The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 03-01ySS1% ~k°. ~. ' ., ;. i l !" } , crrr of .. ~r~z ~_ ,ra.~rot~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 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: _X Keith Borup X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe _X Steve Siddoway O Michael Rohm -chairman (arrived at 7:20) '~`_~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended -~.~1 3. Consent Agenda: ~~~~' A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square ` 'Y 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: Approve 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 of. an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 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. ~ ~ a .. _ $, qtr r .~ g ~~ ~ ~~ - ~ a ,x~~ i~~~ ~~~ ~r~3~~~a~ r.~,~~~i~ ,~,~ , w , g+s _ ~~ a.1 ~, ~ _ . ~''~',~~~ r it ~'.' }~~~~ . t n:. _ z, v ~ a ~. i .t'.}!~ s t t ^~ ik c~k~'~ ~~ a` ~~trl'-, ~ +~' 'Cv -i,5s V~ s:, fi'x' {''.~tA ~~~".rtx '~~. ~ ~~~ i ~ ~~' ~~~;1 ~r ~~; f r ~ try tip, ~ -r ~ ~ `,h~ id~4!~~k ~~po 4 ~Gt~~r t ~ ~~~ s ,~ v ~ ~ `~ ~ r~i~~-~ i• f~ a f t•~~. ) ~~_ _ .i d P - a ~ , t ~ I Lc~ ~. ~~.~,, ~ N ~ '~ ~r ~~ ~ ~~~i , ~ &~arr ~ ~ i•. w • ~~ '`~~ LLC -north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ~~ 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: AZ 07-001 - Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 3, 2007 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common /other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. { Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to May 3, 2007 ~: 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots (proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau - 1105 W. Pine Street: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit ~': approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 64 multi- family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau - 1105 W. Pine Street: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, 2007 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request ~_. for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West ~,~!1 Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval Ys ~~ to City Council ,~ ;!F!{ `` ~ 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request ;, '=' for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin P~: road and 280 South. Black Cat Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 207: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren =~~ Blaser -North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, 1~ Block 1 of Mallane S~Ibdivision: Continue Public Hearing to March 15, ~~~ 2007 a` Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 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. •;s ~ ,,. +~y~w~a`~4~~L Ka '~~~;4J~ '47~' ~~~ ~ t ~'~Mi ~~ ~ f S~n G+f 1 ~ ~~ ~~ w:h { ~kyl~. d. 6r, 'sib t K'a' ~ ,!^ 4 .~,"{ ~~ ~. [.d ~~T 11 ry`~5jfq 'tin iyan. H r 3 `j` ~ }w'~ ~ r ~ .~,~",~~$w ~d F! ~ - ,C N+~. c~ - 5aa !L~i g,, e "4 t t}~4 '€r~+ r '~ f i ~f;~~ ~a~dk ~ i4s ~t 1 I~ r ~ Lam, rrrg3~ ~~ 2 JY~ 4'^ll t ~: ~ , 0 ,rl ~ i ~' i^. ': -. ~6~f1' M l~ l q~~^ H I .ryy¢q k-~~~,~~~y ' ` i5`{ ~t rp• a T"~.3f~ ~H' ,5e7~'~5 '1~ t'~q hF - ;l'~~,' z: n } ~_y,~' «,; .: ;• >~,;~ 7. .~_~ ,~. ~.I~°- -F x :. _ ::a` Y ~~ ~ ~., ,~ ;Y, ,H~s ~~ .,'a, e M F.y .. *~~ _ ri _ k - 1 CITY OF ~f ~R~~'~ ~ I~ C~~~ri~i~-n ~ ~ ~~~, 1DAH0 /~ F ~~ c~R ~. vim'` • MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA r'~~~ ,g~ City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 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 Steve Siddoway ~ I Michael Rohm -chairman ~G~l--^r I/`PO~~ 7.d~~ 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~-ppra~e ~}S ~-n'le~ec~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 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: ~!° ~, D ~,~ 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N Meridian Road & north of E. Fairvi ~ SAve~ ~ ~~~ in ~ ~ ~na,~-c~ 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: ©r~! n t.~-e I~t~V c ~ h'lcc..~+C~, 1 S, ~-~7 6. ontinued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC -north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: ~~G Cpr~ fnen~ ~i~~va,~ -~ ~'~y ~rier;Q Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 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. s • 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common /other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Blacl~Cat Road: p~ ~~ c ~ JI~R./," ~ i~~ 3 a~~~ GOB-~~h~.~. 7' 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-004 Request for Pre iminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots (proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Ba//b~~neau -1105 W. Pine Street: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 64 multi- family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau -1105 W. Pine Street: 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West F nklin Road and 280 So th Black Cat Road: ~G ~ p vl~ m e.n c~ ~vpro/a.P ~ ~ ~~ ~~4',Q 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin ro and 280 South Black Cat Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 207: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser -North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mnnallane Subdivision: C~iv~ ~ ~. ~ul~ Gdc `o ~ ~L~~~~ G S spa 7Z J Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 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. .r-~ Broadcast Report '- ,~ Date/Tlme 03-01-2007 10:41:29 p.m. Transmit HeaderText City of Merldlan Idaho ~=: _:~ Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below} - '' Document size : 8.5 "x11 " ~;~" a ('1~.~~,~~''~'"' °1F _ MERIpIAN Pi.ANNiNO AND ZONING - \/YIG~GIt~'~ ~ 1tEGUlAR MEETING rn,~ao AGENDA ~';' i+i `" v'' ' ~ City Council Chamlaers ~ 33 East Idaho Avenues Merldlan. tdalro `:' ~". Thursday. March 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ~, ~ Although the ctry of Merldlan no longer risqub'ea sworn teatlmony, :' all presentaHais before the Maya and Chy Gaundl are expected ' "' to !~ buthful acrd honest to best of she ablUty of the presenter: ° *` ' 1. Roll-tail Attendance: "~~ _= Kefit}t Borup Wendy Newdan-Huakabay ~ ~` David Moe Steve Siddoway `, ;Tj ~ Mlchaefi Rohm - chalmtan ~gt'rY Vra~~ 7•aa~ C^':. ~~, ~ 2. Adaptlwt of the Agenda: f1-ppro/e AS ,L~rner~ F '~.:;~ F ~-; -,~. r -`: 'i .,. 1 --`I ;r;'J`': 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Concluelorrs of I.aw for Approval: CUP 06.041 Requ+~t for a Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square foot storage butWing on .88 acres in Ehe C1-T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage t3uilding by St. Vincent de Pau! Thrift Store - 213 N. Matn Street: ~p v0~ 4. Public Hearin®: AZ 07.002 Request for Annexaifon and Zoning of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to G-Q zone .far the properly located at 1870 N. Merldlan Road for Harts Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: ~/tsl-{r}t,e.~ -'~f"p lrytQ.s~°~+ 15, ~? S, Publte Hearing: RZ OT-008 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 19@0 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Strop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road $ north of E. Fairolew Avenue: ~vvvH n t.~.e p~t~c --~ l ~-'la.~ti:J%r 1S, ~~7 6. on8nued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 08.084 Request for Plieliminary Flat approval for 18 building lots and 4 common tots on 4.0118 acres within the R-4 zone far Cold Creek Subdivl>alon by BSC, LLC - norfh of Ustlclt Road and east Ten Mile Road: lAeri~ Plenri~ng and zordrfg Ccmmtedoi, Mec~tirrg agaves - nAarci, f . 2QD7 Pegg , of 2 Atl m0t8ria19 prod at pi>l~ ma~oge aheA become pia-~ty of ilia City of Merldlan. Arryinre desUing aacwruncdatbn torUldes raid W daaimem8 arsdfor hembtg. please cork! die City Clerk's Qflioe at 888.4A33 eY least 4g hcure prior to tine puoflc mestlrig. Tnfal Pnnac Srannad ~ 7 Tetal Paaeg Confirmed : 39 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Una Mode Job Type Results 007 857 8886854 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:34 212 1 EC H5 CP28800 002 857 3810160 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 G3 HS FA 003 857 8989559 10:04:07 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP29600 004 857 8848723 90:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:06 212 1 EC HS CP14400 005 857 8985501 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:05 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 006 857 8467366 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:35 212 9 EC HS CP28800 007 857 8950390 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP31200 ~ 'E y~ r ~V 7f ihk F:~ {~'u~ '~ y , ~~ L~~y ~n~t ¢y S ,iv 4 .r r.. 1, t i ~,g` i ~ y:,y ~~ r+, 4 l ivy ~ f. ~ U r s'l ,y~~ '. a3 etr+ s~~;1y~ ~. i ~ x,' ~z~ of dt ^[~ ~„~ 4~ y,+ '!