each. We feel like it really blends in with the neighborhood. We are going to build a bridge over the Ridenbaugh. The Reflection Ridge people trust funded -- they put the money in account with ACHD for half. We build it, we get that back after it gets all -- after they sign off on the bridge after it gets built. So, we are participating half in that, that we will be the ones that build it and get reimbursed our other half. Other than that, we are matching what's been approved to the north on landscaping. We have pathways i 1 ' .a ~U'- i e n { ,y .r.. ' ~ ~ t f~„ C 't' ~, Y 'i A ~ r r ~~ ~ .:. i> ti': ~. ~~ 1. CC ~.~ 1nWi~~ ~~~ li 3~ ~ ~t ~` ~~Y. ` 1 ii - +u ' ~~~~ ~5c e -xr-~ r ,,t ...f1~ r - a '~. Yx`s ,~ j_ v h w ~,'x.~c ~ ~t, .~ ~~~ v. , ~a~~ ~ '.~~ E~ may ; : L ~ . ~ ~~ r~ 'h•~ ~ . P ( ~~ o-~ =; S , °~ , ~'~SsS ~ ' ~~ .5 1 '~ t =' i~ ;. '~ ~'R ~ h ~ { L~L~ 1 ~ .~ .FI ;~ ~ _~: ~ ~e,~y ~t - ~ ~..d tlS'iFk ~. 1y~ `; w 'Y . Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 ~'" `' ,.,; .: Page 36 of 41 ~~~ leading to a centrally located open space area. We do have some tree mitigation that ~~% ~ we worked with Elroy in the parks department. We have got some pretty big trees, they ~~ ~ are on the existing homestead here, that he said you need to give up so many trees and ~ I can't remember what that number was. We said okay. You know, whatever Elroy _ '~~ says goes when it comes to trees. So, what -- we think we have a fairly straight forward application. We do appreciate staffs positive report. Actually, one of the easier ones I ~ ;~~ have had in awhile. But Ithink -- I won't count my chickens until they hatch but there is ~~ , one issue that I'd like to point out that we are in a little bit of disagreement with staff and staff did not bring it up. Staff said in their report in this block right here that we should _':; ~~ lose one lot to maybe match these 8,000 square foot lots here. When we laid this out I ' > consciously lost one or two lots, depending on how tight you go. If I laid out the F ~ ~~~; minimum R-8 allowed I could pick up two lots in this block. I decided to do little bi er ~,L ~ lots and if you look here, they have 50 foot lots across from their own 80 foot lots a toss the street. We have a canal. And so we thought, you know, 60 foot lots across a canal ~ ~ from 80s when they had 50s across the street from their own, maybe it's okay. We feel ` '' ~ ~;-~ like we have blended in and we have a r espectful disagreement with staff. We think what we have works. But if you're going to say, Matt, you need to lose that lot or we are not going to approve you, obviously, I would not argue. But I am asking that you approve it as submitted, unless you have some heartburn over it. So, we'd like to stick with what we have. We believe we have transitioned. It is blended. We have a mix. ~~ ' ~ So, that was something that's in the middle of the staff report that they would -- that they suggest that we do and I will let staff address that further. We did work with staff r -: preliminarily to shorten up our cul-de-sac length from the pre-apps. Now, we feel like 4; - we have a refined site plan, we have worked with staff from the beginning to get what we think fits in the area and I notice elevations are something that's being kind of required lately. We don't plan on building -- building this for probably a year, the way timing is working out on things and before the hearing I went up the road here to ° Tuscany Village, which is up here, and took some pictures that I could enter for the :~ a k _- ~... ~ record or show on the overhead a few of them and -- this is, actually, a subdivision done .: by Eaglewood Homes. Show a few of those, please. That doesn't show up very well. I ~~., think it's zoomed in a little too far. There you go. The color is not too great on here either. It looks better on the pictures. But, you know, they did a good job. There is a lot of architectural variation, they have got different materials, architectural projections, they have got porches. The city doesn't have areally -- you know, you must build this type of house, they have suggestions and guidelines, but we want to make sure we do a high quality architecture and enforce that to the builder teams that we will probably end up selling to. We don't know who is going to build in there yet. We haven't committed to ~~ any builders. But we would definitely enforce something that's very compatible, if not a step up from what's out there today. The market is always evolving. What we say we build now, we don't know what's going to be built in two years, depending on the competition and how things are going, but from what I can tell in Meridian we don't have a lot of problems with that architecture from what I can tell. Everything I drive around I see a lot of good things in all the neighborhoods from our builder teams that we have. fr That's my impression. Came from Las Vegas seven years ago and they didn't have a y lot of variation. Ithink we have a lot of variation here and a lot of different individual ;, ~= ~ builders that do a good job. So, I wanted to show an example of concepts of what we ~~ ~~; _ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~,~ ~5i Y y ! Y~~!. t ~ ~ ~~~ 7 k 3 ~ , .~._ w~1'C ~~ :M ( ~4 1 .r Y y_1 ^A. 1;.. t~ 3Ym~A_w ~: T ~ p A t, -A*€; ~• f5 K~ ~ / ~%~ 1 ~ y ~-. FPi j ~t '° Tii . a ° jt S f ~ ^ fit ~;~ i ~ i ~ e F ry' ~ ,ter, toraati ca w ~?r' ° r ~ ~ r ~:: t'2 ~~ ' t ` ~'; ~ ~ +' : ~ ;. s '-' y~''~ , a N ~ s -: t 4M -1 `r:- "Y: X73 h ~ ~ ;± {~~~ -# L Y+ ri i ~' ,p ~fY~` "t. r 9 ,tn_c3 3 t 't ~ 4 J r ti, ,,((~ u ~~ T k ~. ~'%~ r {.~ cJ V r ~{C .~ it,, ~: t ' t 1x5 .l.t'ai.,. y~ p y,3c~ ~ <~ ~ ~? _ ~ ~~~; j~(Y J i,$ i ~ ,.. ~ i y _ Ty , i ~1.2~. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 37 of 41 might enforce, not knowing exactly what the market is going to bear, but it would definitely be compatible with the neighborhood and I guess with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: So, what you're saying is that you would be doing something like this or better or Schultz: Yeah. Moe: -- when you speak of the market where it could actually be less? Schultz: You can't foresee the future and everything's been so good for so long, we hope everything is going to just be the way it is and builders are going to want to compete with the other builders and build something nicer and nicer and try to keep the prices somewhat reasonable and still do nice things and that's the balance that we are fighting in Meridian, that the jobs we are creating aren't supporting some of the house prices we have and I'll stand up here and say we will build at least to what's as nice as, you know, all the neighborhoods around us. I mean we will do that. We will enforce that. I don't know how you enforce that. I don't know how you guys enforce that to other people. I know you are, so as of right now there is no mechanism. Moe: All right. Then, one other question. I guess since you really don't want to lose a lot, per the staff report here, I guess that doesn't mean you wouldn't lose anymore, then, on the south? Schultz: I'm just saying I would suggest that you -- that you approve it as submitted. I'd prefer -- because we are talking every lot these days is 100,000 dollars and for something that we believe conforms, it would be a shame to lose it, but if you we are not going to approve it until you lose it, then, I would say okay. But I'd prefer not to. Rohm: Okay. That's fair enough. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Matt Schultz. Schultz: That's me. ~~; ~ ~ - Meridian Planning and Zoning '` February 1, 2007 ~; ~f. Page 38 of 41 dz~. ,~ ; s. Rohm: Oh. And, then, Jerry Olson. I believe he left. There is nobody else that has -~~ signed up, but would anybody else like to testify? And seeing nobody coming forward, I xz~ ~~ s: guess we are done. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? . Borup: So moved. ,_ti "~`~r Moe: I'll second that. ._~.:- ~'~ r` Rohm: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065 All . those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? ~~~.- . MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~! ~; ~'. ,,_ Rohm: Okay. At this time final comment. Commissioner Moe. ,~~, Moe: Well, as I reviewed this, quite frankly, I was a little bit concerned about transition N ~ ~ and whatnot with south lots. Realizing the Ridenbaugh is there and staff is of the 9f opinion that that gives enough transition I'm not going to fight that too much. I do ~' ~ appreciate the fact that they do want to lose one lot towards the western portion of that ,, and I would agree with staff to lose that one lot. Again, I think there is quite a few lots b ~ :, ~ down there on that south end, but the rest of the subdivision I have no problem with ' whatsoever. I think it was -- you guys did a good job transitioning through it, but right ~ there on the south end I would have liked to have seen a few less lots ~~r.~ `~- "~ . Newton-Huckabay: Where is -- .~4., ~A r Y~W '~~'~ ~}~ Moe: Well, right in this area right here. We have got the R-4s here. I'm just speaking right in here. But having said that, if we are losing the one lot, per staff I'm fine. That ~s °~ ', would be my comments. L:f . Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ,, ``' Newton-Huckaba Well, y I don't like -- myself, I don't see -- I have to agree with the ~ ~~~ ;, applicant -- and I don't think I usually do that, so it's your lucky day. Rohm: This is a first. Jn Newton-Huckabay: I just did that on the record, too, didn't I? ~ ~ ..,~ . Rohm: You did and I supported your comment. , ~~ `~f~ ~ Newton-Huckabay: I have to agree that your argument is compelling to me. These are, ` you know, substantially smaller that are going to be right across from this. What's the " ~ -' ~,- difference of having this in your front yard versus this in your backyard? That is kind of :, how I feel about it. The Ridenbaugh Canal is a pretty good size piece of water there, so _; ';~- ,_~ `, z' +; i. a..~; f,„~"i` * ~ _ a~;.- +`- F (~„, S~ , .i 7 ~; ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning 0.' ~~ ~ February 1, 2007 r;. ~x. `: ~ Page 39 of 41 ~~"~~ I tend to agree with the applicant that I think it's -- I just don't know that I agree with the argument that there is no transition. I would say that they have transitioned just fine. If 5~; ,'~ anything, to me, these lots are somewhat larger than I would have expected this development to flow, now that I think about looking at it, but -- so I would be in support .: ~:1 of striking that condition. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I agree with that comment completely. I mean I think -- and that's the main difference here, that the canal is a large buffer. Besides, it's back yards. I don't see a - lot of problem with back yards, but I do like to see some transition, but I'm not sure why this subdivision would have to have larger lots backing up with the canal separating it, than the ones across the street within the same subdivision. It's usually the ones that are on the same street that affect it more. So, I would also be in favor of eliminating that :,~ sentence. Yy ~ Rohm: Well -- and being the last one to speak, I agree with the two of you, I think that the lots across the street being smaller than the ones across the Ridenbaugh Canal, just speaks for itself, and so I would concur that that requirement be stricken in a motion -;;,i forwarding this onto City Council for approval. End of comment. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to take a stab at a motion? ., ;~~ ~~'; __~ Newton-Huckaba I would. M onl g ~;. y: y y problem is is I am searchin and I cannot find what condition number that is. x'' Borup: 1.2.5. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm too far forward in my staff report. ~' Borup: I believe. ~.... Newton-Huckabay: Eliminate one building lot from the group of lots, one through seven, +:'- Block 3, and increase the square footage of adjacent lots for a total minimum of 8,000 square feet. Maximum number of build-able lots shall be 109. So, we are going to recommend striking completely 1.2.5? "'~ Borup: I believe that's correct. Rohm: Yes. ~~ Newton-Huckabay: Any other changes? Rohm: I think that's it. Newton-Huckabay: Have we closed the Public Hearing? r~ asa ~. • - ,, ~~ -*Er .,, µ {~ .T Pzz P ~ ~ ~.~ ~`~~ r ~' P 1~ h ~' ~' .'= t i a n - a~ . ( E( 1~ ;Y'" S ~ ' t L it t t :,~ ~; ~ r Fsi ~ ,.;*. _- - i tF5 W ;. .,, 4!._ l yr ~ ; ~ s, '~ .. n ~ ~.ait:' S ~v d ~, -..., ' w Y I ~~ ~ ~ :^ u' ~`Y '~, < ~ =+aa y 5 1 R ; N f$ l ~ 1 ,,,"R I,': L, i ~. ~~ ~ > ~~ ~ - ~ ~ r r ~~ ~ S UJ: ~` ~ ~ ",~.. ~ ,d 77 ~ K ~ :pr ~ v i n° ...,;: R:~: 5 .~; ' ~4. la a ~~'o ~ ~ ~~ fr~~ sC.: rM~ ~ "~^ .,,, ;- ;: r ;: ax, r. 4_ , ;~, ~~" ~, ~~: `~: ::,; ~~ ,; < ;. ; -~ ~.:r fax, ;~sr ~, ~Y ~, r z :, ~ J' M{,i e • Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 40 of 41 Rohm: The Public Hearing has been closed. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-064 and PP 06- 065 -- do I need to read this variance in parenthesis? Rohm: We don't do the variances. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending striking condition number 1.2.5. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, to include all staff report as modified. Those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Moe: Aye. Rohm: There are three in favor and one against. That motion carries. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: Three AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Rohm: We are to the last item on the agenda. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-065 for the Ahlquist Annexation for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of March 15th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: -- seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-065 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? ~~,: MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 ~~~ APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~A ~. ,. '--'.~ REQUEST Approve Minutes of December 21, 2006 Planning 8~ Zoning Commission Meeting: ~;; ;. ti w~~ AGENCY COMMENTS `-'K: ;; `<„ ~::,{ :.~ ~.: 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 WEALTH: 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 Meddlan. i is ~ i/ r ~ 1n~" ~~n ~~ ~~ ';..t f S ~'~ !~ ~ r ~~1 ~ xx ?~~ ,-n., _ 4 r-tt~ ~ ~~Yn~ ~ ,` w~ ~ ~.: ~ "r' Lt ~i. d~M. ~ t 1F i~_. f~ rS~'}'t~Fr r a '},~ ~ ~+ ~, i~ ,,,5.. c .:: t 5 Y „{ ~~ 4y x~1 ~ g~ _ F ~~ ~'°~ 1 _ y y` .h r r~ ' r s~~` ~'~ ~ 4~~,~ r ~~ ~-~1~`i ,~i~ ~ i ~r ,~ ~ ;;: ~r ..''7. .. ~ . ,, .n,i ,p-.r~,~. y ,~ ~s -. ' ` „t ~ ,. ~ y , r ,~ u ? ~ryx:; ~ 4~A:p~.~2. H i +~ U ~/ ~.t~ '~. µ ~f ' q` ., ~4+ ,~~."~ i ~ ~. ss,.. ~} s -<. ~f :.' ~~~~~~ . '~>11 e,y1 t i. ~J January 29, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3~B REQUEST Approve Minutes of January 4, 2007 Planning 8~ Zoning Commission Meeting AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: ~f I' ~ ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ .,; s ~ ~ ~" iii ~ a ~ ~i~;~ y4 '- ~ r ~ ~ ~' .~~. ~ ' jj ~f~i S ` k F3Y -. ''.4w» y~ 1 ~ ~ _ y s ~ Pr+~ ~ ~ 'f' }~ ~ }~ Yf ~.- < I - ~ ^~` t 1 ~nSS^ .. ~ ; t ~ ,y ~aY i-1'~ 1 ~ _,.t ~. ' + ,~ R (l t 1 ~ ' '+, ' yry i 4 tip. ~~ 1 ~ 1Y ~ F ~ ~-~~Sk j srT Y '~~.~~'~ , +y _~ ~ . is ~ 57 ~~~. y ~ ~w;" t ~~. t , ~~ t; ~ i. Aat~~ ~~ `1~ 1 key ~. S X ~' ~. ' ~Q'1 Yi4+~ 1 y 1 ~ S ~ ,y_y_ ~4 'r. . i ~1'' ~i.iicN ~a ~ a~ ~ V `u s~; ~ r~ `~ ~'' a .. a .. ~ ~ r -3'i =; ;;-~ ,a; jt ' ~,.. .,:~ Y:.?a L ~ i~ i ' :: ,: t*: ='r Yi.