~~ ~+~ v.~P ~ ~~~ ' ~~: , . .. 2 rfat a4 ~ ~ ~ ~~'~; qua ~ °~~i~~t3 ~~ ~+6x~'rt. ~'~ _ "'~ ~`~a`~' ~' k it ~'y~ its >t C~t#'k'a TS; ~ 3 >_.r, ~+ , ~ s ~ ~~ r ~, ?. ~~ ~~~ K f~~ 6yr rr _, 7 ~ 'e 1 l 1 I (~ F h ~ S J '~i+4 E~i-.~ C Q G4ii f t ~~~~~t f~r-T ~ ~. .. ... , s - i_ . >=; Date/Time Local ID 1 LocaIID 2 Broadcast Report _ 03-01-2007 10:41:36 p.m. Transmit HeaderText City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Llne 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 008 857 2088882682 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP31200 009 857 2083876393 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:05 212 1 EC HS CP14400 010 857 2877909 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:06 212 1 EC HS CP14400 011 857 2088885052 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP31200 012 857 8886573 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:02:49 212 1 EC HS CP9600 013 857 8881983 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:38 2!2 1 EC HS CP24000 014 857 2083776449 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:06 212 1 EC HS CP14400 015 857 4679562 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP26400 016 857 2088886701 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:32 212 1 EC HS CP31200 017 857 8884022 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:02:04 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 018 857 3886924 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:41 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 019 857 8841159 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:33 212 1 EC HS CP31200 020 857 2088840744 10:04:01 p.m.03-01-2007 00:01:50 312 1 EC HS CP14400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send "~ .'> ~F`~ 11 p L ~: V~ ~_. +; . t r" PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 MS: Mallboxsave FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct ~ ,Rt t v t~' f 7~ ~~ r ra w .. Cq Fi ~ .. v w , 'i ~~G~~I k_' +9S` ~`~,fGS6'r , ~~i~t ~~ tC r ~~'S ~ ~~ ~~` 'x. y hZ s Y ~ 11 ~ yam, f ~4 ~~~ ~' , ~f .dh ~ ~ . ~ ~.'~ H ~ CSC 3. y ~.~iy~ J41k hT 4A~ ~~ ~7 .~ a x~ . R ~ i Yxj i L fi f'~ } ~{r"F ¢y«v ~ ~j ~ y _ i~ ~ t ry- v ~ ,~'~ r ,~ i , 4. ~t ~L r~ 2~~4~~' 1k~}~, V' ,y,j a f' '~'y~ ~~M~if ~~a'a !2 8®® } *~ ~ F ~~$f SF ~ ~, 3~A ~:f_: ;a...~c ~ y: -th~y~ a~~gq''r~ ~1F, ~ ,3~,.. Y Sys ~ ~' k > ~4~j~ ~ Y t1 ~rY~k C ~Sqt ~~~ Transmission Report Date/Tlme 03-01-2007 10:04:09 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Confirmed (reduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5 "x11 " CITY OF MERIDI~-N PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET aATE March 1, 2007 ITEM # ~, ~ PROJECT NUMBER AZ 07.002, RZ 07.003 PROJECT NAME Hartz Music Shop NAME PLEASE PRIN FOR AGAINST AtEUTRA4 Total Pages Scanned : 6 Total Pages Confirmed : 6 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 001 856 8886854 10:02:56 p.m.03-01-2007 00:00:37 6/6 1 EC HS CP28800 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correll ;.&~;: ~s. ~I~~, I~os-F ~vr~fut~I.Ic ~-h~G~- ~Ylx ,~ d ~~ CITY OF ~I T~ ^^~JI ~~ IDAHO ~~~ Fcs huh ~ TRSnsuae V n>~y smc~ tOD3 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. r~~; "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected fo 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 Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: _~;"~ A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square =r ::` 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: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 .~ of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. #'~4. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road 8~ north of E. Fairview Avenue: ~~ 5. Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for '~''' Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road _ .. & north of E. Fairview Avenue: ''`~` 6. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on '`'` 4.0116 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 - March 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. . Yryy_. y MR` b'ti iQ'~(:T ~. A' l-y ~ ~a~~ + ~'~b r ~~ r rl ~ r:. j ~~k lt; ~~ .~ '~k~~ 1's~ ~ o-uif~at T I~ ..~ ~~YF~~t 2._1~~.141~ _ ~ a'~ .~ ~ '1 ..was` t ~ * `u~ 'Y.. ~h~ lfi+~liL~ .71Y'.~ l'31*I~~~;R ~.~' ~~ z 'lS'P,~, I `rv~"yk t ~`~ ~ ~ ~"'-~!. ~~a j~ _ r ~~~~F~~ ~}~~~ ~i~ ~ :Ej~ ,~'' ~k~t7~@jr' ~C *fa ~~~, ~ .~ Ise :i~',t. - ~~ti;w~h~~ i }yRyl ~,~~!1)!E ~'.Y?~v X~~Ly?y[~ ~r Ff ~~ ~~ ~ Y ~~{MKS~,`_ _ J ~ of 13''. ~'' , $ z ~ ,~'~ tl,~0~; H ~ st..'c-. fc5' r 9S1 ~£, ~ i. 'Ci' /1 r'h~1S9_ ~~i ~ ~, i~~ S ~ Y ~ , ~` < 7- ~ w~' t . r.N :~.~. . ~, ~7 ,f:,_ i k ~~f ~1 r~ } ~_~-.:k ,. `~_~: ~: ~: ~ ~' `'. E~ t ~' ~' 'r:,: .~ f~~ ~,~~ ~~; `'YJ rF~=; a 7. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: 8. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common /other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: 9. Public Hearing: PP 07-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots (proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau -1105 W. Pine Street: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 64 multi- family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau -1105 W. Pine Street: 11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 207: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser -North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - March 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. ~_ { '' ~3~~~' Date/Time ~' "~ _ Local ID 1 _~ ,-; LocaIID 2 Broadcast Report 04:50:14 p.m. Transmit Header Text Clty of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 02-26-2007 2088884298 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " ~~.~ }~p5 f .~or ~'ubLiC J~'D-fi'C,e - ~1'!~ ~' ~ MERIDUW PLANNING AND ZONING ~'j(~Z$~ •~ ~'~ REGULAR MEE7YNG ianwo AG1eNDA City Cotmcii Chambers 33 East Weho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 7:00 p.rtt. °AlUtaugh the CJtyot'R9erldian no hngsrrequUss sworn taetlmony, a!t presentations bet'ore the Mayor and City Courocd are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. ° t. Roil-caU Attendance: Ketch Btsrup Wendy Newton-Huckabay Davtd Moe Steve Stdt9away Mict~et Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of fire Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request far a Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square foot tttorage building on .88 acres in the O•T zone far St VlnceM d® Paul Stot~e Building by St. Vincent de Patti Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Stmt: 4. Public Hearing: AZ 07.002 Request for Annexation and tonhtg of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property iocated at 1970 N. Merfdfan Road for Hartz Musk Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road 8 north of E. Fairview Avenue: 5. Fublic Heating: RZ 07.003 Request far a Remne of 0.38 ap an acre from L-0 to C-G zone for the property lacated at 1990 N. Mardian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: e. Corrtinued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 08-084 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building cats and 4 common bts on 4.0118 acres within the R-4 zane for Ccid Cn3ek Subdtvlslon by BSC, LLC - north of lJstit~t Road and east Ten Mite Road: nterauan Piero artd Zoning taomm l9 Agenda - Mamh 4,2087 Page 1 or 2 AO snet presen0~ at pub@o ahaB t>Baoma pry or O,e City or tu6ahdlan. anyo+te ao~nraouailan rar dr~lea reed to dxummti~ andta hearing, please aonaat the t~R's CBtlce ~ 888.4433 at least 48 ho~a8 patorto the pt~1o nree8rtg. ~ Tn+nl Donne Gnnnur4 7 Tn4al Panac Cnnfirmprl ~ 3h No. lob Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 836 3810160 04:20:40 p.m. 02-26-2007 00:16:46 Ott 1 G3 HS FA 002 836 8989557 04:20:40 p.m.02-26-2007 00:00:36 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 836 8848723 04:20:40 p.m. 02-26-2007 00:00:59 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 836 8886854 04:20:40 p.m. 02-26-2007 00:00:29 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 836 8985501 04:20:40 p.m.02-26-2007 00:00:59 212 1 EC HS CP14400 006 836 8467366 04:20:40 p.m.02-26-2007 00:00:30 2i2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 836 8950390 04:20:40 p.m.02-26-2007 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP33600 ,: , ~; ' ~. ~ 1Lb~ I: y. . 'E: 'T~ 1 ~~ ~~c1..:... - .•, lid; ~{~i 'r.~ r N' ~ i .. 1 -1... f ':'. ~t~~ ! f'y~y ~~ ~ ~: ~; IkT_ ~~~~~ i .~~, Ij~ .~i -.i , I , i . ~'~~~ ~'. F .:ii~ ~ i.'.:f~ 1:1~~*~~ ii1G ~ ARV ~~4 ',',1 ~J,, :: ~.I, ~;~~ ~~!4 Fi.4~j',.:. I:`~~r: ~~:'. ti •'~ ~[li~ {~ N~'~.i.. ~1 Fi_ ~~ ~~4: {o o,r~ 1~~~ i..j5 .~ ~ .. ~, 5 3 ~ S ~ ' ~~~ C ~ ~ us: I • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 1, 2007 ` ` Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1, 2007, was called ;.,, _ to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Moe. Members Present: Keith Borup, Steve Siddoway, David Moe, and Wendy Newton- Huckabay. y a°~:' Member Absent: Michael Rohm .,'~ Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Wafters, Amanda Hess, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ~fi X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway ~'~ 0 Michael Rohm -Chairman (arrived late) Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 1st, 2007. First ~_ item on the agenda, let's go ahead and call roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: x,„;~. Moe: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. This evening we have quite a few hearings that will be continued tonight. Basically, I want to go through for the audience right now and let you know that we have not made decisions as to ~ when that -- what date they will be continued to, but the hearings that will be continued `' =`~'~ this evening will be Item No. 5, which is Hart's Music Shop. Four and five. Excuse me. ~:>~ Which is Hart's Music Shop, which is AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. Then, Items 7 and 8, which is Belhaven Subdivision, which is AZ 07-001 and PP 07-001, will also be =~ continued. Next item would be Items No. 9 and 10, which will be Doubletree Subdivision, PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002. And, then, finally number -- Item No. 13, which is Jamaica Me Tan, CUP 07-001, will also be continued tonight. What that leaves us, then, folks, to hear this evening will be the continued Public Hearing on Cold Springs Subdivision, which is PP 06-064 and the continued public hearings for Baraya =~ Subdivision, which is AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062. So, at this time I would like a motion SFr to adopt the agenda to reflect that all items discussed will be moved to the end of the ~ agenda tonight and the first hearing we will hear would be Cold Springs Subdivision. r s'>> ~, And, then, beyond that would be the Baraya project. ': ' :k~ ;y , Borup: So moved. ~: ~"' Siddoway: Second. i :~ ~tix a `` , ~; ~ ~.i~~-, ~'-kY' t 4 e r=. Iti~xt ~ fr ~uP ^ ~,' ~, ~" n ~, '~ ti .~q -r ~ 5 ~ a~ ~ i 4 '~5 y .r ~~'S, ~, r ~ w a.~w r iG `~yyrd°y'u ~ ^~ g ~~~' g r=. a r ~¢ ~~ ~,~ ~:~:~, ; . ,~ ~, ~a~~; ' f{ ~, x fi 7 _~'i ~ ¢ T tip`' a F l f ~~,-~+Si~ ~ ~~i~S ~ +,~'~-'~ ~~~ r ~e ~ ~ ~i r ':~,y~ v f~~~7~ ~5 iE ~ :~ rt rt- ~~~ &~ ~. z ?'~ ~:~ ~ r~°'t~e `~^r~ ~~ '. ,~ .~ r y,~I sir r~`!~q ~ ,~' ~~ r~ .~ :: ~. ~,. 31 ~~}, p.~ ~au"~ty~~c ~ ~. Z 4 7 ~~~ ~ ` y_ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Kk ~ i 4 ?~^ ~ i; ~q'~~ ~ t ~r ~ ~ ~ ~t~lN ~ 1~ ~u~. c+~r lFC K`~ 1'EF ~: ~' ~ L ~ `7 -,'s .. b J ,( ~~xArri'~~ fyy. ~j J'~ p)7~L.iyk ! S ~~ff S. i. ., ,~ ._ .. F .- .At. r~~. liS... k~ e 'k`' Meridian Planning & Zoning '` ~ March 1, 2007 Page 2 of 37 Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed ~~'`''~ same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,':~ Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit fora 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: Moe: Next item on the agenda, then, would be the consent agenda and the item on the Consent Agenda would be the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-041 for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building. Any discussion on that or a motion? If not may, I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as noted? Siddoway: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-041. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. u"`''"'' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ,~ Moe: Next item, then, would be the hearing for Cold Creek Subdivision. But before we start the staff report on that, I just want to kind of go over -- if you folks have not been in the Planning and Zoning meetings before, we will have the staff report and they will give _ the explanation of the project and whatnot. After, which, then, the applicant will have '~""'";:^ ten minutes to discuss the project as well. After that is done, then, the public will have ~ ~~;' ~. ,~F : an opportunity. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you haven't signed up. There is still time to do that. If not, after everyone has signed up we will ask if anyone else would ~:~ . '' ~:,; like to speak and you will have three minutes to speak to the application. Not that there ~Y' is a huge crowd tonight, so I don't think there is anybody representing groups, so it would be a three minute per person after that. So -- and then -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. ~,~ Belhaven will not be heard tonight. It will be continued. And we just don't know what . date it will be to as of yet, but it will be noticed. Siddoway: You could call the clerk's office tomorrow to get the date. ~~`;~~" Wafters: Commissioner Moe, it's scheduled right now to be on the May 3rd P&Z Commission meeting. F ,yjFT f:. ~ ~~ ~~r ~. ~ ii ~~~~-. :>'~ ,: ks '~ JSs ~i~. ~N Iht ~.~ k ...,i. ''~' ~,~ ~;~. t a,~N. r ~ Y y, y','~~; - 6 y i~ r~ i +~ a e'' ,,}}~~ ~ ^'~ -'~ ~ s~ ~~~= bt 101, .. s 7 =fit '*. ~3 ~"~ s ~-~~',F_ y ~j S ~~j r. iC~ ~. f.~' Y~~~~-..:jam - ~!K '~_1.. V F C R r {y ~r n ~~`Sr t~~ ~y v~ ~µk~~ jF~ 1 ~~. { ~ ~ yF ~ Zr~~+' b.} AJ~~f~ c, 1 7 a t~ n~ R 'fct 1 it b r ~r ~ ?t~'S4'~- ~~ ) +, ~; ~ _ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 3 of 37 ~~ :~' P~~:'~ t ~'r ; Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC -north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Moe: Okay. Well, that is not definite yet. We still have to discuss it, but right now that's where the staff is saying it's at, would be the May 3rd hearing. Thank you very much. Okay. On that note, then, I would like to open -- or continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-064 for Cold Creek Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Wafters: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a preliminary plat request for Cold Creek Subdivision. The property is 4.01 acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. If you look at the map here the property is located on the north side of West Ustick Road, approximately a third of a mile east of Ten Mile Road. The property is bordered on the east by an orthodontist office, zoned R-4, but approved for office uses. On the west by rural residential property, zoned R1 in Ada county. On the north by Bridgetower Subdivision, zoned R- 4. And on the south by Ustick Road and Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-4. The site currently consists of vacant undeveloped land, as you can see here. Here is a copy of the submitted plat. The property is currently zoned R-4, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 4.01 acres of land. Four of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 60 feet. The plat will need to be revised to meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 zone. A building lot may need to be removed to accomplish this. Proposed lot sizes range from 8,000 to 8,314 square feet, with an average lot of 8,058 square feet. The landscape plan that the applicant submitted. Approximately .22 of an acre or 5.37 percent of the site is proposed for common area, which will consist of a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road, a 20 foot wide landscape strip over the sewer main located at the northwest comer of the site, and a planter island within the turnaround at the west boundary here. Elevations were not submitted with this application, because the property is being developed to be sold as build lots. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have none. - s~ 3 ~' ~~ _ .. h ~ t i {y ~, ti '' h T r+y; 1 s ~' i ~ 1,-` t ~~~ ~ ~~; y. ~ i(~:: e S p. `.~ ~ ` J a q ~'" . ~R: r '~ 1 4 ` C gI' r4 3~ r ~~.~ °~ ~ , ~w r~ ~; i.;. , c~ A k ~` 9~~ ~ ~ tr Er~'F,I 1~, 9 r ~ ti a ,~.. ~9r~Ff. , ~ 1 ~~ ~ .'. f '~d F)t i~; ' ~~~ i i ~ s~ °~~.a .>~~.~.A~?!~ U ~ A~ ~dM 1 ~1~ 4 4 ~~ t ~ ~ ~`~R ~4 pf~,n. Ili i ~ ~ 1 h.~l ~. 't ~ ,f ~ `S tk~~,il~`,~A3.. tf i a,<r ~, ~ i~kl ~ ~ ~~W, ~ ~ vat; ~ r~ ~ ~~ ( ,; Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 4 of 37 ~ Moe: Okay. None at this time. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Carney: Yeah. I'm Ryan Camey with Lochsa Engineering, 1311 West Jefferson, Boise, Idaho. 