~ ';i V January 29, 2007 CUP 06-040 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1,2007 :~~ APPLICANT Ada COUnty DeVelOpment SeMICeS ITEM NO. 3'~- REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS - 963 E. Pine Street AGENCY COMMENTS T 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: See Altcched Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: _ Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sent®d at public m®®tings shall became prop®rty of the City of Meridian. ~ _ c. x ._,~:t{ .. ,~{ ~ r Yi £ '~'~{ti~±"} ~ x, ~ /M5~ ~,~~ ~ ~ K` i .4 ~ Y ~ ~ ? ~ ~ $~~rj~y, ~ ,.l ~, ~ yiyS.C~?'~'.~ # ti ~ ~ $'` [ ~? ~ ~SkM l ~' N' ~C K ~ ~ S ~ F~~ ~ ~ ~ ~tn~- r M }i: .K l~ ~ y ~ l J. {. is r'~ % K ~ ~~. z4 F~+'Sr~- r a . h '~ ~1{r~ R r r s uy~, G (~~ ~tl•" . fi j~.4 d~ ~t } y 4~ c J K y `l'~ a 1 ~i ~~ . F 1 ~~`~} ~~~r ~ ~ t Y F l~ N~ YM ~ .~ ./'~ CtF: ~`'~ ( ?+- it S '~` ilk?-r~+. rk rC Y S 4~ N 1 I ~f ~! ~~ 1 ry T, F 1 'T'om 3 .~,} h~ ~ ,u~i{'.ter f ~ VY. t ~ ~`~ ~C ~'in~t~ .-.~ l.~s. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 is ,,. '~~ ~.~,f; ,' .t ~~.. , STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 18, 2007 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Ada County EMS Facility CUP-06-040 3 x ,~ - A y 1 ~ l ~r ~~ ~~~ f~~~~Fk yq i L~ _ .~ z~ ~~ Ir~,v-r~~ ~~ °~~ : ~.~ `'~ `~~, ~~~.y f5 ~,~' (. 14f~?I Conditional Use Permit for an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) facility in the I-L zone, by Ada County Development Services. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Ada County Development Services, has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval to operate an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) facility in the I-L (Light Industrial) zone. This use is classified as a "public use" in UDC Table 11-11-2C-2 and requires Conditional Use Permit approval. Further, a condition of the Weed and Pest Control plat was that all uses on the site be required to obtain Conditional use approval (PP-OS-042). The subject property was platted in 2006 as Lot 2, Block 1, of Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision. The subject site is located at 963 E. Pine Street on the south side of E. Pine Avenue, approximately % mile west of Locust Grove Road. 2.5UMNIARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-040 for the Ada County EMS facility as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of Januaryl8, 2007, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on January 18 2007 At the public hearing they moved to auArove CUP-06-040. a. Summary of Comnussion Public Hearing• i. In favor: Scott Wendell (AuAlicant's Representative) ii. In ouuosition: None iii. Commenting• None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Waters vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission• i. None c. Kev Council Changes to Commission Recommendation• ii. None 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP- 06-040 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I filrther move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 1, 2007. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06- 040 as presented during the hearing of January 18, 2007, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit.) I further move to direct Staff ~ to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 1 ~r ~. ~, r. ~ y , ,f ~ r < i i1w ~p k h ;- i 2 ~~ 5~~ ~;~. 4 ~~.} )..~'~i a4 7 A i "1`E t ~f ~~ ~ S ~~•:. S{ t 1 ~.'; ~~ `~„ ~ ~r - .t; a ~ ~'~ h~•l~ ~ 1 ~1 ~;•.ayyv„ >ti i~,~ 4 k ~ ' ....~ ~1 4~~~. ~ ... 11Y, ~' ~. w ' F = w..Yr. 4 h~ ~ .T^P?~~ ~~ ~ ~ 1~ }'~ ". i ~. {'aN ~~ > ,. iy tt ~~ ~h ~ ~x ~H ' :j ~~ ~. . , n ~~". Yi ' J .,. ~y ~, .•~ .' C^ t 'f.l 3 C~'~- ' a~ ~3iry~} .'a ~x .. ~ ... r , ,k..?,f m f -~ -.: ~. ~ „,y,: E r ~ -. _ t>.~:, x 4~a} .~~ r,~ ,. ~_ . ,_, y~,i ,. a j~' r~ .>, ~~~k CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 Commission hearing on February 1, 2007. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-06-040 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: 963 E. Pine Street; south side of E. Pine Street, approximately''/a mile west of Locust Grove Road; in the S.E. % of Section 7, T.3N., R.IE. Lot 2, Block 1, Weed and Pest Control Subdivision b. Owners: Ada County 200 W. Front Street Boise, ID 83702 c. Applicant: Ada County Development Services 200 W. Front Street Boise, ID 83702 d. Representative: Scott Wendell, LCA Architects e. Present Zoning: I-L (Light Industrial) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Community g. Description of Applicant's Request: "Ada County would like to construct a new campus facility on the site for their Ada County Emergency Medical Services Operations. The building will be approximately 4,100 square feet and include an enclosed vehicle bay for the parking of two EMS vehicles (ambulances). Interior spaces will include a visitor's lobby, kitchen, dayroom, and sleeping rooms for the employees. The facility will operate and be manned 24 hours a day. The building is being designed to comply with LEED environmental requirements and will be an example project for energy efficiency and to minimise the impact on the land." 1. Date of CUP Site Plan/Landscape Plan (attached in Exhibit A): November 10, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by the Unified Development Code. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-6, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: January 1 and January 15, 2007 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 21, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: January 5, 2007 Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 2 ~i .. G;, .h a. :~Y' ~y..'...~-: r- ;~-; _~ Kr.. '~, x ~~•~ ~:- ~' a :°~ E ~~:; t ~'~= :~;~ _ ;;; ~~` ,: ~:, ,. . [F S ~ ~= .~. 4 • e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Mixed uses, see below. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Directly north, vacant/undeveloped land owned by Ada County, zoned I-L; further north across Pine, existing residential uses, zoned R-4 & R-8. 2. East: Industrial property, zoned I-L. 3. South: Industrial property (Ada County Weed & Pest Control building), zoned I-L. 4. West: Rural residential property, zoned Rl (Ada County). d. History of Previous Actions: The subject property was platted in 2006 as Lot 2, Block 1, of Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision. A condition of the plat was that all uses on the site be required to obtain Conditional use approval (PP-OS-042). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Mains in the private drive installed with the Weed and Pest Control Subdivision. Location of water: Mains in the private drive installed with the Weed and Pest Control Subdivision. Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: Existing landscape buffers installed with plat along Pine Street & along the east side of the private drive. 3. Flood plain: There is an AE flood zone, associated with Five Mile Creek on this property. 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities on this lot, Five Mile Creek is located to the south of this lot. 5. Hazards: None 6. Existing Zoning: I-L 7. Size of Property: 3.881 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 4,100 2. Proposed building height: 22' 8" 3. Number of Residential units: 0 g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 7 (Typically only 3 spaces would be required, however, because the proposed use is more commercial in nature than industrial, the Planning Department is requesting that the applicant provide a minimum of 7 parking stalls on the site) 2. Parking spaces proposed: 7 Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 3 +".F a ~ ,~i fi„ f. ~~'<~. ~~'1" 2` W~~, '~ ;~.. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR® DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 h. Required Setbacks/Dimensional Standards per UDC Table 11-2C-3 for I-L zone: Front setback 0 feet Interior side setback 0 feet Rear setback 0 feet Street setback 35 feet Maximum building height 50 feet (22' 8" proposed) Landscape buffer to non-industrial uses 25 feet Min. Lot Size Min. Street Frontage ~,~.:; None None i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to the site will be provided from E. Pine Street via anorth-south private drive constructed with the Weed and Pest Control plat. This drive serves as the primary access for all of the lots in the subdivision. The private drive is located on the west side of the subject lot. NOTE: The ACRD has provided no comments related to this site, as it has no new conditions for the subject applicant. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 29, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments - present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, ~, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Mixed Use -Community" (MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use designation provides for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. The purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility. The MU-C subcategory has an upper limit on the square footage ofnon-residential uses and is intended to allow a focused range of uses in close proximity of residential uses. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) S~ ~:. i I When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 4 V !a , ~ ~ w~: ~~ R+ ~ ~~ ~,~ w3, : ,~ ~, . ~ ti .~:.~` i.~ .~~i 1 t ~ y~^.~.-~ ~~55 1~ 1 / !'~L'n ~.by,i vy,~ ~'S n I 'Jny*r~,(7~' 3y~ M' '~- •'-lhr~': ~ --' 1 i' ~~: j i 6 ~ ~, . 135~~` 3~P t ~~Yf~ 1, !, j ~ ..~ r sY4, . r ~,_} 1 ~ - ~y ~ _~: ' f 9 Y ~ , y r I ~45 tc { 3 k ~' ~7 ~ _w I~t a7':~F''J~'!~i f fCg S F~h~ c }'i f S ~ S ~ ~ ,1- .!lT:~.'ijY '' ? t '~ ~ ~ ~r ~. ~ i %tl ~ ~ t 1 Z;~S-f~~S 4y; ~%~j ~"s'~i ~ ix r.` tl~ ~' fa ~ . ~a - i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~%~ ~ ~ ,, i~ i ~'S C~ 4F}~~.~. -y n°{ Kra `:~~' ~, . T ~` .Y., r~ - ~?~:_ °i =:I '=I ~;, -. . • e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 • The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID) and ITD. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Ensure that facilities and services keep up with growth." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A) The addition of an EMS facility will help provide the additional services necessary for the growing needs of the community. • "Encourage the development of a continuum of services to meet the health care needs of the citizens of Meridian." (Chapter VI, Goal V) The development of an EMS facility on the subject property will help provide the emergency medical services needed for the growing community and citizens of Meridian. • "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." ;. , The subject property is located adjacent to an arterial roadway with residential uses to the north and west of the site. Landscape buffers will be installed on the north and west boundaries for a buffer to the existing residences. The EMS service proposed will complement the adjoining residential uses and provide a much needed service in the community. • "Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) ~Y Staff is conditioning approval of the subject CUP upon the applicant installing and maintaining landscaping on this site. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for more information on landscaping this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed use does contribute to the variety of uses in this area. ;' i t: ~~" . • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action 2) Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGES ~~. • utlE. ~ y;.!. ~ ` ' f. a*.1:ST . : r ~ .. ts3 ~ ;: 4 .t hi ; ~ a T Y,u~ . ..~~. 3 r ~ _ 9~ s.-v X ~ t w~' .~ - X ~ ~''='nk7v'~. nyyy nil }~y `' T Y - 4 t ^C ~' ~ ~ Y ` ~~' ~.. ` r~.~ } ...~: . t } F~ ' ~ Y ~ Y ~~nr~. r d-r~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ r n; i $ G ; ~ fo- L,y.,r. 7q Y73!S~! ~ ¢ ' ,~ ~ s ~, ~ k ~ ~ ~ ~'i 'SG' s + ~~- t - Q ~ w . P~ z ~ ~ ~'~ ~. ~'~ i i ' ~ )'~ r' -v . r {( e~ F k~ ~ ~ _ L ~ Ya e..,,~: . ?~~ i ~ F i i a .. j v" A~ ~ : i .. 4 -7 'f ~3i1~~ t `~:rk F e t v~, ~ ® a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 The applicant is not proposing any new access points to E. Pine Street, an arterial roadway. One access point to E. Pine Street via an internal private drive was previously approved with - the subdivision. Access to the site will be provided by the private drive located along the west boundary of the property. ? > The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that as the community increases in size and density, public - services must be expanded in order to meet those growing demands. (Ch. VIl, page 81) Staff finds that the proposal is generally harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive ~ Plan. ~~'~ 9. ZONING ORDINANCE ~ r a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2C-21ists public uses as a Conditional use in the I-L zone. "~~~~ b. ose Statement of Zone: The ~, _;~ ~P purpose of the I-L district is to provide for convenient >~ employment centers of light manufacturing, research and development, wazehousing, and `, ~~ distributing. In accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, the I-L district is intended to ~~'i encourage the development of industrial uses that aze clean, quiet and free of hazardous or ~,:'',~.'``' objectionable elements and that aze operated entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures. Accessibility to transportation systems is a requirement of this district. ' ~'~~ ~ ~~ 10. ANALYSIS ;• a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed site design and landscaping as presented on the CUP Site Plan, prepazed by LCA Architects, dated November 10, 2006, and the Landscape Plan, prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheet L1.0, dated November 14, 2006, with the following comments: x onditional Uses: In approving any conditional use, the decision-making body may #: :,t, prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds and safeguards in conformity with this Title that: ~ , :, a, .. minimize adverse impact of the use on other property, control the sequence and timing of the '' use, control the duration of the use, assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly, designate the exact location and nature of the use and the `~ property development, require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, ~~ '~ require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this Title, and require ~ ~ mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any ~~, ,~ political subdivision, including school districts, that provides services within the City (UDC - '~ . ~ ~" 11-SB-6D). . ~~ :. Because of the nature of the proposed public use, staff is recommending specific conditions § n be placed on the proposed facility that will minimise, or alleviate the adverse impacts that this use may pose to nearby properties in this part of the city (see Exhibit B). ~ ~ Existing Approvals: This site was previously annexed into the City with an I-L zoning ~ ~~~ ~' ' district and platted as a lot in the Weed and Pest Control Campus Subdivision A Condition ~ ;.: . of Approval of the plat (PP-05-042) required all uses within the subdivision to obtain ~. Conditional use approval. With the plat, a 25-foot wide landscape buffer was required along ~~ - , ~' the west boundary of the subdivision adjacent to the existing residential land use The ~ ~ . -, applicant applied for Alternative Compliance to this requirement to construct a private drive along the west boundary within the required buffer location and relocate the 25-foot wide ,: buffer to the east side of the private drive. The Planning Director approved this request and ~; the private drive and landscape buffer have been constructed on the site . 