83702. And I will stand to answer any questions of staff. Moe: Okay. Do you agree with the staff report? Camey: Yeah. I agree with the staff report. One thing that was discussed was the minimum frontage is not met on the configuration shown here. There is a potential of ;~ revising it and winding up losing one of the 16 for 15 residential lots and Iwould -- I ~f-w guess my question or comment might be towards the processing of the preliminary plat. If we can make those revisions to staffs approval is there a reason we need to go back to PAZ or can we move to a Commissioner hearing at that point? Moe: Well, that would be something that we would have to discuss among ourselves. Camey: I guess, yeah, I was just wondering if it's -- - Moe: I guess my point -- Camey: -- if compliance is close enough to what we are looking at. Moe: I guess my question I would have for you is you are, in fact, planning, then, to make the change on taking a lot out to take care of this problem? ~~;~ Carney: It's likely to address their concerns with the 60 foot minimum frontage that we are going to lose one of these lots, unless we reconfigure -- you know, the key road configuration is connecting to, I believe, it's Wilder to the west, which were shown in the northwest comer, and the road that goes into the adjacent subdivision on the south, we are a little tied there with the road the way it's laid out. And we needed to accommodate a fire turnaround on the north side. So, there is not a lot we can do with the road configuration to change to get those lot frontages up to the minimum of 60 feet. So, I ~L,,~= would guess that there is going to be a lot removed. So, some of the densities listed ~. . ~'`~ and the number of lots listed will be different on a resubmitted plat. `y ~ Moe: Yeah. You have four lots that don't meet that requirement right now. Staff, have any questions? '~~~~~ Siddoway: I have one question. Lot 6, Block 1. This one right here is particularly ugly in terms of its geometry. And there is -- we have a plat that was for the February F~:~~= hearing that cuts this comer off here and still meets the dimensional requirements with A~~~~' this lot still being over 8,000 square feet. I'm just wondering if this is the preferred lot - configuration or if -- if so why and -- but we do have this other earlier previous version '`~- ~'"' ! that has that actually a little cleaner. .,,~,~ ~s` 4~~ b~'~ F' ,~ x ~`[ !}$~ 5y ~ •^k 4:. ~~~ wY`~, ~ ~_ L S t;~, ME ~x~ ti~~~ v ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r, ~ , t 3+k41$ ~i;i; Y gym. L. t . -' ~'~~ {~' s~~ ;;', ~~~ :i !R ;? ti' ,a.,,z, r E *~ ' ~: , FrF.,, '~~'- - !~ 4s11"~r ~.t r`~ ~~." ~ i : j~,,~ ~r lbw 1t~3~~ .~2 5 . a -.n s s S ~ Pik-, r ~ ` { 1 p~ ry,~ .+~ h ~ Y J~ ~ { J t~` ~.' s ~ r i y< < j .. ~ ..., ., .. ~;.t Y ~` a ~ a Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 5 of 37 Camey: Looking at that it seems like we could lose one of the lot comers. We can certainly address that in revised plat. I think it was an 8,000 square foot minimum. Siddoway: The version that we have that was submitted for the February hearing has a version that does look like that and this lot that this area would be coming from is still over 8,000 square feet -- 8,033 even within that comer. {~-:` Camey: Just a brief history on some of the comments we got. There is a 20 foot wide `~" track that is where the sanitary sewer is going to connect across the Ten Mile Creek there. To accommodate the minimum 8,000 square feet that Wilder Road connection was moved south a little bit, so those lots got smaller and they got reconfigured. They could work on that to make cleaner lot lines. I think we can get rid of one of those lot comers. I don't think we need more pins out there than that. Siddoway: Okay. That would be my only question. Camey: I think that's a comment that could be addressed I guess is my response. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Just another quick one. As far as making changes and whatnot, what kind of time frame would it take you to do that? Camey: We could address this in a week's time and have it resubmitted to the staff. So, say a week from tomorrow it could be resubmitted. If not sooner, but -- Moe: Okay. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thanks very much. Carney: Thank you. >;,t r-:~~~ r _ - . -T; "I ,~~ ~;~'i ,~:I }; ,,.:~ Moe: Okay. We have one person signed up. John Schafer. Is that right? Just before you get going, I would like to tell you I appreciate you doing exactly what it says, which is print, and I appreciate we can read this. That's good. Very much appreciate it. Siddoway: We do need name and address for the record. Schafer: Yes. John Schafer. I live at 22788 West Ustick Road, which is the R-1 property right next to the west side of the proposed subdivision. I'm not against development, because I know it's imminent that it will happen, but I feel that the preliminary design is probably one of the worst designs I have seen for access to properties. Basically what it is is that narrow access road and odd shaped lots. To try to build a house on some of those lots that are in there would be almost impossible. But in order to accommodate the 8,000 square foot you can see how chopped up it is and trying to squeeze houses into this I feel is a very poor design. Trying to put 16 houses and four common lots on 4.19 acres is -- seems to be a little excessive. And I feel that what they have done is they have tried to squeeze as many lots in there just for as n ~• ~? ~.~ x z'd t k ~ v~~,+ ~"x` ~ °k r ~~' +"" w. r ~.i3sb i~'- ~ ~ ~~ e a _~~ l~T c' ~ti;.GN~ ~ L'~~ ~ ~3'~ t ?~~ ~stY+s :i~: ~~ks~~' ;''s ~ ','~; ,~.. ,~ A ,. , ~r~~r :k zw 6`~ ~~ .t~ 4: 14 Y ~~. t'{ r ~ y h~ ~{' ,i ~` . iY k ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _., J, ' ~~~vtt'' ~ k rti ~, ~ ~ ~ "`- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~k ' ~ ,a . ~~ ~' ~'~~~~,~ Fs. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~ ~M ti ~. y,;r _~ 7R ~ ~_ :' ~ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 6 of 37 '? ~. ~~ . r; ,. ~::' 9:,: - L. ~; _.~,;~, 3' ~r ., ;. ~..;4 tr: much profit as possible out of this. I have concerns that the size of the homeowners association will not be able to maintain the common areas, frontage roads, landscape areas, fences that will be around the perimeter of the site. And that dues accumulated from the property values of the houses will not bring enough to maintain. You can kind of drive through the City of Meridian, you can see areas with this type of an area, it's just not maintained as properly as like would be next door to Bridgetower's entrance in and things of that nature. Larger lots and homes with greater value similar to Bridgetower and surrounding properties would be more appropriate for a homeowners association as well for maintenance of the property and maintaining the fence lines. But there is almost -- I think almost a half a mile of fence around this, which would become homeowners association or the property owner's responsibilities. And I'll kind of get into the pictures there to accommodate that as well. The property will need to be elevated to accommodate the flood plane and we teamed a hard lesson. When they developed to the west of us, which was the Hartford Subdivision -- and, basically, I will get into that and also with the pictures that you see there, I apologize for the quality, the colored pictures are a little better than the black and white. But kind of pursue that a little farther. Also if they do have to build a bench, what happened on the Hartford side, they just pushed the dirt over onto our property to make a berm in order to build a fence, in order to accommodate the flood plane, then, that becomes a maintenance nightmare for us, because we either have to maintain that slope or prevent the weeds from growing or whatever. And I don't have a problem with that, but we are getting a little older in our age and, you know, you could put yourself in our position and understand what a maintenance nightmare it is to do a slope. That surface there. So, I guess that's all the time I got there. But one thing I would like to add that the sewer easement that's on the top of the page there. Right there. Maybe that sewer easement be moved to the property line. I think that might accommodate that lot a little better for building sites. It's such a narrow lot that if it were moved to the property line between our property, which is to the west, and that first lot -- Moe: There is a pointer. You need to get on a microphone, please. Schafer: Oh, I'm sorry. Move that easement -- maybe move that easement to the west of the property line as well. That might make that lot a little bigger, rather than being a long skinny narrow lot to build a house on. Moe: Anything else? Schafer: The pictures that I gave to you -- I hate to take too much time here, but the first picture that you see there, that was Hartford Subdivision. This is along the -- it would be number one, listed number one on your page there. It's hard to see, but what this picture was taken of was when they built the mound out along the street, the contractor just pushed sand and gravel over into our lawn. That's approximately eight feet into our yard, with total disregard of our grass and our sprinklers in order build their sidewalk up there and it's pretty hard to see, but on the very left-hand side there they did come back and they did put a landscape block retention wall there and I would like to see that maybe on the other side as well. The picture number two is where the ~3~ ~ ., - ,°~ A ~L~ x ~ ~_ f' ~ ~ r..