9'1 r,~ ~:° Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 6 4~ ;~~ , ~. rP ~~:: . h. t. R S" y r Ki t a I ri ~#cad$,~ , 4 ~ ~ ~ I ~~i t y ~~ !' f4~- - !~ ~ at)~ ~ ht i} ~.4 H7 ~ ~~ i r ~"MY~ ~ - n 44 ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ l~ .. p ~~ r~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ Y . ~ d.. ~p i e ~ ~ ~` ~ ~} W 14 I l I ~2 i ' fi 11. t4ry. '¢~." _. ~ ~ fig. ~ I ~>r , a ~ 1 ~ ~~" :- . ~~ '~ } ~ ~ y ~° ~ ~` i,,o>'r~,r- +~ b~ ' 4 . .~ ~,~,g~ ~ s i ~ ~ ' T - a ~#t N?1 ~ ~ - _ ~. ~K ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ k ~~~. r ~ : ~ ~a_.. y I ~ ~ ,4 ' +4 f ,' ~ ~t •; 1 ~ a t ~ f R ~; a~ ~a 7,'~>I. t 'f Y k tA. e 4 .' k~ ~~ ~ ~E ~ ~: ~ •- r. '~* y ~% ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ 4' i S~ } x R P II t '~ j ~ ' $ F ~~ A ~ ~~ I ( r 6 ' 1 . . -. ' i ,, ~ , - "°~ ;. .,~! a x, I ,. -r y rv'Y 7Y^. ~~ , 3i r n '+ w5~ .rs ,. ,,~, ,„ , ry ~~ ~. ~ i° ~ ~`a" • ' ~~ . ~~' ~ ~ ~~x- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 i is P -: Uses: The applicant is proposing to construct a new 4,100 square foot facility for Ada - ~? . ' ~. ` County EMS. The building will have an enclosed vehicle bay for the parking of two EMS ;~?~~'" vehicles (ambulances). Interior spaces will include a visitor's lobby, kitchen, dayroom, and :~.. " R. ~~5~` sleeping rooms for the employees. The facility will operate and he manned 24 hours a da y. The applicant is only proposing to use the southern portion of the property for the proposed ~~~~ ~, ; EMS facility; the remainder of the property will be developed in future phases as - ~. - conceptually shown on the site plan showing the entire site, attached in Exhibit B. Access: Access to the site is provided from E. Pine Street via an internal private drive - located along the west boundary of the site. The applicant is proposing to use the existing ~n °f~ rivate drive as access to/from P this site. Staff is supportive of ties proposal. No new ~~ vehicular access is proposed, and none is approved with this application. ~ ~ -`'" ` I ,, • ~ Landscaping: The landscaping shown on the Landscape Plan prepared by The Land -_ =A ~, : , -, Group, labeled Sheet L1.0, dated 11-14-06, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • A 25-foot wide landscape street buffer, located entirely outside of the right-of--way, ~_ ~~ was required with the plat along West Pine Street, an arterial roadway. 3 • The existing 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential use on the '~ : , ~ west boundary has previously been reviewed and approved by the City; landscaping _,_;, ,,. shall be maintained within this buffer. ~. =." - • Provide landscaping along the west side of the north-south private drive as approved with the plat. t • Trees are required within the planter islands at the north and south ends of the ro w of parking located on the west boundary of the property (one on each end). ~, • The stormwater water retention area proposed within the buffer on the west ~ ~; -` 4t ~ti- boundary of the property must be constructed according to the standards listed in , UDC 11-3B-11C. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepazed b the landsca e az hit t y p c ec , designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted - prior to occupancy of the building. All standazds of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit a revised landscape plan, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance a lication ; pp . ,~ Parldng: Three parking stalls are required by UDC 11-3C-6B in the I-L zone. However, ,~ because the proposed use is more commercial in nature than industrial, the Planning a ,. ~ 4~b '~: ~~ ~° Department is requesting that the applicant provide a minimum of 7 parldng stalls as s: shown on the site plan. The Police Department has also commented that the site does not appear to have adequate pazking for employees, visitors, etc. (see Exhibit B). Unified Development Code Table 11-3C-5 requires 90-degree pazking stalls to be 19-feet long and 9- feet wide, adjacent to 25-foot wide drive aisles. Staff finds the proposed parking complies with the dimensional standards of the UDC. ` f . ,. Cross-access: A reciprocal ingress/egress easement was provided via the plat for all lots ;~ within the subdivision. ~, .; ~h~: ~• -~ <:,.. n ' Specific Use Standards for Public Uses: The UDC (11-4-3-30) has specific standazds for . '' i public uses. The first pertains to "public recreation and community centers," and the second , i r- pertains to "public or quasi-public office." Neither of the aforementioned public uses pertains , i Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 7 ~.. ~;~ e- ~~, . +'~f t: ~ ~ S t ~ r ti f t 'k qS~ l~4r ' N ~,~ ~ ~. ~ ~ z ~~~ } ~y~x~~4 •;c{1 ~ ~ - j r ~ ly .fr~4 fil~` •~ - ~+K_ S ,. y _. ~. , ~ui ~ ~: XJ .~~: c .S~n,;~;, { ~' j T .$~ ~~fi J < ~, ~~ S ~` ~' rw r ' W .].4~+ 1~ fi ~ fi :. il. ~err- "f Y ', if > : . 6 `y r u ~. ~ .,4 ~ . t , s ~ ,~: ~ , _. t, ~ . t r u , F ~ - ~ ~ 1~;i,F N ~t ~X 1 ~- ~. ~ ~ t k, y ~ -:.. p1, t ~ ~ ~~ 4 S- - 4 ~~, ~ y ~t'~ V~ '~mt't' '_~ l~^ ~~' n y'~.~ (. ~ Y ( e~ . ~~S ~, 1 's ~ z ~ ' I~ < r~ i. + + j t ate . ti > < _ ~ . ~ ~ . : _~ e „ 4 -. ~ ' ~_~• ' • f ~ kr h , ~. ~' ~ i ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.' ''r ~~,°~ - ~ - t t ~;`• y' ~{ 'i "~'~ n t ~ Vii. , ~;fi; r, ~~~ • r~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 " '~' to the proposed EMS facility use, therefore no specific use standards are applicable to the proposed use. `- ~; Elevations: The applicant has submitted elevations for the proposed building. The elevations ~;~~~~ _v~., ~ prepared by LCA Architects and attached in Exhibit A, show apre-finished metal parapet ;.?f, roof, stucco and concrete block walls, and metal downspouts. Staff is supportive of the ~'" ~ ~ ~~~ proposed elevations. 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 (LJDC 11-SB-lA). To ensure that all of the conditions of _ ~ ;~ approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a -,,~~ti ` ~~'~ CZC permit and occupancy from the Planning Department prior to establishing the subject ~,~:, _ use. `~ ~~ " ~`~ ~~ ~ " ~` b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-040 for Ada County EMS facility, as ` ~. I, presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 based on the Findings of Fact as z ~:°~° listed in Exhibit C and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian ~' ~` Planningt and Zonins: Commission heard this item on January 18 2007 At the public hearing ~:" a; ~ : they moved to approve CUP-06-040 ~; , ~ ~~: :ins" 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings _ 1. CUP Site Plan (dated 11-10-06) ;'n~, 2. Site Plan showing entire site (dated 11-10-06) ` " 3. Landscape Plan (dated 11-14-06) ~. ' -='F' 4. Building Elevations ~ ` ` ~ MT i 'y+, B. Conditions of Approval 't~ ~t ~' `~' - 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department ~' 3. Fire Department ,~ < ~ ~ 's , : 4. Police Department ~ ;; `~~ ,,.>, ~ 5. Parks Department ;,;~ .. `- ~~ 6. Sanitary Service Company ~' f" ,, f k.. C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code " :,`"; ~4. ~..,x. ~~ t ;,. ;,, h ?t,Y- `-{ :~ "A~~: Ada County EMS -CUP-06-040 PAGE 8 ~:_,,y@ t ~ ~" _ _:; ,, .. ~+: ~~ _ , ,, ;, ,, } ~, . ~~ :, :: l ~. ~: E .: V ~7 W~~ :. i, ~, ~~, a' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI®DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan (dated 11-10-06) ,~ C ~~ s~ =~, t U I` _ _ 1 - ~ ~ ai-~, _ _ €~ ; , °~~ ~ j ~1~~ ~~ ~. ~,~ _,~ ' -;~ ~ ', ''+ r ~ ~---- - ---- ~ ~ ~ .i, ~~ t i ,~, t~ i ~~ tl ~_ N ~~ ~ ,o ~ ,. ~- ~ ~ ~, C~ `I w ~ ' 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~~ e~ ~~ ~ i ~~ J _L ~ I ~` i ~;- -- - - ~~ , , ~ t~ ~_ -- '' , - ~ .- - - - -s- -. ,__, - ~. F - __ -- --~ "- ~._ -- - , ~ ~- ~ ~.g, ~ -. _ ° _. :, - a ~ ~ ~~'~ . ~D ~ 'F l~ 111t! Exhibit A ~~~ w _~ ~ :~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~~ ~ ~ - t ,. ~,r . ,~ f~ ~, F,;; ~Y FT~.~. , ~H G~ ~~,~?. k <W i .~:CW ~ ~` ~TK ~ a ~ 1 1 3 •Y ~ 1.11 /.'~Ilfl ' ~ ~~; ~ p t ~ ~ i, J 7`5i. ~~r ~~ `r,~.. f ~ ~ H~ 11f s. yy~ h,'„'K t .. ti i~~~ ~~ ~i ~F' ~LL k ~7 ~ '~ Til ,,, f T ~~~'. '3 S* ~' " ~ y t .i ~ .~ 1 ' " `Nk Rl' l ~ _ + } 5~ ~ 6~• J J:' ~ r. f ~~ 3 } f ~ ~ j~~• _ 7-V xSi ~ t ii~v t:+i ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ E s x~`" ' d $1''S " k l ~~ ~ J - ~ f 7y ~ ':1 µJ '~'''Y ;' ~ ,~: o~ . 5 E _ ~- f n ~ ~.0 ,,5,~ t~ } ~ ,M0. 1N p~~~~. SJ ~{; .i~ '.;I .-~= I >I s ~ .. • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR• DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 2. Site Plan Showing Entire Site (dated 11-10-06) ~ ~ _ { f - _ - ~ ~ _ _ 1 -. _ 1 _ ~ - P _ _ _ _ _ V_ _ -~ ~-._~~ E~ 414. 4 ~ I I _~ ~T ~ ~ ~ r V4 ~'b • I I j f 4 ~ ..-I ~ ~I ~e f~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ .~ _...-~g ~ it f m. t ~r~-- +J ~~ II P iii i ( ~ ~ ~A ~ L •J ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a ., I _ _ ~r k ~~ n `-.~ ~- .~~' _ - ~j ~ - - } ~ ~) ~ ~ _ ` A A ~~ ~I ~~ i - r ~ r ~ '~ I s' ,_ ~ ~~ i~~ t ~ - -~ i ~~ _ ~ ~ ...., Ii; lµ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 4 ~ ~ aryY i ~ ~ ~ `-------.z.__.___.~---__-- '~~ ~.i 1 V1 Std. x8 _ I ~ ~ ~ 1^ ~ ~ ~ i i ti _ ----fE~ ! ~ ;l ` ~ i ~ ~ e !~ i' ~ ~ •~ Qi i ~ t ~ s ~ ~ a ,,.~ , .~ ~ - - ~ ,~r i ~ r ~ ~ i i ~ ~: ~s ~___ ~ -°_----- ~ ~r Y l,y ~ ~q I I i ~ ~' I ~ ~ .4 _ ~•; `( Ef ,x~, ~ 'yj .. ~ ~ ~k. LJUyti lhtd:[. j f~ •. d 1 V ~~~ ~~ ~' . ~~ ~~ Y'~' ~~ Exhibit A ~~ t 3 {~ .z ~, I ~~ } ~* .~i>~ <v.--. > - ~'~~ yyyy3~~-.' _ F f} ~ ~ t Mt` ~fy~tl~ + ~t~ +~ ,, ya" a .....;r 4fi ..T'N~ G ~~y~/~.. Y L~4,". 'd , :kr tr ~~ s ~, { ~ { ~~~> '~' Y ~ 4 ~~ } ~~~,u p~p }J1:1. . ~ 11 . J 'M I, ~a~.- T}fi lr 'jAS; f * `M4 r z ,~ ~ _~~ ' - - ~ Z {~ ,~ ~ k~ I f ~ ' t. H r ~ 4 l s ~ i ~ ~:- !ar 1Y k' s ~ ~ ~ +~,. - r -^~ at ~~ ~ i~ ,~~ ; . 4~ '~ ^&~I t _ ' FK. ~1 • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 3. Landscape Plan (dated 11-14-06) Exhibit A ^'r L y F k._ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~ PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ,. :;: 3. Building Elevations - - -- ,, s~ . ~` '. ;: ~... ~,. . `~ Exhibit A ~, .~,.. ~~.c# v,' .. ~ f t~ ~ ~~ ,~~ yy .Y{ yy ~~ 4 z ~~ ~ »*~. ~ ~ `. 4 T ~ eH~' '..t T;S ~ ' ~ X q .~ " ~ s a z - S ~ ^' ~ ~j,.'n. r. _ ~t2- _ ~ ~ rtiy ~ .- M - ': ~ i ! f~ f r ~ Y ~f r .t S -~: -2 ` i;~' f~G ~~.1f ~ fl,~.';. .. ~ :~_ l: s t,• ~ jr 2 `1'~ 3~ {.SFr 1 ,: ~~!», ' `fd .F }~a. ~ . t ~ ~ r ~ +~L S. 1 ~ r 1 j S 4~ t 7 t?~~y d. . x ~ ~ i~ ~._ ~ ~. - ~~ i y ~ ~~` ' . y Y ,,~ §, ~4~6~~Qtii~1~~, Tcll~h~w i,' i ~I ;~~ ~:~~~~:~ w C ~i T z ~._,; Y: ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN• PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI• DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENTS 1.1 The Site Plan, prepazed by LCA Architects, dated 11-10-06, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions from the previous PP-OS- 042 and FP-OS-074 approvals for this site. 1.2 The landscaping shown on the Landscape Plan, labeled as Sheet L1.0, prepared by The Land Group, dated 11-14-06, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • A 25-foot wide landscape street buffer, located entirely outside of the right-of-way, was required with the plat along West Pine Street, an arterial roadway. • The existing 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the residential use on the west boundary has previously been reviewed and approved by the City; landscaping shall be maintained within this buffer. • Provide landscaping along the west side of the north-south private drive as approved with the plat. • Trees are required within the planter islands at the north and south ends of the row of pazking located on the west boundary of the property (one on each end). • The stormwater water retention area proposed within the buffer on the west boundary of the property must be constructed according to the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit a revised landscape plan, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.3. Use the existing private drive to/from E. Pine Street as access for this site. No new driveways to E. Pine Street aze proposed with this application and none are approved. 1.4. Provide a minimum of 7 parking stalls on the site as shown on the site plan per requirement of the Planning Department (see Section 10, Analysis). 1.5. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. 1.6. The office use portion of the proposed EMS facility shall be allowed as an accessory use to the approved public use in accordance with UDC 11-4-3-30B. 1.7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit from the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits for this site. 1.8. The building elevation prepared by LCA Architects (attached in Exhibit A) is approved. 1.9. All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed development. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.10. No signs aze approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a sepazate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. Exhibit B ~ „ ~n , .~~' Flo i b s a ,.~'. ~Q?1 .,~ 5 ~- wCj ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ 5 P d .., ~ i ±, ~if*~ , a~ g F- s ~ fa',. ;: rt: ~~ ~ t N~' } T .~ F t ~ .:rr K1. r 4 ~ ,~ { ~ 4 yq~ s ~v F41~ fs - t ~;~~,,_~ F ~~~~ ,;,; ~{ r fi„ ~ R rat ~'fn. ~, l k~ ¢;+ ~ ~ ~'j t i F.t ~ ~vj ~ + ~k4. _ i. ~ ~ ~ % ~t}~~ ~~ ~: .7 ~ xry t i ~~ ~ ~ ` ~~.: x sY6 ~ ,~ ~ 1 ::~~.. ~ pl-1. ~ - ~~~y:: t ~ ~ .~:; + [ L - ~ . , ~ ~z 5 2 2 ~ ~` {~{ _ ~ ~ ,:1 H~iSk ~ ~'F ~ ;; s ~ ~: ~_ "~` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 _ 6'N; ~S s~, ~,f, ~ ~ 1.11. The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord ~-. with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of ~-,;'~; approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation. ~~ - 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during :` plan review. n' ~~ ". 2.2 The applicant shall provide elevation certification prior to issuance of a building permit. ~~;, - 23 The applicant shall be responsible for any mains or services that are required to provide service to 5# t. ; G;y, this site. Coordinate size and location with the Public Works Department. ~'~'< ` 2.4 During plan review a looped system may be required to achieve adequate fire flows. ~~- ~ 2.5 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement, using the City of Meridian's standard forms for , all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Any manholes, water valves, or blow-offs not located with the right-of--way, or under F ~~. paving, shall have a 14-foot wide all weather access road placed over them to facilitate routine ~= `'° maintenance. ~: '~ ` ` -- ~ 2.6 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive fmal a l ri ~ ; . pprova p or to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, i h ~ .. m cro-pat s, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. ~.-.~ `t~ 2.7 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction ~ ; `.4,~ inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. ~ , it ~~°`~ 2.8 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with ~ ' the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. '- ' 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that ,, may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. I _ "s 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. ~ 2.11 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 t.: V' << ~, 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. ~~ -' '" a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %Z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. ~ b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it ° . c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works s ecifications. P d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. ~," e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. ~~ f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. ~` g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. ' h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing L: buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3. Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required ~_. Exhibit B i a , ~ ,? w fi~.~a, - : i ~ ~ ;r^ ~ ~ - ,~ ~, ,.. ~ c { F J ~ M~ k L . If. 9 9~ t "`r t i - ~~ ' 7 ' -i p~+ 4~ y t~ t~,~~.. ~~ 4 '~ ~~ ~ 4 :. :,_%' { # y +7 c ~w~; ~ s{ 11 skit..-~' ~. k~ s~K-: a ;.c ,~ ~,, 5 _. Mj.~yr't - to 1Y '~~ p f ~_' u1 dy~y' ~~ ~' - . `~ i f .~4 s' ~ ~;. ~ *.,: ~ # ~.~~ ~~~. ~ Ley l4 ~, ~~_ ~f~y~~ ~ F L'+f~r z f i 3 ~ A " t ~ti-. 1 R L.~1, ~ ~ ' 2~' f- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 a .: _-; to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn ':: -. : around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Because the drive around the rear of the building ezceeds 150 feet in length, a turn around is needed. 3.4. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside . .;e ~, . radius. `' 3.5. Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an t _ ,," imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. ~ 3.6. 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. y . ~- 3.7. Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire i Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.8. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.9. 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 buildingps pp~~77ui ed y~ y b ~`1 ~ till ~ugll~llt ~~ ~~~;:" 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). fi* d 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 r 's (183 m). 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT -" ~ ~ 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 4.2. The site does not appear to have adequate parking for employees, visitors, etc. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT ~^ ~ „ , 5.1 No comments were received from the Parks Department on this ap lication 5. 4 p . :~ I 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. Exhibit B i ~? ;y y~r~ "'~' iit G V ~ 4 )~ d.'J1 ~,5y ,. A s "+y 'l.?. k y-.d S 5 ~ <+'M Y ~ 7~` ~.. s ~~ ~~ ~ ~, :~~ ~; '~' ^'4rc~. t ~ 31 d F .F } gyp' ~+~~-+;. .{ ~ f t -~.4F, ti -.i ~H~ h y ~ ~ ' ~Y ~ t: c« ~ , .~p*~ r ~ ~~~:; ''` ux` ~` ~n~ ' ~' v-' ~~ ~ z f u ~ w~y~, {' "R ~ '~~`. .~- ~; ~ , 7 ~ > ~_ e~~~:g tier` Nt ;~+h?~: ,i ' " ~clt ;i t ~ "ti. a }. ~ .' .~~ k;, s -.P:TSr~- .;r ,._ .. . .k {~"~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 `' ' C. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance ,~.~ ~' l . Conditional Use Permit Findings: ::., `~`~~~ 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 proposed building and use on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and ' A. develo ment re p gulations of this district. However, previously this site was granted Alternative Compliance to relocate the required landscape buffer, adjacent to the residential property to the west, on the east side of the private drive. The Commission fords that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staff's analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate ?yi the proposed use. E: s''~'~l 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and ~~ ~ in accord with the requirements of this Title. ° °% ~ The Commission fords that the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is "Industrial." The proposed public use is more commercial in nature than industrial, but "public uses" are Conditional uses in the I-L zone. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Section 8, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of €,- ;~- the same area. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed uses 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 fords that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed uses 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. ~. ~ I Exhibit C ~~ ~ `~.~~ ` ~' ;~,~ . -~ ., ~, r. ~,~ - t~ ,r,; :~ ~r '`. ~~ ~~ ~~~ w _ - ~~ ~ ` ~~ , ~:~, ` ' , + .,~ ~ ~*~ ~x az ~ i ~~- c~;, ~2 ~ .ra_ ! 3~~.r~ ,. - ar q ~x ~ , (r( ~~~'~}~#'` x n, I ~ ri ~~ i ~ ^~ ~ i y ) ~ ~ Z ~ x' i# ~ ~ ~ ' N . ~ A ~.. - ' y F ~ ~~ ~ ~ A t i~_ & & S~{'t ~ t . ~ }17~. (e ;~ r 9$4 ~~~t ~ S 7 .I 4 I. t A y f~C &TCl~ a ~A_ ,~ 1 yy.t~ V ~i 7 ! _~ 4 r. i, ~~ ~ J ' ,~~ T }~ ~r - L pZ "4 ~ N ~` - ~ 1~~. '• i~y ~Kl ~ ~ ` r /rQ .~i~ i 11 ~~~} ~, ~ ~ f iii. ~ .:~ a4~4;.:!i :, o 6:~ "V+ rxd s4Py~Y« ~ - }' '~ -5 ~ ~ ' ~ r ~ ? r~; ~ ~ a~ ;t9 - _ ••f ~ - '~ ; 'i Yap .~Y~1~. 1 ., ~:,,F, '~< ~. -- . <~ , 1. ~~ ~~' ~= f" .~.H.. >. x. r. ~:,.°. -~~ .:::. ~~°~ ~ 5~'t ..~ >~ :.:~:. ~, tx~. "~, fi fi:, .~~. ~x~... ~~M~ 7~. ^.., CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 The Commission fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Parks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. 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. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise may increase with the approval of the subject use in this location; however, the Commission does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed uses 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 fmds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this development. The Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C k.. s ~ - .. ~. '. .. 1 ,7 t° ~* • ~~~~ January 29, 2007 CUP 06-032 ~~ ~; '~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 x ': APPLICANT Fairview Lakes, LLC ITEM NO. 3-D `~~~' REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval: Conditional Use Permit for ~; Commercial Shopping Center on 6.8 acres for Fairview Lakes (Lots 3 8~ 4, Block 3) - ~= -~~~ NEC of Fairview Avenue and N. Lakes Avenue ~~~' ', x ,- AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~~i`"~' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached findings ~ CITY ATTORNEY ' CITY POLICE DEPT: `:'~~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: - CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~. ~' r° CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ~:. ;. CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: Y:, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: Y• CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: ~`~ ~~' i =a Date: / 30 07 Phone: ~~ a~s~ 7QM I,C!`0. a MS/1 CoM Staff Initials: presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~' I 3: I I °~ _ A y `'r °K< '~ + .i.. ~_ ~ S ' ~ ik i .$ ~~~ y~} ~ 1 T ` ~ f, cXi~ _ \ ~r ~f 11 j~p Wyk `iM~. _ _ ~ fr ~f~~ '. ryf ~ (I A Y..S '.'J', . . t~~ ~~ s t: i f. Y y L i . r".i~F[.; 1 1.F J ~` ~1x• - t~~ 3tT Via' ..,y: )f ~ . ~. ~. r ~~~ 7 ~} i axe... ~ TG1 ~ ~ 1 ~.~.FF r a~, ~ _ ~. `F . r ~y ~" i St } ~;r_ f k~• x~ 'r, ~~~,~5~:. Xr { - ~ - ~~~., 41 r i h}~q~ ~ r, r~ .:::~d.a t~~ rf ~ ;;; i I . .. _ ~: ~~r r <- ~~~ ,- ~,, ,~ ;~ , ~'";~, ~;; v ~° ~; ~~ ~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER SAN ~ "~ ~~0~ ~ h ~, ~~~ ~ IC~.~~ '~i, ,$'~ F In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request to Modify a Previously Approved Conceptual Planned Development for Fairview Lakes /Devon Park Subdivisions, by Fairview Lakes, LLC Case No. CUP-06-032 For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 18, 2007 (Continued from November 16, 2006)(Findings approved on February 1, 2007) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (See attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (See attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (See attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (See attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP-06-032 PAGE 1 of 4 ' "' _. :, ~ ~ ~ ,~°~ ~ ~ t ~:~ b ~ f• ~~~ ~' pn • ~~ t ~ ~ . ~ t 2 .t C'i ~' ~ ~ ?' 'K'Sk?_ w g r 4 T 1 ~ - ~ i' . ~ ..~ . ,~ 'Ii ~. I~ ~,~ _ ,~ i~".r'y G:. A "-- ~~F31F ~~ 13'--Y-~,. ~ s; .. - ~, ii» ~ . ~nivE} ~a ~ ro ,~ ~~ I~ ~ ~, ~" ( W ~ F ~:~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~{ T r ':n p ~.l +r 'A. M1 ~, ~ ti- ~~ y~r ~ .. A { )~+ i ~:' iAl •} ~~- ~ ~ { §~ ~ ~'~~' ~ ~ y y fit.„ , I ; ~ +x~ ~~1:. ,_ .~~ 3f f1 ::y~ ~, fi, r{f~' ~:.;~~;~ ,f- ~'~ ~ -; ~ s • 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. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Commission Chair 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 and the Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, 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 CUP Site and Landscaping Plans, dated September 13, 2006, and Elevations, also dated September 13, 2006, are 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 January 18, 2007, incorporated by reference; and 3. The proposed plaza amenity shall function as a gathering place for people and shall include a rock waterfall and pond coupled with seating, in lieu of a 17- by 10-foot freestanding shelter; and 4. The applicant shall be required to provide Staff with detailed plans for the proposed plaza amenity depicting a waterfall and pond, and the locations of seating and landscaping planters. The Commission shall also review and approve said plans prior to signature of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the February 1, 2007, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits 1. 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP-06-032 j4y ~~~ .. PAGE 2 of 4 • e 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 may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP-06-032 PAGE 3 of 4 x ,~ ~~ ® _ ~. • By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of ~ ~ /~ , 2007. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED (,~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED1j~,Q~, COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY VOTED_~~~~~Y~,/~ CHA N MICHAEL ROHM \\\°°°°°°°°°~,~~~iiiiiirrrrri~~~~~s'',i Attest: ~~~ ,~ ., A ~ ~° 0 ara Green, Deputy City ~erl~c ' s~ ~ eea Co served u on A licant/~~~T`hsn °°`~~` py p pp ~ ~i ~~°°~epartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. ° City Clerk Dated: ~~ ~ 5 ~ ~7 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO. CUP-06-032 PAGE 4 of 4 ~.~; r ~ N r~ ~N ^^^. ~:. T~: ~; ~: -- --~ ~~ --- `t~:4 _~~P: . ~4- ~; . G. ~~~ .: ;, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18 2007 .~~ - ~-~ - ~ ~-- STAFF REPORT ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - ~~ Hearing Date: 1/18/2007 ~aN ~ ~ ~~~~' ~ w ~ ; a~ n ~~ x _ ~"- 7 M Continued From: 11/16/2006 ~~ ~.~,,~~_~ j±~a~ 3,L ~~id;Y Of i~~~~~~. -~ h. ~' '~ l ~- ~ TO: Planning & Zoning Commission ~~A~, ~`~~ f ~, a.,~ %~ - FROM: Amanda Hess, Associate Planner ~'K`-~~~r~ ~~~,,~,,,~~ f~ °-~ ~~ SUBJECT: Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II _ • CUP-06-032 ~~%. ~_<& r ~ Conditional Use Permit to modify a previously approved conceptual lanned - a - ° ' p development for Fairview Lakes /Devon Park Subdivisions, by Fairview . Lakes, LLC `°` 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST ~~ The applicant, Fairview Lakes, LLC, has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) approval to modify the conceptual planned development (PD) for Fairview Lakes /Devon Pazk Subdivisions The ` . proposed changes to the PD affect the portion of Fairview Lakes located northeast of the North Lakes ~ ~ ' Place / Fairview Avenue intersection on Lot 3 & 4, Block 3, of the Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M. The subject application proposes a new development plan for all of Lot 4, Block 3, Devon Park ~.~, Subdivision No. 1. The applicant has submitted two concept/development plans for Lot 3 Block 3 The F ~~~1 l~' , . first depicts a 2,275 squaze-foot structure with adrive-through window. The second shows a 4,320 square-foot structure where no drive-through is proposed. 1'he applicant seeks approval for both plans as , the future use of Lot 3, Block 3, is unknown at this time. 2. SiT1VIMARY RE COMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed anal sis of t he re e u ste d CUP a lic ' Y anon bel ow. Staff r q ecomm PP ends a ro - pp val of CUP 06-032 for Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II, as presented in the Staff . .. Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, subject to the conchtions listed in Eglubit B. This item was on the November 16 2006 and Jan uarv 18, 2007 Plannng & Zoning Commission agendas `'~ u-,.~: On January 18, 2007, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to approve the subiect ,~ `~' apphcatlon. . ~: ~,> , „` -" a. Summary of Public Hearings• ' i. In favor: Doug Tamura (Avplicant's Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commentin :None ' ~ iv. Staffpresenting application• Amanda Hess ~,r i v. Other staff commentin on application• Michael Cole . ~~? ;: b. Kev Issues of Discussion by Commission• i. The proposed on-site amenity fir;.;; c. Kev Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation• '4 i. The ylaza area shall include a waterfall and pond in lieu of a freestandin sg helter . NOTE: The Commission voted to review and approve the plans for the plaza area prior to signature of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the February 1, ~~~ F 2007, Plannng & Zoning Commission meeting F yy, v':.' q Q~ : }VI Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 1 "p - ~w,~ :,~ `:,_ F ~, r~~,x,u, ° ~~ r.;~r . .. =r_, ` ~~4 .~ j 5 :1`'~ C ~ 'L y~... .. ~ 1 f T' i } ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ '~ -tn I _ ' "F' ~ G~t k'G:: 7 -. -1 !r 7C~;~~.. ~. 1 -f, ~3- Y i} £ ~: ) + k ~ t f ti ^ J~ 4 ~ {~ l~ ... .~ 4 -y<-.4 nc i ~Y~j`L; * 1 ` . 7. ~[XI~~ i <~ ~ ` ~ ~irµl 1 M nb1~Y + i }~ viV> }Y A c ~~ !~ r ~.~C... `~ k ~~`v. ~17'[ r Y _ r 7 f~~ { 1 i.Sr'~. i gyp!":'. J~:: '. 1,$ fA i~ ~' t~ ~ #' ;;,.~. e ,i - ~~:- r'h,~ .ti, ~~- -_ `:, Vie' ' , ~. ~~ ~~ "r: -: .; `; ~, ' ~ .. ~. -r.~. `y~¢', ~ V':} YS ~~ r~r ''.P .~;; ~r ~:•~z %~x~: ,~' ~_~' ~ ~.. ~t ;; ;,,. _:~: N ~~t F ~s -,,,; -~-~' ~, ~; ~ ;~ V~. j (, ~., wV ~,y t _ y ;::,. >. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-06- 032 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of January 18, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). I fiuther move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 1, 2007. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-06-032 as presented during the hearing of January 18, 2007, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the conditional use permit, explain what the applicant could do to gain your approval.) I further move to direct Legal Department Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on February 1, 2007. Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-06- 032 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: 920 - 1020 E. Fairview Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Section 6, T3N R1E b. Owner /Applicant: Fairview Lakes, LLC 1124 Santa Maria Boise, ID 83712 c. Representative: Doug Tamura d. Present Zoning: C-G e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Community f. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of CUP Site Plans (See Exhibit A): September 13, 2006 Z. Date of CUP Landscape Plan (See Exhibit A): September 13, 2006 3. Date of Building Elevations (See Exhibit A): September 13, 2006 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 City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: October 30, 2006, and November 13, 2006 Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 2 '~~{Y' M ~; /F CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ,~ ~ : c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 20, 2006 ._~z~ ; Y d. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 26, 2005 ~:',;x. "" ti ; 6. LAND USE ; . '~: a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant r b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Single family residences to the northeast and commercial properties to the northwest, west and south. , ' ~ ~ : c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning ~ ~. ,~~ 1. North: Commercial, zoned C-N, & Residential zoned R-8 :~*g~ ' , 2. South: Commercial, zoned C-G & R-8 ~ ~'~ ~'~__" 3. East: Commercial, zoned C-G, & Residential, zoned R-8 4. West: Commercial, zoned C-G ,,;! ~K~ d. History of Previous Actions: ` ~. ' The original Fairview Lakes PD (CUP-02-014) included the conceptual approval of 114 500 ~,~4 , square feet of commercial and 15,000 square feet of office space, and detailed approval for 192 ~' Y~ 4 apartment units. In 2003, the first modification to the conceptual PD (CUP-03-014) included the '~ ..ttv, approval of 122,000 square feet of commercial and 52,250 square feet of office space and detailed '~ ~~°~~~ ., , approval for 96 apartment units. Also in 2003, a second modification to the conceptual PD (CUP- 03-054) increased the office component by approximately 35,000 square feet and reduced the ~ ` r commerciaUretail component by approximately 18,000 square feet. In 2004, CUP-04-049, a detailed CUP, granted approval for the construction of four commercial ,. buildings, totaling approximately 25,600 square feet of retail space, on two platted lots, Lot 1 and ~~ a portion of Lot 4, Block 3, Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. Banner Bank has already been q-. µ constructed on said Lot 1. ~- ~~; In 2005, CUP-05-035, a detailed CUP, granted approval for the construction of a restaurant , totaling approximately 4,200 square feet, on Lot 2, Block 3, Devon Park Subdivision. Said Lot 2 ~` now hosts Smoky Mountain Pizza. z .~ = r. The subject application, also a detailed CUP, proposes a new concept for all of Lot 4, Block 3, . ' ~= Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. This new plan for Lot 4, Block 3, will replace that portion ~,- ~ : previously approved through CUP-04-049. , ~,~~ ~' ~~ e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities ~,~ ~,~' „~ 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There are existing mains in E. Carol Street, and in the interior of this project that were installed with previous development on this site. r~ Location of water: There are existing mains in E. Carol Street, and in the interior of this _ project that were installed with previous development on this site. } , ~~,,~ Issues or concerns: None ~ s.~ . ~ ' ~ "` 2. Vegetation: N/A ~,,~ ~ ~W 3. Floodplain: N1A 4. Canals /Ditches /Irrigation: Flume Canal. It has been tiled. ~` " 5. Hazards: N/A .t: w/ k0 i `~` ,- Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 3 ~ ~t'~ ~r .. ,~~,+;: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ~~ ., ~ _ 6. Existing Zoning: C-G ~, 7. Size of Pro 6.8 acres P~Y~ k4' f. Landscaping: ~~ ~ 1. Width of street buffers Twent five feet 25' of landsca a buffer re uu-ed on Fairview O~ Y- ( ) P q ~_ ~ ~<<' 'f z Avenue, an arterial road. The applicant proposed 30 feet along Fairview during the detailed " j CUP processes for Lots 1 & 2, Block 3. The a licant has ahead pp y installed the 30 feet of landscaping along Fairview Avenue for Lot 3, Block 3. °m` '"3 . ~F 2. Width of buffers between land uses: Twenty-five feet (25') of landscape buffer required ., between the subject property, zoned C-G, and the residential subdivision to the north and ~ east, Settlers Village Re-subdivision, zoned R-8. The applicant has proposed to install 20 ~ ~, .: feet of landscaping to buffer the commercial district from the residential. See Analysis below for more information. 3. Percentage of landscaped azea: ~15% (45,000 sq. ft.) g7~~- x 4. Other landscaping standards: UDC 11-3B-8 requires landscaping within and around pazking ~ .- lots. The landscaping standazds for parking lots will be applied prior to issuance of a ~'- ~" Certificate of Zoning Compliance permit (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). _r`: g. Conditional Use Information 1. Non-residential square footage: Maximum of 53,780 square feet ~~ 2. Building Height: Ranges between 14 feet and 27 feet 3. Description of Uses: Commercial Retail & Restaurant ;.: 4. Because the applicant has submitted detailed plans for the subject development, procurement ~~r ~'._~ of Certificates of Zoning Compliance will only be required prior to submittal for building -;; ~ permits. ~''~ '~ h. Off-Street Parkin g (Non-Residential Uses): ~ ~ 1. Parking spaces required: UDC 11-3C-6B establishes minimum parking standazd for non- ~~:, ;:=_"aa 6 ~~ ,, a. residential uses. Within commercial districts spaces shall be provided at one per 500 squaze , ;v`~j ~-' feet of gross floor area. 2. Pazking spaces proposed: 224 Standard Stalls + 20 Handicapped Stalls 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 4. Off-site parking proposed: N/A ~'~ " ~~: 5. Percentage of interior pazking as landscaping: Prior to issuance of any Certificates of ~: Zoning Compliance, Staff will ensure that the proposed parking lot is improved with s ~ landscaping according to UDC requirements (see Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval). ~1 i. Summary of Pro osed Streets and/or Access P (pnvate, public, common dnve, etc.): There are three proposed driveway accesses to the subject development. One located on Fairview Avenue, exactly 500 feet from the North Lakes / Fairview intersection. The other two driveways, from North Lakes Avenue, aze located approximately 200 feet and 340 feet north from said intersection. h. .. '}' 7. COMMENTS MEETING ~? : On October 27, 2006, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this ~a area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Pazks ~. Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 4 1 _r:,':. y "y ~! aa,.py i ~ ~ h Il:Yil' J tt'C~1'' ~'° x + ~ 1 .§~'3H' cyi z ~ #~.? 4. -r~.. ~. t i~~ ~ . b r'w.i. y .;' t'~ t }~.~ x ~-w~, >` ~~.. ~~f~ , ~ r gE] ~ 2~". 4 4` T'Jr5`~'i 'f. ` ;,~ i ~, ~ ' , '~ .~ ~- r ~ ~ ~ ,~ ;,k . ~ ,, ~, , ~'. ~ $, . .; ~3 r~~3°. '~ ~, ~ r ,1 "r a11; ~ r~jr T .f .j ~. {I13. ~T Y~ ~ , 4c4 rl 2 j . .' ,~ ~, ' Y '~ S. th~`~ ~ ' 1 ~~ ~{ ~' ~ ~'`` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ' HEA)~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 Company. Staff has included comments, conditions and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. ,_.,,,"y~ 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS ~`.a= This property is designated "Mixed Use -Community" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Mixed Use" areas are anticipated to provide a ~~s ~;~ combination of land uses under a master of conceptual plan including, but not limited to, retail, office ~ - professional, and/or residential uses. Staff fords the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): ~° ~~-~;~.= • xequire that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter " ; ~~ VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) '~ ~ When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject ~,: ;~ ~ property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following ta. ~ manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer s expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department r4 ; ., .~ , who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. Y~ • The subject lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (1lIPD) ~~.~~~ . • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada r; County Highway District (AC15ID) and ITD. This service will not change. ~~,;:~:; I • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2 This service {, , ~ . will not change. - : • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will ;; not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss. ,~ ~ Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided to this site by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department the , Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing ~' , ,~_ Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III , Objective D, Action 5) Staff is conditioning approval of the subject CUP upon the applicant installing and maintaining ` ~ '`~ `-" landscaping on this site. Refer to the CUP Analysis, Section 10, for more information on landscaping at this site. ~.._ • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation , low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is typically required for C-G zoned properties which are located on arterial streets. The applicant has proposed a 30 foot landscape bu ffer on the subject site , , which exceeds said requirement. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposal will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 5 i4 ~T _]~ ~' Y ~'~ y~~ _a%L 4 y iTi'wF''- I ~~ ~' ' .. M . ~ fi ' ~~~'r,xV_. ~' t A . FFxY f + ~ .t~ ,.~Y}~- I F ~ 7.Ft:. % { " , EX-1 ? w ~ 'if 2 ~"F'T{s t r ' `'' 1 ,~~ . r^' AvL.~. iA 'J2 f~ ~ , ~T ~i~. 1~ 4 ac 1 Z i M t ~~ - , G- S 1 ~w1~ ,. : ' ~ tf~~ " ~~ f } ~_r;yJ.. ~~ V ~ Fr ~ '. '',µµ >) ~4 ,~ i G 14.~~„- ':..: 4.: r tai' ~_~ ; `5 F . ~t. - •~ 1 Z ..`~`~.~ s ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 .r. rr ~ a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists retail shops and restaurants as Permitted / ~ Uses in the C-G zone. UDC 11-SB-1 requires that Certificates of Zoning Compliance be obtained prior to commencement of said types of uses in order to ensure compliance with all applicable ~;,; .:;'- provisions of the UDC. ~~ , t, , ~- z '' ` b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses ~ : which are customarily operated or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the _ ~, ~ impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close ~~`'<<~° proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need of travel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. ~<' ,-~',': 10. ANALYSIS ~; -.?~ S ~ a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the proposed ~~ '~ site design as presented in the CUP site plans, labeled as sheets A1.OA & A1.OB, and dated ly September 13, 2006; the proposed landscape plan, labeled as sheet L1.0, and dated September 13, f .> 2006; and the proposed building elevations depicted on sheet A5.0, and dated September 13, 2006, =. with the following comments: {r ~ : _ Access: There are three proposed access points to the proposed Fairview Lakes Shopping Center. r, - = The first is a full access driveway from / to Fairview Avenue, located approximately 500 feet east "° ~.._ of the North Lakes / Fairview intersection. The applicant has also provided two accesses from North Lakes Avenue located approximately 200 and 340 feet north from said intersection. Staff is 4_ ' supportive of the proposed cross access with the property to the east, Dirty Harry's Car Wash. ~~ :tik ~~ Landscaping: The applicant has proposed approximately 45,000 square feet of landscaped area ~= including, but not limited to, the 30-foot landscape buffer on Fairview Avenue. Although, this ~'=._: amount includes that already approved and installed on Lots 1 & 2, Block 3. Said lots are not part of the subject application. The applicant has provided planter islands within the parking lot. Ten-foot wide parkway planters ~' are proposed along the western boundary of Lot 4, Block 3. Twenty-foot wide landscaping buffers are proposed at the northeast boundary of Lot 4, which abuts a residential district. However, UDC r~ i 11-2B-3 requires a minimum of 25-feet of landscaping buffer between residential and commercial Th f ~- uses. ere ore, the applicant should be required to construct a 25-foot wide landscape buffer x) ~~~ -'' along portions of the east and north property lines. Landscaping within the land use buffers should Y~.*. be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9C. ~ ' ` Amenities: As per the conditions of approval for the Fairview Lakes Planned Development ~ i .. (CUP-02-014), the Applicant was required to supply two (2) amemties on site. The first, a 10-foot wide pedestrian pathway which runs throughout the entire Fairview Lakes project, has already been con t t d i h h ~ s ruc e w t t e previous phases of development. The second amenity is proposed on the {~ A Z) t site, a public gathering area /plaza to be located in front of Retail Building 3. (See Exhibit F~.~ Ty ~ . - A plaza is typically defined as an open area which is usually located near urban buildings and ~y`4 often featuring walkways, trees and shrubs, and places to sit. The plaza is usually roofed; however, open on the sides. The applicant's site and landscaping plans do not depict this. Staff has included `_, a condition that requires the plaza area to be improved with a 17- by 10-foot [minimum) `"' ~ freestanding shelter, a minimum of two outdoor benches, and additional landscaping planters. ~ ` Staff recommends that the applicant provide details on the proposed plaza area at the public hearing. "' Parldng: The applicant is proposing to construct 244 parking stalls. Only 108 parking stalls are pr. required by Ordinance. UDC Table 11-3C-1 requires 90-degree parking stalls to be 19-feet long, L Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 6 ~' 3t ' ~S it ~~• ~'z- , ~ f~x~.. r ~*' n`-tr~ H ,. ~. ~-j ..~ - ~ ~' ~~`v ~ ~' } RT f r r1~(. .1~~ . id a,;- 4 "~,` '; '. lrt3 ~ ~,~ :, ~~ ~:Y.r' 1 ~ "~i~4 3 '~ ~}• b; ~.~ F ~} C ~T { ~t~ V .~Y ~ ii 1 / r`lM X ` , N~ . 7 ~~t l ~~~ p, , r f s y,..,fcn. '%L Y?' ~ ~ ~, ~Y ~ M ~ ~ S Y ~+L:~) F k~~- vGW.Y{}' ~' ,a va ,fir';" €:j`clCY.. lZ~ ra ,,~~ ~' } ,i.. ~ r ~ ~. ~,. ,. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEG DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 a ;;. adjacent to 25-foot wide drive aisles. Compact stalls may be reduced in depth by an additional two -.; ' feet. UDC 11-3A-17A requires sidewalks to be at least 5-feet wide. When a bumper overhangs ;~ ` onto a sidewalk or landscape area, parking stall dimensions may be reduced two feet (2') in ~;,y : `~`~` length if two feet (2') is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscaped area (UDC 11-3C- SB4). Several parking stalls within the proposed development do not meet this requirement. ,'~ Drive-Through Design: UDC 11-4-3.11 states that "a site plan shall be submitted that + demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent " - properties. At a minimum, the site plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: 1. -' • Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of- Y way by patrons; ~` ``~ "~~'r,~, • The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and pai'1{lllg~ ' ~ ~~,. " • The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10') of any residential district or ! existing residence; and • Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100') in length shall provide for an escape , lane. ' _ . Staff is generally supportive of the drive-throu confi ations but believes ~ ~' the following ~;;< ~.,,..I a ; modifications are warranted: 1) The drive-through stacking lane on Lot 4 requires an escape lane ,,~ ~~~r,,, , as the lane totals over 175 feet in length; 2) The landscape planter on Lot 3, Block 3, should extend into the stacking lane at the exit point of the drive-though to better funnel traffic out of the ~ drive-through; and 3) Directional signs should be installed at all drive-though exit points. _ Building Elevations: The building elevations prepared by Doug Tamura, Architect Sheet , Number A5.0 and dated September 13, 2006, are approved by staff, as they comply with the Design Review standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-19. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The purpose of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) :..r permit is to ensure that all construction, alterations and/or the establishment of a new use complies '~~ ~ with all of the provisions of the UDC before any work on the structure is started and/or the use is established (UDC 11-SB-lA). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B are complied with, the applicant will be required to obtain CZC approval from the Planning Department prior to building construction, and all improvements must be installed prior to occupancy. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-06-032 for the Fairview Lakes A - Shopping Center, Phase II, as presented during the hearing of January 18, 2007, based on ~~;,, F~'. --:~'. the Findings of Fact listed in Exhibit C, and subject to the conditions of approval listed in . ~=•~~ Exhibit B. On January 18. 2007 the Meridian Plannine & Zonine Commission voted to ;R~ approve the subtect apnLcahon 'r 11. E~~ITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. CUP Site Plan A (Dated September 13, 2006) ~s 3. CUP Site Plan B (Dated September 13, 2006) 4. Landscape Plan (Dated September 13, 2006) 5. Building Elevations (Dated September 13, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval I Fairview Lakes Shopping Center, Phase II (CUP-06-032) -Page 7 $ ' ~"~ `r* e~~j' Y . 4 ~' ~: ~, Y • „ ~~' e ~~3 ~r~ ~~ ' ~ +. r '- Li ~, ~~~_'. { S ~* id _T _ ~ n 1 ~~~ K fi - ~ c ' t ~ i ~'„ s ~ ,~ , :, 4< r ~= I r~ h~ ~~ ~ ~ ~T . 4 7 : eta Yk A!-Nj2!~. '~u' 4 ` •11 'Yj!~ :. ~ r ~~ ST : ~Y F:.K^. :']is 7 ~;4 r ~;? r ~,, . ~ ~. b s ~l ~, I a ~ A ~ ` ~ f~~c~ ~ ~ t 3k} a+~':r i ~ 3 [r i ~~~ z ~ ~ ~. ,, cY`i ~~ ~ ~~ g. ~. rF~.. ~~ .~ ~A QI~„ ~t ~_ ~` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPAI A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map x*Y4i s r. ~ ~ ~' ~:~ - ~ ,~~~ ` ~ ~-~ , ~ ~ i I ~ I ~ 6L Elt R(? ~` ~ r i ~, ~ nuu'~ii~~- _ ~,1 ~ <"Subje~ ~._=_l, ';~<'~, 4 ~~ l _ ' Sire ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ! ~ ~~~R9 LYNN ~~ ~ ~~~ 1~ ~ ~.- ;--~ r~d~ 1 1. {~ .-itc~4 FAfRV1EW- ~ ~ -, ~ ~ _z~ -~ ~l-L~, ~C ~ w sr+ixcr.N k~~ ~ ! cn~itaN _ _ ~~. _~~ l I °~ ~TaT~~I if TI _T... WIT- _ d ~ i w ~r .. Svc ~.~rner A -1 f ' -. ~ t.4. ~ C~ f. ~ ~f rat. ~ M Ssi y ~y~ 5 _ ~` I ~.. ;h ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ y1~~ '1 4 J k~~`f ~~. ,E'^.~ t' it a y'. r vi 1 a n ? ,at' ~ + a f ~~; F, .fir r7,j' r1._. y' I ~j.~~. ~ :qty /~~ #~ K'~ t T .i { ~ !. FY 74 it y'.~'i L 'i 9 y~ ~~ ~4~~, ; ~y1'.~4 - ~ ~E~ ~ ~Y ~'F `~: t,T 3` ~'. Tel`!- 1~ S K` ~ ' 3~j . y ~ ~ Vim' k ~~}a j '"~ 1 ~ k1J~~ f b' ~. ~„ >;6? ~ ~; 1,- - 5 > d ` e „f > rs~.: * 2 why' ~ G ' " , a ,~ a ~. ~: 4 ~; ' '~" ; ~, ~ e~-: ~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE • DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 2. CUP Site Plan A (Dated September 13, 2006) x j_ 4 -, ~': ~, -~.'.~ ~~,~ I ana Hrl~ t ~ anoou sum nr~ndv~ :~ ~ ~~~'~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~4 ~ = ~ g Q Q ~ ~ Htl YJJUffs A-2 3 ~i r 0 ~s r vi W 4 3 W S Y Q t ~. 'T, r , ~ 4 ~ ~~.?' ~~~ t` ~ ~ zc T ..: t 5 Tf .1.r z .; r t ;`~=3;~.. {a4„., .. v xi,~. i ~` SIG H F_ T ti'. ,xt+ .~ r, x Jj ~~ k"' ~ s ~ s, 1 YY .Y~7~ W _ ~ ~ h- z ~ ,"• ~; i vw~~~~ `, ~ k<x ~~`~~", ~ ~..:1i ~ 3nh~,.fi ~ '_f ~ ~ ~.~., t y ,,~: ~ ;;. ~ ~ {~ ~~~;_;, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 3. CUP Site Plan B (Dated September 13, 2006) }~ s. _~ ,~~~ ~';-- ,. a~ e ~ ;K ~ ~i~~ #~~ ~~~~i~~~ r~ ~ a ~ °ed:w'°A~~ A-3 i 0 .. r a W '7 9 C W .S K a f 's~r.."s ~~'~~'.: iit~~o ~ ' ~` ~ ~ f y~ ~ ~ t: z ~~ x ~ ~ ~~ ,:a F r~ ' ~ ~ ~;. %:~ Via' ,' ~7 k .: _tit ~' G u~7 :y~- " ~~~~ '~~.. x~r., . « ~ J ' w ~ ' `~ 4 f ~ y;'3a ~AG"t ~ ..~ - ~ .4?: yswtk{ ,' ~ T ~~ ,~- ~ a y ~w r a Y.n - ~. `l _ ~ ~~, ~ ~ c t - } ` a,~~~ , ~ is . ~-.#- ~_ t ~ r,,, ~ ~~ Y~ a i 41 4,S t x:~.. ~s,'. ~ t '.l i : } ~ .. .. ~ Sy7.. 1 _, { 6 ~ y 1 t'.+i. P .. k inn }M~a. r ~ti"" CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 t~ ` -~ ~+ ,, ;~1. A-4 4. CUP Landscape Plan (Dated September 13, 2006) ., ~ OBlYQ trvx~'! ~ ^ anv ~~~ a aza%-azs Y1 I ~ l td' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° . ~~ ~ ~ ~ A 1 , a arrow./ S;~k N , . ~1~ e•.~~ ~~ ~~ ~9'` =a r ,_ th - 'W ~ ~ s---:-.•e ~~~e I~ ~~ Q w 5 ~111~1i~y1 ^ ~ ~~ !~ R l $j$j rr r ~ ~r' # ~ ~ ~ 6 i ~ r r? f ~ ~ a~il~.RM ~i1 tl~~~iltl r _ f } ~ } ~~~~~f~~ ~~~ f ~ftet+~3~~r ~ ^:=; E -~4~'" ~'4...yF` 'tr i'~~'f . k' # j ~' ~.sµ .4..,1,3+s~, ~,. t ~ ;~ '~ ~ ..' ~ C A l _ r d~ A~ J f {~. ~. K+• _ ~ ~l~ 154 '~ i J~' ~ ~. ~~Y r ~ ?Y ~ ~.~~ s §; i _ ~G. ~5 ~ 1. ~ F i ~~St :;~ is L.. Tr+4, +~. l ~Xs rN ~,^~ ~`3°~ ! ~; -~ r r, i~ gin'- _ ~ ~' '~ '~ - ~ v 1 .. ~ ~ v ~~, i x?x , r ~'~~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~ r fjr` r ~~cc ?:4:_Y. ~ # ~ ~, rr ' a 'i :"~r~.:... ~ti r~.. ?p'.- e ' _ r f a a ~,~~`~ } w~r~., -- ~ ~ „~.i l q` ~~C ~ ~ ; 1 ~ ~ ~ra ~ ~~ ,+ s »'r i '~ 2~ a.:. ,~ ~y ~. ~ s, ~ r 3 'fiirr e~ .} ,, -?,.: f .e~ "F ~ ; _ r' .. 9 !! , a' i Y~,: 4 r; , `,I.I ;: ;.I is ~. ~•.:'> ~e: t ,; :,~ s. ,i; n !'^ ~:.: ~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 5. CUP Elevations (Dated September 13, 2006) ~ ~:~ ~ ,, ~~~ ~ sin ~-avd a ~~ ~ ~ A-5 1 i 9~ Y N e f 1'_e ~~ ~r ~~ ~~x ~~~5: i ~~, ti"' t r~`7 ~ ~. i%,. 13. kG4i, ~' ~ ~a: (. 5 , ~~ ~#r~~~ ~~,.. +~ rn to i"'~ ~ - y. s 4 j ti.~r- y ~ r f <Nh. i S ~T~ ..... ~'b ^}.,, '~ ~ K ~v. ;~ . h '?".~,~, ~~ 4 ~y fl ~ z{ Y'yl 'ij ~ ,,y^~ ~ -, ~~ k,kx~ - {1 ~}s .. ~~~ (.Y ,.` 2~Y.T3'+,. ~~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ~- ~{~ f: B. Conditions of Approval '~' ~' ^s 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~ ~ 1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous and applicable requirements of the site associated ~ w { '~ with approval for Annexation /Rezone (AZ-02-011), Conditional Use (CUP-OS-035, CUP-04- ~, ~ `= 049, CUP-03-055, CUP-03-054, CUP-03-014, & CUP-02-014), Preliminary Plats (PP-02-034), Final Plats (FP-03-033), and Miscellaneous (MI-02-008, MI-03-003, & MI-03-007) for the ~a:.' ~- Devon Park Subdivision 1.2 The Site Plans, labeled Sheets A1.OA & A1.OB, prepared by Doug Tamura, Architect, and dated "" ' ~ ' ~z September 13, 2006, are approved subject to the conditions listed herein. Detailed site plans shall ~: '' Y y be submitted with each Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for each building within the ~ ~' subject development. ti 1.3 The Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L 1.0, prepared by Doug Tamura, Architect and dated ~~~; , September 13, 2006, is approved subject to the conditions listed herein. Detailed landscape plans shall be submitted with each Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for each building ~`.: ~ within the subject development. y ~ ` 1.4 The applicant shall provide aplaza /public gathering area to be located in front of Retail Building =` r 3. The proposed plaza amenity shall function as a ag thering place for maple and shall include a : ~' ~ rock waterfall and pond (to be roughly twice the size of the waterfall adjacent to Smoky `° [yy Mountain Pizzal with associated seating §=` '~ ~ ~ 1.5 The applicant shall be required to provide Staff with detailed plans for the proposed plaza. '' ` amenity depicting the rock waterfall and pond, and location a' -; ~~ of seating and landscaping planters. The Commission shall review and approve said plans prior to ~ siaiiature of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the February 1 2007 Planning 6 _a t- ' Zonm~ Commission meeting The plaza amenity shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the ~. . i. 4 ' first building in this phase. {y{ ~~ ~I`y`. E ~ 1.6 UDC 11-3C-5 requires all 90 parking stalls to be, at minimum, nine feet (9') wide by nineteen ~x feet (19') deep. When a bumper overhangs onto a sidewalk or landscape area, said parking stall k~ -G:. ,'' ~' dimensions may be reduced two feet 2 in len h if two feet 2 i ( ) gt ( ) s added to the width of the sidewalk or landscaped area. Several parking stalls within the proposed development do not meet. ._',~ this requirement; revise plan accordingly. ~ L 1.7 Construct an escape lane for the drive-through located on Lot 4 Block 3. ° , ~ _ 4Y.<' ~ ' `~ 1.8 Increase the width of the landscaping buffer to the east of the drive-through exit on Lot 3, Block 3 Th l . e app icant shall work with Staff to arrive at a suitable design. ~° ~ :-.: 1.9 On Lot 4, Block 3, install a "Do Not Enter" sign within the landscape planter at the west property ~~;' boundary. Said sign shall face south to prevent traffic from entering the drive through from the wrong direction. 1.10 On Lot 4, Block 3, install a "Yield" sign within the landscape buffer immediately west of the ~;. drive-through. Said sign shall face north to indicate to drive-through users that parking lot traffic has the right of way. w;. F .,1?. ~jt,, 1.11 On Lot 3, Block 3, install a "Do Not Enter" sign within the landscape planter at the east property boundary. Said sign shall face north to better prevent traffic from entering the drive through from 4 ~~> the wrong direction. `_ 1.12 Per UDC 11-3B-8C-2a, all parking lot landscape planters shall not be less than five feet (5') in ;_' ` any dimension, measured inside curbs. ~,.~, ~ ' " ~~' ` 'u ° ,~ `' Exhibit B r ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~,; ~~ ~ ~~ i r.~ '~ } ~C '-" ~~, t ~ ~_-1;+ts ~~~ ;: 2F a , x ~ vrr"~%- ~~ :s; _ ~ r ~ 1 .~ i r . ~,~' 1i r ~ ,~' t. ~ -f ' ej° r~ .. ~ '- y M , ~ t K.r. ~ .~• ^? ~1 1~" ~3'l 'SP y~ :: - .. . ~ Po ,~ ~ 4 r ~. ~~ti~k~~ ~.'NU ~ ~ t~\. ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~~ - •- ?.t:, - ~ ;,~7_ - 4: _ - 5% 'S ~i~ ~ S,t 1~v ~~ y a ~ ; s ~~ 7 ~~ }}~ }} s,. K'i ^: x~ ~ c~'TF t ~' . t: ~; .. W ~ l ._ ~.. ~ -~C'Y . i trf _ - - !i,~';' wiVU~ - .. _ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ~'~ ,_ ~~ _... 1.13 Construct a minimum 25-foot wide land use buffers along the northeast property boundary where they abut a residential zoning district. Construct said buffers in accordance with UDC 11 3B-9C. The land use buffers shall function as barriers where trees canopies will touch at the time of maturity. Provide landscape materials along said western boundary that will meet this requirement. 1.14 Sidewalks/walkways shall be installed within the development as proposed, and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17. 1.15 The applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.16 The elevations, labeled Sheet A5.0, prepared by Doug Tamura, Architect, and dated September 13, 2006, are approved. Detailed elevations shall be submitted with each Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for individual retail uses within the subject development. 1.17 To ensure that the conditions of approval for CUP-06-032 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain Certificates of Zoning Compliance (CZCs) from the Planning Department prior to construction of building shells. 1.18 All required improvements must be complete prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy. Temporary Certificates 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 (e.g., landscaping, and irrigation). A bid from a licensed contractor must accompany any request for temporary occupancy. 1.19 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.20 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of Devon Park's approved Final Plat / Conditional Use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.21 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via existing sewer stubs to the property. The applicant shall install any mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of existing mains and services. The applicant shall be responsible to install all water mains necessary to serve this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during plan review. 2.4 During plan review a looped system maybe required to achieve adequate fire flows. 2.5 There shall be a 10-foot separation between all water mains and the high water mark of any drainage swale. 2.6 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Exhibit B -~; l ~~ F - ~-? Y S{ '~ S~ F• { ~. ~ J A.~._ ~ ~ ~ ~~L ,~ , iz ~ r 44 ` 3 F {~~t k , ~R C n Z: ~ Y ~,. ~ 1 15 nde7r ~,~ ~ ~. Kf Y . ~ ~'~ Spa ~~~ Li i.: fin. ;~. rte, "r: : ~ ~ y~~: v i'. ~ ~, L~ t ~,r ~ .. `~ .. ,y 3 ~ ,~, - '.'y, i t ' - ~ _ ~ Y~E~~~-. ~ R y4 at•~ t' ~ 1, i:?~f~; ~ ~ .N"LK. •; S. ~ ., • ~~ ' ] N „~, ~ ~r*- .,.- ~ i ~ 3+k . a ~ ~ ~ t, k~`., d ~ L } ~µ~,~~ .. Sr~+ ' h l ~ i ~^ y r ~* h i.'~~ ~ 1 A T ~ A ~ i + t ~~ ~~ d ~ ~ r ~ ?1~ r "" '6t ~ ~c ,~~`+' ~ ~ , . ' ~ ~ ',a ,; 1 ,. " a:; _ ~ l:.~~'. r ~ ~F . ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ D G ATE OF JANUARY 18 2007 ~ r ~ 1 , ~, ~ L ~~ 4 t ,~ ~ ~' 2.7 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive ~, ~ final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping maybe bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. ' ~. 2.8 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review and construction ~ x _' j,~E , inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. _, ~ z' ~ ~ ' 2.9 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with ~ ,~~~ h ~ ~~ ~ ~'~ the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. - `° ,~ ,' 2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and IVPDES Permittin that ~. ' g maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting ' t .~ that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers ' t 2.12 . Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all buildin ~k~ =,~`" _ *y ~ ~ - g pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. ~, ~ ~ ~ `t:. ` ' 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT , ~- ~ luti ~~ :, FS }. 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and F - water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department z . a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. ~: Y's~t ~,: c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. . ~ ~' ~ d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. , •~f ~, ~ ' e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10' ~. ~^ ~ '' . f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. , g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509 5 ~. ~ . . h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existin g r # buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.. ' ~'~~" ~ 'ir ~ y ~l 3.3 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius >~ ~~ ~~~"~? r '~ y- 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 The commercial lots will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on ~ ~, ~; fi Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 ' ` ~ responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services ~ ~ ` '~ ~ ~ Consulting Group our requests for service are projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by , ~ ~~~ the year 2010. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ x: , ;. 3.7 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. ~r~ " , 3.8 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.9 The applicant shall work with Plannin D artment staff to g ep provide an address identification plan ~' ;` and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the requires ~: ~ ~~ intersection(s). ;. ~ t '` 3.10 All its of the buildin s stems mcludin exitin s stems rocesses & stora a radices shall ~ gY (~ g gY ),P gP ~~ ~ ,~.. ~~ ~ ~ be required to comply with the International Fire Code. . ~ ~~;, Exhibit B <.