# f sr ~.-. ;"~ r~ ~~ ~ .-K. • h.~ ~ ~. :' } ;~ ~ 1 '~ .i,Fef ~ NtY'; t F 2. "~k: 0. ~. t ~1~ 2at4~~. fa~ i~ Ftr ~ 17 ~'. ~f.' i 4 ~ ~a,~~j . ~:~ ~~ 4r:i ~~ FF~ y. r Ike ~~ r } ~ ~ ~f T {~ { 5~~ Y ~ 'y ~ } ~ l . ~y y N is k `1 ~ ' ~i I ~ ~~ `~ ~ R'T ` . ~ -~ i 1 g ,# ~~ .#s rf ' ~~. ,~ FR ~a~i~: '~ i'4';Y~~af r. ~ ~ L S-~ ~} (c ~ Y ~`hNft~',~`" ~ ' , a '~ ~ ~, ~ ti ; F ~~ y g g B ~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ ? + ~:' ~e ~~. ~~ Jd~S~ 4 ~ ~ ~~; i C ~{r~~ tF fff ~lt ~. Y'r _ ~F ',!f ~. 3 44 ~~,'~~ ~i k y ~ r ~4 ~ ~ .a ~ ~f'k"~ 3 .~ ~ ~ ` ~ c y :.i ". _ 7 a ,~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~'-:~ March 1, 2007 Page 7 of 37 roadway on Wilder Street is into our property. They just kind of built it, pushed it into our lot. You can see where the fence line is now into the road and that's another five or six feet into our property as well. The third picture is, basically, just a different angle of ~;: that. And the fourth picture is, basically, the same thing, just taking a picture. That's "'"' approximately three and a half feet high at that location. I just don't want these things to happen when they develop on the other side. Once you have been through it you learn. ~:f Picture number six is showing the elevation differences between their property and ours. They used atwo-by-12 against the fence post to hold the landscape material or the dirt, top soil. And, then, there is still approximately a foot and a half a fall from the bottom of that two-by-six down and that was in order kind of give us a retention there, which did help. But when you go to picture number seven there, it's a picture down the fence line and you can see the fence is starting to start fall over now, just because of the soil movement and just was an unstable portion there for a fence. And, then, ~t : pictures eight through the rest there are pictures of over at the fence line -- existing fence line over at the orthodontist, I think, something like that and you can kind of see that first picture you can kind of see looking back towards the LDS stake house, there is fences -- portion of fences that have been missing for over a year, going on two years now. Picture number nine is showing you how the fence is about to fall over and the ~'~~~ berm and how the weeds -- you can't maintain the weeds, you can't bum the weeds, { ~~; °~y whatever, so -- but, basically, that's just showing you what kind of condition the fences ,~ are and how they are maintained on each side of us, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Schafer? ` Schafer: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to summarize what it is -- you would like a landscape block wall between your property and the other one to handle the elevation difference? ~'~'~ Schafer: Or something to that, just to stabilize that -- the fence line, so it's not falling over -- ," Newton-Huckabay: And, then, your -- ~~: ~~~' Schafer: -- and a maintenance issue, I just don't want that, you know, two and a half, '`~ three feet of dirt of whatever it is, berm, that becomes our responsibility now to maintain. ~,, :_t Newton-Huckabay: Right. ~~`' Schafer: Because we do take pride in our property. You know, we keep the weeds ~r--~l down on the ditch line, which is the Five Mile drainage ditch, and so we do take pride in ~~~~~ what we have on our property. But I just don't want to end up with a maintenance ~~ nightmare for us. And I don't object to them building next door, like I said, but it seems `,~~ to me they are just putting lots -- a lot of lots in there for profit to make this thing pan out. °~; _ . __.~ ,~ . , ~ 1~ ,~ '' ~.~ r,a~v,.~ rr; ..~y ~r __ c, 'rfl rF{1 d .~~ r v1 ~ x~.~.=a a a l{.~~~-, ~~ ~ ~.¢ T„ r~t~ ~. S, ~. r'fi, fl ; 4. ~C ~' FAT T.f:. ~ SS ~i se ~.? t f? ?.~' r x xp.... =n. t.~: X` ~ W „~s<'r k .. k.' rh ~~~~ n ~ ;'i: C`f-:: ,~ ~;~i . 3 <.<< t:e ?k.i `> • ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 8 of 37 ~:=~~~ Newton-Huckabay: And that was your other request is to -- with the request to lose one ~a„-' lot, does that satisfy your concern there? ~x ~~. p$: '~: '' Schafer: Yes. That would probably work. I just look at the configuration of these lots ~, ~~~ ~ and how are you going to build houses on some of these lots, they are just -- I mean s; ~,; there isn't really a square lot there to try to build a house on and most houses nowadays ' t are rectangular in shape or square in shape and you try and build in some of those lots, ~T3~ it's going to be either real skinny, narrow, long houses or -- it just doesn't look to me to ., ,,_ be a very good a design. F.~ €'_ ~ Moe: Well, oftentimes with the property itself not being on, you know, a nice rectangle, ~,« ~~ it's a little tricky for the developer as well. ~~: ~- ~~-~ Schafer: Sure. °~ '.` :~ _, r ~' t~ ~~ ~: Moe: I do have one other question and not to belabor it, but your picture number two shows that everything -- you're saying that the Hartford Subdivision went ahead and installed everything over onto your property? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And that was done during them putting the subdivision together? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And there was no discussions about them coming back and taking care of that at the time? Schafer: As a matter of fact, in picture number two, the gravel from the roadway was almost 14 feet into our property when they developed that and they built that. They came back and -- actually, what they did is they came back and cleaned the gravel up off of our property. But you can see that the asphalt roadway and the sidewalk, curb and gutter, still extends through beyond the property line. And I did have an issue with that at the time. Pushing it 15 feet into my property I was a little imtated about, but, you know, if you came in here and you tried to cut that off, they would have either had to build a retaining wall -- and this is kind of at the back end of our property, so it's not a visual and it's back behind some storage sheds. Moe: Okay. So, you didn't complain at the time? Schafer: Yeah, we did. The city finally made them come out and do it. Actually, the one up at the road we even had to threaten with a lawyer come out and get the gravel off of our property, because they weren't going to do anything about it. They weren't going to put a retention wall or anything, they just said that's your problem. But we also -- it was -- the record -- I hope that they would put a chemical toilet on the site, because the last time they did, the gentlemen that were working next door were coming over and ~ti ~ ~ ~ ,~r~ ~3~~~s Xis ~~( 1 }„ ;i n~ n '~r}~tiy S, ~SiY R 4~~~s. {~ v L ZF t xx ~ _ i sE ~+ s _ ~ Ott 8..,.-;.. `t k , yh l/ ~c r ~ ' ~ ~ `.,i Y(.t ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ a ~4r~.~ S .-x `~' }~t. ~~ ~ ~*~ H ~ ~ ,~~~, ~ fi' r G ~ i z al ~~ ~ ~ ~~i ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~,r k 1; ~:; . 1~ ~ r ~~: ~r ~SS~~ ~ ~ ,~~~ ~. ~. r ~" qy ~iY= 5= , • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 9 of 37 defecating in our hay stack and things like that. I just don't want that to happen again, ~~~"`ri too. And I think back, then, the public hearings, they were very surprised by that as ~ti~~ well. So, those are just admissions that -- Moe: I can understand. - Schafer: -- I would like addressed. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Just one. I can see the problem with the topography difference between yours and Hartford. This property to the west is still the same grade difference between -- ~. Schafer: Yes. Borup: -- these properties? Schafer: Our property still has natural grade, because we built our -- Borup: So, this was a natural grade, too, then? '`' -~ Schafer: It is now. Borup: So, you're assuming they are going to raise the grade you mean? ~`~~~~'~~ Schafer: That's correct. To get out of the flood plane. zQ.~ Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Siddoway: I think that just covered mine. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, there was no one else signed up. If there is ~'.,~~-~ '~ anyone else who would like to speak, please, come forward. Okay. There is no one that is coming forward. Would the applicant, please, come back up and respond. ~~ ~~~ ~, -~~~ Carney: Yeah. Some of the remarks made about the lot configuration, I think we ~~ covered in the earlier discussion about what we are planning to do. We are not -- ~_ ~ believe the flood plain boundary is on the tract to the north, which is not owned by us. I =,~~ don't know if that's aNampa-Meridian Irrigation ownership City of Meridian ownership. So, there is no -- we are not going to be required to fill this to elevate it out of the flood plane and I don't know that I -- I don't have apicture -- a copy of those photos, which r ='~ you will probably want to get to address the concerns, but I don't see that being a ~`° -~~ problem. And a comment about the sanitary sewer is something we can certainly address moving it to the western property line in that 20 foot tract to make a cleaner ~` ~:; ::, Y 1" ~`~ F~~: ~I I~ ,1. ~ x y ~ ~YS n s $~ .~~( 3 ~ Y ~~v ~ i M' ~ r n~a~T,c ,r r,i ~~ K ,~ e. ~Y«~~ t ~ 1 ~ a ~ fi ~ ,at, o{~-~. - - 4 • ~~.~ ~' }~.... ~~ ~~ ttj` ~4,F,y'~u ``}} v ~~~` - y ~t ~ 7 T~ i ~5~ f ~ ~~ r~ ,. y~~ t,'~'sr his s ,, n x ~' ~. ~l '.f h L' ~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ a ~ r~m;~ ~n + ~~ rt ~~ ' , r ~~~ ~~ ~~~w ~''<~~~ ~~ qr~ a yy y ~ ~ -s 9~ '~'~ 6 r ~ ~ k ~ w -~t'~a ~ ~ ~~y~w~J ~ t}_ -. ~~rr~~ ii,, tee, --. j ~s ~ C~ ~ a'~fi h~4 1 3(. 5- ~z ;ii ,~ ids ~;;~: •l' ':1.`_i: r: '~>;. :.4; ~k x.:Y ;.> ~- __fi A,~ ;'~-t ~::: .~; ^ i s • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 10 of 37 combination of the lots at the northwest comer. That -- you know, because the specific concern was made, I can probably address that. I'm kind of just going off of memory from what he said, so -- what else was there? Moe: And you're developing this to, then, other builders to come in and take -- Carney: Yeah. The project is going to be sold to a builder, probably one. You know, I can't -- we have been -- they have been talking with a couple of people and they have no one specified out. We didn't really submit architectural drawings or elevations and architecturally and lot value wise is kind of what they are basing the anticipated homes to be built there. Moe: Any other questions? Borup: Just to clarify. You're not anticipating needing to raise the grade? Carney: I don't see raising the grade, because we are not in a flood plane. Borup: Okay. And your drawings indicate -- I mean at least what some of it -- that most of that --the grade will be cut and so that's probably one of the -- Carney: The -- Borup: Well, I'm looking at the sewer layouts -- Carney: Oh, the above? Borup: -- showing existing grades and curb and gutters and they all look like they are going to be below the existing grade. Carney: I mean we are going to -- Borup: Most of it. Carney: It probably should balance, so I would anticipate it being, you know, pretty flush at the western edge as we are matching his project. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Carney: There shouldn't be any significant raising or lowering of the street. Borup: Okay. Moe: Okay. Borup: Thank you. ,~> . _ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 11 of 37 Moe: Before I let you go, I want to see if staff has comment. Wafters: The subject property is -- Commissioners. Excuse me. The subject property is not within the floodway. The floodway lies just north of the property. It is in flood zone X5. Do you have any other -- Moe: The sewer easement moving, is that a problem? ~~ Cole: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, to follow up on the flood plane comment a little bit. `45. ; Moe: Okay. Cole: It's in a zone X5, which is a low level area -- low level ponding. In the case of a hundred year flood it just means there is some small ponding going on. With an X5 ~~ '`~~ zone there is no additional certification. A lot of the City of Meridian is actually in an X5. ~~'~- Anything within a half a mile of a canal is in an X5. There is no additional regulations to building or constructing in the X5. So, when you say that he's not in a flood plane, ~' technically he's wrong, but practically he's right. He is an X5, but you don't have anything else to do with it. If that makes a lot of sense to get around that. Sony. As far as moving the sewer easement, that's not a problem for Public Works. They can definitely route the sewer any way they can get an easement through the NMID owned 3 property to the north of them. So, however they can route it to get to their property, as '~ long as they get the proper easements prior to construction is fine with Public Works. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Wafters: Commissioner Moe, if I might add. The applicant is not proposing any fencing at this time on the west and east boundaries. Staff is requiring that they put in an open vision fencing along the canal there. But just addressing the gentleman's concerns here about the fencing, as it sits right now, unless they propose fencing in the future, the lots owners will be putting it in individually. Moe: Well, that brings up another question for me, then, and that would be what is the reasoning why staff doesn't want to require fencing on the other sides? Normally we like to subdivision fencing prior to -- Wafters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, the UDC does not require fencing around subdivisions. Typically applicants go ahead and install it, but the UDC doesn't require it. Moe: Okay. ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ *F ~ ~,~`r }, t ~, t aY~ *ti ~" # 1 r ~ `x r ~ ~; '~ ~~~~'~' ~L t ~y ''yy}} JJ 1 ~~ M § ; R 5 t' Er !~ ~((i t, i~ s f a: ~~ ~4~ ~ y ~Y~f 4F~~; r~ ~ a c ~ _`., ~ `t ~ `>` r ' ~) 8s t,, pert ~.°-`~iTr+`~;~~~.. i iL+ p~.. ~ u, rn ~ F •'s~i `. a tN ~~ to rr,~ "~~ t .y - . r ~ .+'Rk~ ~~ rp' "ai 5 a x ~•f 7f}'jl,~ ,~: ~S~ ft ~... .5~ :} ltttxi~ ., air ~~_~ ~`x~ ''~ 1 ~ F S. }t'~ 1 Vim.' V: ~~ ~+ ~ i. ~. z~ .per Y (~`~ ~°~Mpf,J~y S I `.,~ eC ,. ~.. l~ .,_ ,.. } :.~ ~~ s r a ,'; `i a f;~ :. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 12 of 37 Siddoway: So, the fencing, we could have a -- looking at the street buffer along -- let's see, is this Ustick? You could have a different type of fence here than here and, then, here? Three different types of fences along the frontage, unless we require -- Wafters: That's correct, Commissioner Siddoway. Borup: The subdivision covenants usually address the type of fencing, too. So, I'm not sure if that's being looked at. But there is normally standards in the CC&Rs. Wafters: Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, we do not require a copy of the CC&Rs. Borup: I know. But I mean to answer the other question that -- as far as uniformity, that usually addresses that. Moe: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, we have no one to speak to it, so if I could get a motion to -- come forward and, then, the applicant will have another opportunity. Schafer: This is John Schafer at 2788 West Ustick Road. When they did Hartford to the west, at that time they had to elevate the properties due to a flood plane requirement, unless the flood planes have changed. They elevated that and had to import fills for that area, but I'm not arguing about this, but they did on that side. So, if they don't elevate their road and if we ever continue across our property, we would have an elevated road of three feet on one side and down a grade on the other side. So, that would impact us if we ever decided to develop it where we would have a road three feet higher on the Hartford side versus this subdivision here. Also, it was mentioned that against -- residential against agricultural ground, they were required to put fences in. And that came up in the Hartford Subdivision hearing as well. So, since we are still considered county property and agricultural, that they made them put a fence in the last time, so -- back when they did Hartford. So, that's just a couple of things I had to say there. Moe: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come up and respond to that? Carney: The -- maybe to address the elevation of the subdivision, you know, there is -- there is some reason, engineering-wise, other than simply flood plane mitigation, to want to raise the road a little bit. It's probably going to happen, I think. To address the relationship to the road to the east, you know, we would have to look at a potential alignment making the vertical configurations of the street that functions, as well as keeping the road -- I would prefer to match existing, for obvious reasons, as to not be detrimental to that property. If that road was designed on the other side of the property three feet higher, there is going to be an issue if they ever try to connect those with that vertical alignment. It will address that with the vertical design of this. What you have seen is a preliminary design. So, we are working with Public Works -- well, ACHD in this case. It has to fit and to address the neighbor's concerns, it should match existing ;i~ ~ 15 P dam' +. ~'r'~ ~s Ii , ~~~ ,alt a3~~ r n S ~~~t. ~ tr 4 '~ l .