~ ` , tom 'k 5 ~ , $~' ~ y Yy~ :~ .. ~ ... . . ..._ ~ . ' - . S ' 7 ;Er~ti'e S ~J'`n iat.... - i ' . TI- y_ tf . j CC f:~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ," ` ~ r E.1~ni .:a ~-i ~ ~~ a~. v _. '. ~- 7Hr-_. ti ,,'`wi ` ' `.s. i a t ~ { ,yr~k~ 1i ~ } i !+~ ~ I ~ }, it, ~ ~~ R ~ f wF p 0. ~ r ~ ~ I Ilji ~~ li ~ ~~~ - r*~ '~ n. - F r ,5.~, ~NI .'C I yy -~5 ~ I r1 R 11 `A~ ~ E~ ~ ;b 5~ y~ r Kf~' ~ ~ _ F w.`,~.I- ~., e -- ' ^f I ' k t ~q ~ - ~r. 1 k N~`` ~ { ~~ .. k r x ~' ~ - - - :i. 4 ,a I v. - Yi.,, 4~ _ '~. yF : ~ fv 1 y ~a~~~ t `f _ ~ r~. r i aY-' p tr! ~~u ~ ~ - f' r~` ; . . ~ t 1~ _~ . ~ ~~. . z ~t ~ ,~y CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 ,E ~, i 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. ~ ~~~ 3.12 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 f _~ measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants 't ~ 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 ~3:~ m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.13 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. Additional hydrants ~.; shall be installed to meet this requirement, if necessary. ~ ~ 3.14 Addressing signs for the proposed development shall be provided at the driveway access located approximately 500 feet east of the North Lakes / Fairview Avenue intersection and the driveway _~,- : access located approximately 200 feet north of the North Lakes / Fairview Avenue intersection. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. ?~ ~ •' 'T S. PARKS DEPARTMENT :' 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. `~',' 6. SANITARY SERVICES 6.1 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Zoning Compliance, the applicant shall submit an approved -, ~; site plan from SSC. >I 6.2 Waste Enclosure Access: The applicant shall provide drive-on capability for 6- and 8-cubic yard ~:~-;~~ containers. Allow a minimum of 60-foot frontal clearance for such containers. ~,` `1 6.3 Waste Enclosure Locations: There is a concern that the enclosures are not located to minimise service vehicle backing-up requirements. Large waste vehicles have blind spots when backing up ~ ~;'.; is required. Ninety-eight percent of waste vehicle accidents occur when backing-up. Please contact Bill Gregory at 5SC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to the next public hearing. ',::J 6.4 Enclosure Numbers and / or Capacity: There is a concern that you have not provided enough ` enclosures to meet waste generation points and volumes that may be generated by the proposed d l Pl ~ eve opment. ease contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) to discuss this matter prior to r ~~ E,,..: issuance of the Certificates of Zoning Compliance. 6.5 Waste Enclosure Aprons: The applicant shall provide an 8 ft. concrete apron in front of all waste enclosures greater than 6 and / or 8 cubic yards. 6.6 Waste Enclosure Gate Locks: The applicant shall provide gate locks for both open and closed positions. 6.7 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner '^ "~ assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. Exhibit B ~~"- e i ,~ .,. / tt lc y ~ ' k "~ r ~`~ ~. ~ ~ ~X ~o- - ..t.~,.~,t °~,~~ 1 : ~'4v~~:d'• ~ ft ~ Its ~ ~'„ ' r ' :ry?~ s r ~ ~ : t Ai ,, '~ l~ ~l l ~ n CCyp k 3'~ q ~.:~ f ~~ t ` til .~~yG ~ru Fi ~`, ~'~ q i r ""} _: " b .r't ~ : ~~ ~ ~~ . , .h ~ - t~ y~ . ~ , - ~ y b . , ~ , `~-~ mss;. 4c tf iL i 1 ' W- ~y ~{ { 0. t ~ F a1Y'~k~:. ~ i(~(. ~ F ~: e '~ ~ ~, ~h a4 g -c' 3: ~ ~ z+ h~~. '_'' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EP ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 6.8 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit ,` '; stamped (approved) trash enclosure plans along with your Certificate of Zoning Compliance ~" '~ . applications. ~' ° - 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTWCT ` _ 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (FAIRVIEW LAKES SHOPPING CENTER) } ~ ' 7.1.1 Prior to final approval, you will need to submit plans to the ACRD Development Review :~~ ~ ~~'w Department. ~-~: '=" ~. 7.1.2 A traffic impact fee will be assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building ~;N s;~° ' permit. Contact ACRD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for infornlation regarding "~ : impact fees. '~ 7.2 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DEVON PARK SUBDIVISION) 7.2.1 The applicant shall do one of the following: ~':' `-}~' a. Dedicate, by donation, an additional 5-feet of right-of--way along Fairview Avenue, and ~; ':jl ~_~ construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Fairview Avenue, located a minimum of 53 feet from the centerline of the right-of--way; :?-. b. Do not dedicate additional right-of--way, bur construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete s ~ sidewalk along Fairview Avenue, located a minimum of 53 feet from the centerline of the right-of--way, in an easement provided to the District.; or c. Do not dedicate additional right-of-way, but construct a minimum 5-foot wide concrete _ sidewalk along Fairview Avenue, located at the back edge of the existing right-of--way. >~-_'~~ Accomplish all necessary adjustment to properly accommodate existing drainage and ~c utilities. ~- 7.2.2 Construct and install the signal and any related roadway improvements that aze necessary for the `` ~~ proposed signal at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and the commercial /industrial roadway that 'v, ~; extends north into the site. 7.2.3 Construct acommercial /industrial roadway that intersects with Fairview Avenue 310 feet east of the west property line, as proposed. r'.>~ 7.2.4 Construct the internal roadways as 40-foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete ;_ ~ sidewalk within 54 feet of right-of--way, as proposed. The portion of the commercial /industrial ~~ "~' "" roadway that connects to Teare Avenue shall taper appropriately to accommodate for drainage. '" ' ~" ~ 7.2.5 Construct a 30-foot wide driveway to intersect Fairview Avenue approximately 205 feet west of the ~ east property line, as proposed. - 7.2.6 Construct a 25-foot wide driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway approximately 54 feet north of Fairview Avenue, as proposed. ~;~ ~ 7.2.7 Construct two, 17-foot wide driveways to intersect eh commercial / industrial roadway ~, $ approximately 175 feet north of Fairview Avenue, as proposed. 7.2.8 Construct a 21-foot wide driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway approximately ~ `; ~.. 235 feet north of Fairview Avenue, as proposed. 7.2.9 Construct a 22-foot wide driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway that extends north approximately 580 feet north of Fairview Avenue, as proposed. 7.2.10 Construct a driveway with a maximum width of 35 feet to extend directly north of the commercial / Lr '~ ~~l industrial roadway and proposed to intersect the northern portion of the cul-de-sac. r ~, ~, 7.2.11 Construct a 27-foot wide driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway that runs east and ~~. r~ " Exhibit B ~' ~ ~.. i, L y ~ ~' '#. ~'~ ~ ~:Y..~r ' ` ~ 4 ;; , i ~~4a 2 ~~ y ~%~~ ~. hrkG15~'- ~A 1 y" ~ ~ ~ : 1.~ . rrY} ~ .,i' }~ yo ~ t. ~ t hi;~ ~~ t ~~y[' 77~~X~~, y,~• ~, i '..£ t ~ ~ ' { ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, r., t x~f~• ~ i . y~ t ~ . d ' xi ~t ~''x f ~ r Sh N~( ~ ~~. ~ t_ $ }~ r ~F' ~ ~ 'lid - ,t e - ,t F k `t 1' r .~l µ ' x y i } 6~^ i:J~, ,., ,~ t.tY ~'r, w..~,__~. - ` ~ _,t'. ~_ Y^ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN ,DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18 2007 i !5 ~ west and is proposed to be located approximately 50 feet east of the commercial /industrial roadway ~~ :ff ~ that extends from Fairview Avenue to the north, as proposed. ~ 7.2.12 Construct a 20-foot wide driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway that runs east - ~ ~~ .~ ' and west and is proposed to be located approximately 255 east of the commercial /industrial '~ roadway that extends from Fairview Avenue to the north, as proposed. ~ 7.2.13 Construct a 25-foot side driveway to intersect the commercial /industrial roadway that runs east -_ and west and is ro osed to be located a P P pproximately 430 feet east of the commercial /industrial s roadway that extends from Fairview Avenue to the north, as proposed. E ~ ' 7.2.14 Construct a 30-foot wide ~~. '' ' 7.2.15 Construct a 30-foot driveway located on the west side of the commercial /industrial roadway just ' '_ r ~~ north of the proposed roundabout, as proposed. t 7.2.16 Construct a 30-foot driveway located on the east side of the commercial /industrial roadway ,~ approximately 160 feet north of the proposed roundabout, as proposed. 7.2.17 Construct a 30-foot driveway located on the west side of the commercial /industrial roadway ~' approximately 160 feet north of the proposed roundabout, as proposed. ~ t ;~Y 7.2.18 Pave the driveways their 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. ~~ < ` 7.2.19 Extend Teare Avenue as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter, and 5-foot concrete sidewalk °~ within 54 feet ofright-of--way, as proposed. Y' _. 7.2.20 Terminate Clarene Street at its current location and construct bollards for emergency access only, as proposed. {~~' ~ ~~ 7.2.21 Enter into license a Bement for the ~' maintenance of the hammerh Bad turnaround on Clarene ~ ~~_ - . „~~`! Street due to the fact that the District with be unable to access the turnaround. ~ 7.2.22 Provide a permanent "hammerhead" easement to the District at the terminus of the commercial / ` ' industrial roadway and provide documentation to the District showing that this configuration has been reviewed and approved by the Meridian Fire Department. _ 7.2.23 Construct a roundabout within the commercial / indust4rial roadway approximately 530 feet north . of Fairview Avenue. Design the roundabout with a minimum of 21-foot street sections on either side of the center island. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way on either side of the island. Coordinate 1' the size and design of the roundabout with traffic services staff. r. 7.2.24 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. s ~, > 7.3 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (DEVON PARK SUBDIVISION) ` 7.3.2 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. `~ 7.3.3 All utility relation costs associates with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne b y ~ the developer. ' ' 7.3.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the ~ construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file ~, k;_ number) for details. ;,-i 4 .:. 7.3.5 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy .4 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. F Exhibit B ~~.~~ ~r ~. 4 ~ ~'` ~ r x '~ ~` ;- ;. ,, k ~ ~ ~ „ r. c ^h ~:o~.~. `G '~~~~~ `~ ? 5 1 ~ N ~U~.: y ~ -. ~1~' n ~ 1 ~ &1 ~, rf~4uc. F:~. 1 , rye.-~r*' ~ '_,y t ~ }, ~?~., ~ tit x r :=r~_?S _~ __; .. .y ~" _ a ~ 1~ 1,' 4 'iSt f `{ Y- , ~YY~ .7~ S ~' y ~~ ` rw .xs. l ~~ ~ ,.nM - ' '. sW' '1 - ' ~r ~. J11 ~ ~I ~~ ~ ~ sGA I t 4 t`fx'-, { l} ~ 'Y a t / MSiJ R 4rAY,., . d } + t ~~ _r ~A. '2r 1~ ~ .. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAI~G DATE OF JANUARY 18 2007 7.3.6 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. 7.3.7 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. 7.3.8 Payment of applicable road impact fees is required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.3.9 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 (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days 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. 7.3.10 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. 7.3.11 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. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 The applicant shall be required to submit for plan review for any of the following uses: a. Food establishments; b. Beverage establishments; and c. Grocery stores. 9. IDAHO POWER 9.1 Idaho Power may possible need to upgrade existing infrastructure in order to provide electrical services to this development. The applicant should contact the local Idaho Power Company Operations Center with a formal request for service. Exhibit B -^ ~;~~, ; ~4'-' , ,, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~EPARTMENT STAF F REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JANUARY 18, 2007 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional ~:..;>~ and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. :-;. ., - The proposed buildings and drive-through windows on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this District. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required setbacks, parking, landscaping, and other `' features required by Ordinance. The Commission should rely on Staffs analysis, and any oral or u ' written ublic testimon p y provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed uses. b. 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 Plan designation for this property is " Mixed Use Community." The proposed uses are generally harmonious with the requirements of ~, v~~'~ ~~`' ' the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. (See Sections 8, 9 and 10 above for more information ~, regarding the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standazds) r , ~ c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general }: , . vicinity and that such use will not adversel chan a th e essen ' hal chara Y g cter of the same area. ` I The Commission finds that, if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in the Staff <, ~ ~. R ort th e eneral desi co ep g gn, nstruction, operation, and maintenance of retail /rest aurant structures ;~~ and drive-through windows should be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended chazacter of the azea. d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicimty. The Commission fmds that, if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in the Staff ~'- Report, the proposed uses will not adversely affect other property in the azea. The Commission ~~ ~ should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. ''' ~ e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission fmds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation aze ~j.;; currently available to the subject property. Please refer to any comments prepared by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Pazks Department, Sanitary Services Corporation, and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, The Commission finds that the proposed uses will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. Exhibit C i `~ ~ ~;<~ T ~' < <;; ~,~ ~ .~. s ~, ~ r ,. :~~ ~ ~, r: z . ~ ~ , ,~ ,;gip- ~ ~ ~ ,w.; Y ~{'I E ~. r S .:f ~ ~~ ~, ~ r F a c "w~ Fff ':, ~~ 1 n gt J f ~ ~x ' i.ti -~ .t:; p 3 V ~ ` ~ _ 1 "~~ it.~. ~ L 1 24~1~ ~~. 1 Fyx a ~M.~,_, ~ ,' ~ .M x ~y 4M'~L ',f T~j~' i , J N~ 'F _. ra .stiff':". - v .. jk f~~'~. ~ 4.u t j 5 ,p., - ((,~ ~r I 3. 1 n { ~, { 1 d a ?~`,'~ 1 ~~ Y f± ~ ~~m ~' ~ti '_C '.F :.~; .~~, ~, ~,~ ~ ~_ z d'. ~_:~:~" ~;; E9:, . , M" x .r, ar .r~t;~ii n: - - f .Yt f V F ~ ~(.~,.F ..~ .-` ~~,rt :, j~~ ' 1 .. .`ht:a r ~, _r ~,~ . $s N~+t >~~ ;:ri ~ a~'~° ,N ~~~: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF JANUARY 18 2007 f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission fords there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. The Commission recognizes that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of a commercial development in this location; however, staff does not believe that the amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public. The Commission does not anticipate the proposed uses will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission fords that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, property or the general welfare of the area. h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed uses that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Therefore, The Commission fords that the proposed uses will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C .t ~~ ;~1 I ~~..