~ i i7-y~,.x ~ ,f v V ;r ~f ; a3 "+~Wi [ '~ r 5. i. ~ry S.'! of s ,~'} G F f~~ t ~cy t _ :~ ~I hW qpy~ rt ~ ~ 1 ;, ~s~ a s ; ~r F :" K:i ~a~idyt~hk 5``, ~s irk, rs i6t ~ b.. Y ~, = r -ZS ~~~*~-X~'~i i~~F~~~'~ .., r_r s,.:: ~L ',h9 y '~f`..i ~J.1 ~~ .~ , r` Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 ',,c Page 13 of 37 R~~~ grade without substantial -- you know, put the drain onto our property, too, so -- it can be addressed in the design of the subdivision. And with regard to fencing, it sounds like ~~~ there is maybe a zoning requirement for fencing adjacent to agricultural property; is that the way quoted that statement? Moe: That's what he said. F Camey: Okay. I -- you know, we are certainly willing to accommodate whatever with =' regard to fencing on that lot line. ~'~` Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Is there existing fencing between you and Bridgetower at this time? In the photos it looks like there is a fence that may have some -- a missing section in it. -~~ Camey: I don't know there is a fence for that entire property line. I know the -- what ~~`'~ they have dedicated to ACHD doesn't have a fence, the sidewalk just kind of ends, you ' know, three or four feet above a grade there and I don't recall. >;; Siddoway: Because the photos I'm looking at from Mr. Schafer is -- appears that there - ~ is a fence, but it does have at least one missing section, so -- ;~: Camey: And that's the one adjacent to that orthodontist office? Siddoway: Yes. Right up here. Camey: Uh-huh. Siddoway: I can -- Moe: Here, you want to take alook at -- what number -- what sheet number is that? Siddoway: That was sheet number ten. You can see the orthodontist building in the !~3t background there. I know we are not deliberating yet, but I will throw out my preference. Since there is existing fence here that has some missing -- missing section or two, I'd prefer that they fill those gaps. It sounds like staff is already requiring some °'~ ~~~ open vision fencing along the canal. I'd prefer to see the front have fencing that is consistent, so that we don't -- so that we don't run the risk of different types of fencing E-.~~~'~~~ along the frontage and, then, this would be the adjacent side to Mr. Schafer's property ~~"<-~~ and I'd prefer to see some fencing along there. Camey: We will again -- I agree with staff recommendation. Council recommendation and we can address that and resubmit it and make it a condition of approval, perhaps. ;,, >~' Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. u ~ ' ~~,~ ~a ~s .~ ~~ -, F ~*~r 4 ?~ ~~' M~ , i ~ 4 ~s ~1 " ~ ~"~ ' ~ ~ ~~ a , ~ ~r ;,.c~ u w f ~ F l - t (~h3 ~.~~~t ~~ N ~'~ ~ ~ ~i , - ~~l~l'~fi.~ 5~,, S ~ iy~ a7 ,, F.~ ~ ~~i~: ~ ~ r'F '..1 ~ , j t ~ ~ , -`~e'F 4Y.~ ~+`'S r Y x f h 't ~ . k , ~§ 't' s " ~ ~ ~ `yx~k 3 ,~,n~ ~~~~ h1E~ ]I" •'? ~ i.ri~'i i' ~,Y'l ~,~ 't ~ } ~ R ~y i ' r P~ t ~.ti~r S ~ ~ . r ~ „ ~ .v~~ ~ t ~Y ': ~ ~ .A.t .n ~~e ~ - ~ Y~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ i+~ ~ a~ - .,s - iY' r a t K 'Y 6 _ t _ r~ 1 1x.. 5 t }., ~~'~ ~~~ } ~{ ~ ~~ 1 '. i ,. :~eKki f~'' ~~~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning s~ :~s March 1, 2007 Page 14 of 37 Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. I do have a question '` of staff. In regards to the fencing between the agricultural and the residential with the `~'~.^~ county property, any point in that? Wafters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, again, the UDC does not require permanent perimeter fencing around developments. However, if permanent fencing is not constructed prior to construction, then, we do require at least temporary construction fencing to be installed prior to release of building permits. The UDC does require -- and like I said before, a six foot open vision fence along drains, canals, creeks, waterways in -{~ general. Moe: Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, what would you like to do? Siddoway: Move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. H>;; ; MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. s Moe: Any discussion? '' ' Siddoway: I have three items. The one -- the fencing I just described. The second ~ ,~; would be a clean up of Lot 6, Block 1. And the third item would be addressing the ~: ~'~ frontage issues by removing one of the lots. And that would address my concerns. ~ Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup? ^F`' `'' Borup: Well, the staff report talks about the frontage issue, so I think that's already -- <<~ that's already addressed. It's up to the developer to decide how he wants to address ;_ that. You know, the uglier and more difficult the lots are to build on, the harder they are u„ -~~ going to be to sell So, I think they can work -- figure that out whatever is -- I have some ~'~ ~, concerns on required fencing. It's not in the Uniform Development Code. We -- and this is not an annexation, so, no, normally in an annexation we can put additional ~"` re uirements on, but this is not the case. So, b doin that we are oin be and our ~~r `~ q Y 9 9 9 Y normal bounds of what we -- I think have the authority to do. And, then, the final was -- what was your third? Siddoway: Third one was cleaning up Lot 6. Borup: Oh. Well, I guess I already addressed that. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any questions or comments >g Fr~~ .N a.. ~ v W'F:a.1~~ ~ F,a.:b7 :,~ ~~ a')C ,x ~, ~ :~ .~ ~~, J~ rt~il ~ ' ~ ~ ~~~,^~S 't ~a . ~~ k2 is' '~ r ~ y m4 +c~ l Tr ~~,{tr i P{ „}r tjtr y Sj :s~ a t~ .F ~~~ 4 .~,~ - J F. t. ~~~~_ { { _ ~ My .. .tryy1 F'~` G r2 Y IL ~1~'. tf ' >~ FL'kiar'~. ~~y~_ ~C1 .` P~ rS ~A~~~~~~~ r f. ~ ~ t . ~~~~ x ' w ~ r E ,f ~~~~7 s? ~ ~ ~ ~, F~' ~ ,~ F r r • Meridian Planning & Zoning '''f March 1, 2007 Page 15 of 37 ,~ I should say. x-- Newton-Huckabay: No. I have nothing to add. Moe: Okay. I guess I would, basically, go the same comments have already been -~ addressed. And I, too -- I'm not -- although I would like to see fencing, Idon't -- I just ~,--~ ;~ don't believe that that's something that we should put on this at this time, so -- Borup: I mean if that's something that needs to be, then, we need to look at changing ~~~~ the UDC. Newton-Huckabay: Didn't the applicant agree to the fencing? y; Borup: No. He said he would do whatever he needed to do to apply -- I understood he ?r:~~~; said he'd do what he needed to do to comply with the staff report. Moe: And that is what I understand as well. Siddoway: Or he was willing to do the fencing if that's what the Commission desired, I think. Newton-Huckabay: That's what we heard, because I heard the same thing he did. Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I think I better jump in here. I agree with Commissioner Borup that it does go beyond requirements that you can impose. However, if you think that the developer offered it up, you can certainly take that offer. But because there are two interpretations here, if you are going to go that °'°' direction, I would encourage you to open up the hearing and get him to make a statement on the record as to what his offer is to voluntarily do something that you're ~~, requesting. ~-, - ~;,,' Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I guess I would -- is there a motion? -` Siddoway: I would move to open the Public Hearing. n Moe: I need a seco d. „; ~`~, Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing for PP 06-064 to have the '~,= applicant come up and address the perimeter fencing issue only. _ Carney: What I will say about the fencing to the western property line, should Commission find it a condition of approval for the preliminary plat, the applicant will rte;, propose that in a preliminary plat as -- I don't know how I would state that as a condition 1~ ~y of it or indicate that it's on there. We could put it on there. I'm not going to say that we ~i~.S, 5 ',<'~i rW ~ ` ; ~ Wi ~s if e4`! t ~61, y gy. ~ t y f ; - Y ~ i -'Y , ~ ~ S 4 f ~{~ ~~'- 1 ~~, y- ~ ~,~' a ~y r ^A'- 4' ~ ` fi,,. 