~ y I f_ t>, J • January 29, 2007 CUP 06-040 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 APPLICANT Ada County Development Services ITEM NO. .3-C REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -Conditional Use Permit approval for an Emergency Medical Service Facility for Ada County EMS - 963 E. Pine Street 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: L~ CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: ~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: / D 47 Phone: ~ ~j~~ ~~?~ • Emailed:s ~~ ~ ~ l ® ~ ~ 0~!'-C,~1 CC~/Y1 Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~ M k P, J `., . ~' a S .' ~?~ . ~ s 2 3 ~~t~ ~ µY }.a~., , ? ; = s a -~ sus,. a~ ,, ~~x ~`>,~ 9 79 ` 3 ~ ,~~• er ~~M ~4 m: 1 .. MS~. ~ ~x~ $1 j ( ~ ci •~~ ~ ~ w ~.; . ~, r * i+~ Jr civic, y, .1, a ~ .. ~ i T ~ ~ S a. : ik~`i, ik - ~)) _ ey '7 ~Ys~~ R ~~~f t ~ S y4-,1 a ~f~ ,s, .wR' 1 a~ F'F,~ "'.~7 ,' y • _ ~~~ j~~ 2 ~ ~dd~ ,, -p ~ p ~~ ~.ilt~ ®'~ 1v1i~I'1dl c`'LT11 a ~ ~ t$~ ~'lt;y Cle~°~ C~cc ~" e:t~ r~~ ~~r~ a CITY OF MERIDIAN ~°~~ 2 ,~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ,, ~,,~~, ~~ ,; ~P~t ~; LAW AND '~' DECISION & ORDER ~'-~~ ', In the Matter of a Conditional Use Permit Request for an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) facility in an I-L zone, by Ada County Development Services. Case No(s). CUP-06-040 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: January 18, 2007 (Findings Approved on February 1, 2007) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007 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-06-040 ;, ~{.:: ~~' S. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not s ; impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. ,;~ 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon ~' the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected ~~ party requesting notice. s ; ~ 7. That this approval is subject to the CUP Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, and the ` ~ Conditions of Approval, all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and z'.~. the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. r'r' 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: F ~ ~'~, 1. The applicant's CUP Site Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Site Plan dated 11/10/06 is hereby conditionally approved; and, ,: ~~ 2. No modifications to the site specific conditions were made at the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing; and 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 18, 2007, 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 i ~:. ' `~ 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 r'.ir, ~, 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 <'`~ e' ~ event that the develo went is made in successive Conti ., .fir,, p guous 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 4 `` 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-06-040 ~, g~ c ~(~'~Pk € I.it'~. . ht ~i 7 { ': iS~ r rF'. J ~ ~ ~.~~z a ~_ r ~ ~~~;. ~ ~ ;. ~ t '~. ~ -~~ 7 . e r .,~ ~ ..y ,;ysz., 'jy, ~ ~ ~~ ~ F, ~ -x b~'fy4¢c t ~ i~~~ ~ 1 t ~ G~~`. i; ` ~ 9 t pry' 1'~I t t - ;4 ~~. ~ ~ 4 ~~ . ~ ~ r L i:~ ~ t d ~:' :. • _ . ~: 1 ~~, , ~ T-. ~ n ±:~. Y t a {.2F, E ,s r ,r3 r~Y'~ ~ e 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 January 18, 2007. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-040 *: f. ,,~~, . , ,: ~~ ~.5, ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ,. day of 2007. - COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED (Chair) ~- .,, ` ` :} COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED Z GL ~ y ~ r .5, COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED Cv ~ :=~s~, COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP VOTED ~ - :F. Y7L}~' ~' # °°~ COMMISSIONER STEVE SIDDOWAY V TED ,~} ~J ~~Piw~ ;`' t;;, t: ~ ~ 3: ~' CHA N MICHAEL ROHM r ~ -~~: Attest: ~,,,,,,,, ~ ~ ~,,,,o ~ a ~~ P - ® ~ ~~~ry~ ~n~i ~3 ~ ~~ / ~ _ ~: ~_x_~c_.~~ Tara Green, Deputy Ciy Cl k ~ ~~ = - 1r ~~_ .y~~; ~ ' ~ ,,. ~~ .r ' Xe. ~~'~' Copy served upon Applio~ ' ~a tment, public Works Department and City / ~~ 0° ~ . ~' ~j ' X0 Attorney. '~/////f 11 191 B 0, s~~e~~\\ Y ~ 3~`: k ~ ' }a~,, ~ Y~ l ~ ~ Dated: ~ Z C~ 5 ~~ ''> ~ ~x City Clerk ~.,_~ t~: f n ~~ 't4~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER _,,<,',< ,.`l, ~~; CASE NO(S). CUP-06-040 r,fir. _ ~,e:~ < ~- 4dks, . %.; ± • -;{ f January 29, 2007 PP 06-064 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 ~}~ APPLICANT BSC, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 3 common y :, lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision -north of Ustick Road - and east of Ten Mile Road z ``' AGENCY COMMENTS :,~ ~; ~.~~"~ CITY CLERK: ~. ```'. CITY ENGINEER: ~,. :~ ,Fi 'F '~ , :~ K. ', 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 Memo for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Matertals presented at public meetings shalt become property of the clay of Meddlan. ,t ~ :r 3~ :~.'y. F C' til . J . ' - ~. . ~ *~ ~ ~ r Y ! .p:s k~ n 4 S }:5 v `M: k ~ :~ .. ~ _ r ' t~ . l ,tip _ ~ ,y - .~. ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~` I' ti ,'iRy k F t +*' F y ~~_: ~ r , ~ :^ ~ ~~ t7 Y r _ JJWF b , 5 ' -. y4 y r~'' ;.' >rr? ~~~ '.t ~ . `~'~'': x x7`;- e;,' f . ~' '~~a ~, x° ~. a~ } ° .,~ ,, ax ~' _ ~ 1 ~'tii>~' 1 ~ 4;x-_ > . ,`r, ~,: • "~'~ January 29, 2007 CUP 06-041 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING February 1,2007 APPLICANT St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Stare ITEM NO. S ;; -° ~~_ REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit fior a 3,000 sq ff storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building - 213 N. Main Street T ,.,~~~. .F, AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ,:~ ~`: ,~ a :..: ,, '.~ ;, ;' ~~ ,. ~. CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo for Continuance 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meefings shall become properly of the Ctfy of Meddlan ~; 1 I %~ f ~~.W µf~ i r j~ ~3 a ~~)ti ~ { - i ~$ Y f A~ ~( * ~itrb'Y~•'~. `rfi: ~ ~ i fly.. a 'Y ~ {{ Y-. ~t * ,f~~ .~ 1 r X;,~~~.. ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ' d~ >-!iti9t~ _ f~l .}ij.Yi. f tin J l _~~ - 9 Y .~?~~ // ~ ~ f .~" Y' F L .7; ~ T ~~} F 75i '~'~ r ~ ~}~f .f ..W .,hS~rn".- .ry~. 1 r ~Hii,~ y ~ t 9 h y'i °+ +~ µ: f~ Y F { i ru a ivy , ,.._ X ~.,~S;C~" ~.- -: ;i ,.. January 29, 2007 AZ 06-0b3 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 APPLICANT Waltman, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1 /18-Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property - 505, 521, 615 8~ 675 Waltman Lane 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: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report No Comment WTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ` OTHER: See Affidcyvi# of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: "~` Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. Ir I a~~~' kx~ ~ E[ ' ,Jt 'J} H Mi+ ~j ^1i~. ~ z~~ ~ - I ~~ t . 4, ..e -; . . J e~>:.~. 7 ny~„ r ~ h 7~fi tF `~ ~t r ~ ~'h r :~ 1 rer~G~'..~:s ~~ds~¢ fTi~j{, - , I 4i>~` A ~ t ~Y ~ N L. J. , b ~ .x: S ~~rt ' ~ y° w " '- ~ ~~t-.- ~~~N~' ~ YtiA ~. i! 4 ~ti; ~ ~ f;, ~t ~_i Wy r' i {~ ^~ ~~. ;~ , '~ val., ii a t a•: • ~~; •M1. ~. .J `s ` .:u:~~ January 29, 2007 AZ 06-062 MERIDIAN PLANNING S~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 APPLICANT Kendall Hoyd ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation -east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue 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 See Attached Comments No Comment No Comment OTHER: See AffRdavit of Sign Posting /Attached Map /Attached Memo Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ,., a .~ i ~ .~4~~~':. bb ~ .F i 1 ~ ~a1. } ~ ~ A . ~~? Yr °r..~ Fs ~ ~ :~. ~r ~~.', -~tiw. V t.~ ~} l v{y' Vii; €~"~ . ~ t , sy~fZ'!:~ l 1 ' " 4_'~.. ~ 7 s F l "~~ .{ ~S "".)r.. ~ Y ~ 3 r i m k c ` w a~r~ e ='. 3 ~w'r ~t vm „;1. . ~ ~, , ,3;. ~. t ~ ~ ~ ~~. i ::, y ~,, f T. ~ r -a r ~-- xrp. Y en,~~'. F .a ti ~~ 1~x < ° .~ ri-_ ~v i -~ t ti~'Lxs. =k~ A ,~.Vni ~:.~ •~ r 4G3`c~ , jam-, ~ ct .~: • ~' January 29, 2007 AZ 06-057 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1,2007 ~~ APPLICANT Heron River Development, LLC ITEM NO. -r `r REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/7/06 -Annexation 8~ Zoning of 9.91 acres >= from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision - 6055 8~ 6185 N. Jericho Road ;;~> ;'„=~ ~i ,.~`~I :. AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See. Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Revised Legal Descriptions /See ITD Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r t `t'j ' 4 ; ~.; ~, "t ~ `ti~i`hY. ~.. t^ 3. ~ ~~~ a N.~ F i i aq ~~: "' _ - f ~1 kl ~~J,'~:~' •~ } ~k w '~? LS,pyift, ~ `~r { -l. C lja ,fit 1 ~ ~ if _ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ \,,j }~_}L _, )) 1y 3 ~Y h x I l Aa, M1 1•~ti ~~~ "` - ~ X~ ~~ 4 .~ ~~i~4 ~> y y 7 .k. ~ S ~ x_ ' rr r U,j'.. r ? ~ rx ; c ~+.hx- , ~ ~ ti ~~ Y~ye~''rrt'* 4 y ~ ~ ~` ~lK ~ #~ s~ ~ ~ .*ki, y4.t ~„ . 4 ~ 'Vi'i: r , 1 lM ,~.Sai "r M1~ t i ~i ~~~ r~ ~~: ~~ "`'° ~ January 29, 2007 PP 06-056 ''; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 ;~ APPLICANT Heron River ©evelopment, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/7/06- Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units ~; -~ ~ 8~ 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision - 6055 $~ 6185 N. Jericho Road =ti ~ AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ,~ CITY ATTORNEY ~~, CITY POLICE DEPT: ;,;; CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ?s ~# CITY WATER DEPT: ~` "` " ;~ , .; CITY SEWER DEPT: t '`'1 ,: <~~ CITY PARKS DEPT: ' ` ~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: =~a . ~ SANITARY SERVICES: , ~ ~< ~~ ~ ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: : r_ ;" 3_ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~`-: ~'~ IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat®~rals present®d at public meethgs shah become property of the City of Meddtan. ;~; ~~x ~, cty ~~ ~;,~~ ~5: [ , i ~. ~~' ~ y ice;,., ~. ex 5 tf { <' ~ ' r 5 ~ ta. ``` ~` f . ~ .1 f 2 , 1 - ~ 7~ M1y r~ - ~ ~1 `~ ~~ - i ~ ~q 71 r; t a`p. 4 ~~y S, t1 ~ ~ •. [ F ~ ' ~ i a`-s`"' 3 5«It~s,.- yy~~ ~.'~. ~~ 7 x K. ~~~ ~~ ;~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~s F k:~ r ' ~~, <. , "' ;i,h ~ ' r FF i~ zF t,~r h.i~: -- ~~~ ' .. y J4 I',~i c ':r , ~ - } r{, ~',~ U;~.. ~ i y ~ F. ~~ ~f f:~~ • • January 29, 2007 PP 06-058 r. ~'~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 _ APPLICANT Treehaven, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/21/06 -Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, ;y 1 commercial lot 8~ 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 & C-N zones for Jayker i~- Subdivision -north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes "' CITY ENGINEER: ~~,'~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report .,_ CITY ATTORNEY ~; CITY POLICE DEPT: .., t: CITY FIRE DEPT: a' CITY BUILDING DEPT: €c ~. ~ ' `=~~~ CITY WATER DEPT: `~ " CITY SEWER DEPT: x CITY PARKS DEPT: -~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~~7 SANITARY SERVICES: ~ r: ;, ~. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~- ~'' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: r ~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~` :- " IDAHO POWER: . INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: r`" ~ OTHER: See At~davit of Si gn Positng . Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: d:: Materials presented of pubic meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meddlan. i ~.. ~::R ' ~' ~~: _ N *..,R Z4~ e : r k ` _T~. a ~i ' 7Fr ~a N e ' ~?l+r . "~,. f ~ ~4~tr A ~J ~ ~~ ~r n~ #~~ -. c' ''~ ~rj~' r _ _'zf. ' t~ ~~ `'' ~ , k y efi -~. { :'.~ ~r ~ 'Sk.;.' ~; , ~ L a F ,~ ~ ~el vi: :,~:.- ~L -J4" ~~ j„ ~ - r " ~~ ~~ ~~ '~~' J ~ '~ ~ {ir3'c. ~iro i *k;;. a~ n ~~~~' . ~~ , ~ ~ ~ Y G r-C 3 . ~+ ~r ~~:2~.. A ~;. ,* :, ~a i ~. '';~ :,, , ,~ January 29, 2007 AZ 06-064 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 APPLICANT R1VtR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 1 REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision - 4145 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~-- ~.~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sig n Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. r. ~ ~~~~ .1 i ~ A ' " .. ~~i 1J~ 3 rFr ~ ~ yl`. S. '~jn,~ ~1 7 ~~~, 'x.4~ ~'~ ,~ r,, ~` u "u ~ { _ n~ ' ~ ,~,~~ z~ rF ~ ~~'T .~ r , ~ r n :a.fiN;~ ~~.~~~~ t ~,.[° ~ 4 ~~~; ~~ h e, ~ 1l.. r'[ Y ~ ~`~: ~ 4`*Y f~~. ~ N ~'T~i~~k,' 4 ~~': ~.~ :l t t :~~: ~ J h T~ :. ~' ': r . ~ ~L, ~~~ .r'~ ~ ~~ . . . ~ ~_ `_=r ~~ January 29, 2007 AZ 06-065 j~. ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 z{ ' APPLICANT RMR Consulting, InC. ITEM NO. ~ 2 -., REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat opproval of 110 residential lots and 7 common =~ ~ lots on 27.05 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision - 4145 South Locust Grove Road AGENCY ,~ -` ~ ;;; :~k~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See AZ Packet COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emaifed: Staff Initials: Materials. presented at pubpc meetings shall became properly of the City of Meridian. ~; - ~~~: ~ ~ ~ ,.~ aA ~~ s ;~ r 4 'ci2fi ,, ~ ~ T 4 jj yT y •: . . , :k `i~T~:.f'q. YV ~ 7.t ,P~~~*. ~~ i; ~ Vw ~1 ~S wi t r ~ ~ ts.1 ~y~ t. Y f -_• Yl ~ v1 M ~'dhYe .. M~ ~ s sr~. ^'~~,. .K ~ L{ + ~; ~ ~ _ ~,~ a~ . ~ c t, f[r ~ zts. ~ 4 4 ~ ~ p . 1 t F~[. ~\ ~y(~ ~ -n''. , ; ~ ; }~ , ' A i ~ ~ 4~~ ~~ ~ ~"t , F... } , rctr ~ ~r~r r} • .:x Janu®ry 29, 2007 AZ 06-065 4~y ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING February 1, 2007 _~, APPLICANT Ahlquist Development, LLC ITEM NO. ~.3 `;;>~; REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation -SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~ti. }~` ,,;: CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo for Continuance CITY ATTORNEY ~~ -~'~ CITY POLICE DEPT: '' ' ~_.; - CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: "' `" ~=~'! ' CITY WATER DEPT: ~~ ~~'~ CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment " CITY PARKS DEPT: i `" i MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~~ - ' CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: No Comment ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment ~~~ ' SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: r IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~F`4 OTHER: See Attached Revised Legal ®escription /Comments from ITD Contacted: Ddte: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Mat®rtals presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. i i = ~ ~; ~ i Sr r ,,~ x ~J.{ ~ 1 v~ , .~L.~r~ A S~ ~~ r r ~ ~~ s € ' ,~ ~ ~ ~ 5~ ' y, °, ;;,a.;,,~ n^'~ v. i ~' Va ,~' is ~ ~-. s:-° '~+~ ~ Q,k'~ba ~f~i ~ ~.ti. ~~ i~?'~C ~ }Y f , }~~ 4 ~~~„ fE~' ~+ kin ~ r':. ,; r ~~~~,T . -r t tb rV~G,:`;,t; c>1; ~ f ~ ,x ~,. ~s ~~ ~~~ ` z f:3s ~~` ~}~ ~_ r a t "^ z v .., ~ t7 ~• ' _ ~ t ~ .a~ . ~ ~.'~ ~A K w~,:r y~ yi ;yRiih~S~- T} f'i't ~~'~~ r if C k ~~. 1 ~,' i{F~ '.~ x.r,~~'.