'h. ~~ r~ u i ~ -fp k ~~ 1 t ~~ g i~~n M l i ! ~{ ~ ~~ F-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~" Fr tg ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k~ ~ ~' {t. Y1- : ~ , _ * v ~ H' e I r~, 'M.§'~f~1a L~,hk l~.~(~ 11 . ?'S 1' y.: { ~yi x.i j.}y ~ y ~~ ~ i ~:~ rah' 'X7~` L~„t, ~ A .: ry^ ~ „jit3 a~ tik~d -' 1: ':' 4 ~ C"?0,~t' ~~ t L .n f . x , r~y`°t ~ ~'~, ` ; " t.._ M. .' ~'' ~M„ i'f ~ STe'~ ~ {.~ 1 MM f ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ L,. Y t y~a. ~s, ~'~ , Y Meridian Planning & Zoning -; } March 1, 2007 Page 16 of 37 will do any fencing required beyond UDC's fencing specifications, but if it's a concern to ~~~~'~? the neighbor and a concern to Council, it's something we will offer. "~~ ~~ Siddoway: I'd say it's a concern for me and if you offer it, we can add it, but it sounds ``"° like if you don't offer it, then, we won't. r',•f "t~ =~ Moe: And you're speaking to the west only or the west and south? } Carney: The west. The one that the neighbor had the grievance on, I guess. . ~-s ~ ~ Siddoway: What about the frontage along the road, Ustick Road? Moe: That's the south. ',':~;- Carney: Yeah. The south. I guess I don't want to speak for the south property line at _'~ this point, due to there some landscaping frontages, improvements we are doing there. _~` ~~ I guess I'm assuming they are going to do it anyway. Okay. Throw in the south as well. Frontage to Ustick for lot lines and the western property boundary are subject to fencing ~; ~ `~?' per Council's requirements and staff conditions of approval. ~::~ Moe: Thank you very much. Siddoway: So, it's an offer to do the fencing on the -- 'i~~.>>f y Carney: It's an offer to do the fencing. y ~"` ~~~ Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Appreciate it. Carney: Is there any other questions? r~ :r V; Moe: Are there any other questions? r ~r"` .:.~ ~ ~' Siddoway: None. ` ~~ a Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close? r . ~~ Siddoway: I move to close the Public Hearing. ~i,. J. ~~' "~ Newton-Huckabay: Second. ~ L ~ ~~, Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. .~~ ~ ~~: MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~. ,..: aY M Y~ Z?, ~.£. ~: 14 .~.~. ~r~~ . : - .~C ... ~ .. ~ „ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 17 of 37 Moe: Is there someone that would like to make a motion at this time? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1st, 2007, with the following addition: That fencing, perimeter fencing, be required along the west boundary of the subdivision, as well as the south boundary adjacent to Ustick Road. The second addition would be that they clean up the lot lines on Lot 6, Block 1. And I believe that the changes necessary for the -- to address the frontage issues are already addressed in the staff report. So, that's -- I'll end with that as my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. '`~r'" Moe: It has been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of PP 06- 064 with all additional items as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed ~~ same sign? That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~~ '.';p Moe: At this time I would like to welcome Mr. Chairman to the meeting and I will let you take over now, sir. ,:~: <; '4 .~ }~; r:.,, w,; , r;; :.~,~; --_. '"~~i fF;.:: l.. 'I 7 ~,. ~. E' iy •" ~6•'.. ~.-... Rohm: Thank you. And I apologize for my tardiness. As I understand that we -- the next item on the agenda is scheduled to be continued. Moe: We are going to go ahead and do Baraya now and, then, we will go and continue everything afterwards. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, good. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on continued Public Hearing from January 4th, 2007, for AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, both items related to Baraya Subdivision and begin with the staff report. t 4 n 4 ~, ~~~~~ , r ~~r M Igo r ~-~ ~ 4 ~ to I~«t T1 ks ~;Yi~ ~{r _ - a r f ` a 5 '= t z K ti S._ c.4 .{r. wed.. ~~.tx. - i ~ ~~ 1 r r~ ~ ~p ~ ~~;~ '4 -: ~~ i. T.: y(,~ t dw '~ M t t I ~, a E it'~~ t- 3, ~ ~ i ; -, .t, y - ~i~i~rb', pia #,3 ~ rti A€re~``.: gyp, ++~~- S« Y...f~~}if t~ ~ i `~, ~~ ~ ~~, z ~~' ° xG z ``..'# ~fr~' 4iµ ~. t F 7 ~ ~ ~Z ~ ~. .Y ...,I. ~` • ~~ ' ` Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 18 of 37 ~' ~ Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. The application before you is ~`_ r, ~~, ~ the Baraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 95.57 ~~`~ acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, for 28.17 acres; R-15, medium high ~ , -, density residential for 54.13 acres, and R-40, high density residential for 13.26 acres. ~: y`~ The applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which ~` ° ~-~`' proposes 334 single family residential lots -- get that there. Okay. Twenty-eight ` common lots and one school lot in the proposed R-8 and R-15 zones. And two multi- family and two common lots in the R-40 zone. The subject property is generally located, as you can see on the PowerPoint presented here, south of Franklin Road and * ti> ` east of Black Cat Road. Right there. To the northwest there is the approved Silver ' ~ Oaks Subdivision. There we go. Zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and ~~y ` ' west are residential -- residential zoned properties under the jurisdiction of Ada county. ` '' : Access to the site is proposed from three public streets that connect to Franklin Road ~ . , µ~ and Black Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glen Canyon Avenue, `:, which is right here on this slide. It's proposed near the east boundary of the property 5~ ~ ~ ~ and divides the roe alon the ro osed zonin desi nations of R-15 and R-40. P P rtY 9 P P 9 9 w South Glen Canyon Avenue aligns with the public street approved in Silver Oaks ~~~;~ Subdivision to the north. South Fritz Way is also designed to intersect with Franklin Road and that's over here. And provide additional access to the property. Capital Reef p'~: ~ 1~ Drive is the proposed public street which intersects with Black Cat Road and that's over here. This public street will also serve as a primary access to the future school site. As previously stated, the applicant proposes 334 residential lots. The lots will range in size ~', ~ I from 3,300 square feet to approximately 9,000 square feet and approximately 10.25 acres will be set aside for the future multi-family units over here at the east. The 3~~ applicant has applied 16 percent of the site to meet the open space requirements. ~;~r~ Amenities will include multi-use pathway along the canal. Parkways, two community ,, s park areas, as you can see right here and right here, which will include tot lots and a f~ ' pool with changing room. Staff would like to provide the Commission with some u. , background information on these applications now. In May of 2006 the applicant ~" ~` ' F; submitted annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications for this site. At that ~' '`~ hearing the Commission recommended approval of the project. However, in July City ~ ~~ Council voted to deny Baraya. Their basis for denial fell upon the lack of conformance ~~~ ~~: ~~ of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile specific area plan. The ~~ applicant requested reconsideration of City Council's decision to allow for redesign of ~~ ,' the project and apply the Ten Mile standards and Council subsequently remanded the `~ ~ ~ project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The subject applications before ,..~ you were again heard on January 4th, 2007, just a couple of months ago. Planning staff recommended denial of this project, as staff believed the project was still inconsistent ~~~ l with the goals of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. At the hearing the i ~ ~ ~~;; applicant requested continuance to meet with planning staff to allow for redesign of the ~r-~l project to apply the Ten Mile standards. Staff believes the revised proposal before you this evening is more compatible with the goal and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, and the Unified 'f ~~ Development Code. There are a couple issues to mention here. At the Public Hearing ~`: : ~. ~ on January 4th, 2007, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the ~~ z'::~~ subdivision to conform to the Ten Mile specific area plan. The Commission also ~~ sir ~~ ' " ; .3'1n ~.i,~Y~Y MA r y ~ y~ . <~- ,~ ~~. F~' 'y~1F t ~~ F t( 7 ~ Are i~`9Ex ~ i fi 3 i~~ t~.F `Z Ci-J. '.t r „ri ~ ( ...~o'9i i~T` `w",",~ tt~ k?t ~ t ,: 1 _ ~ ,J jf Y,.4 ~..M1~ .f { ~ i.~:= F 'S r' .~ ~- r ? ,' ~ ~ 1 'y ~~ ~.r~r' n h ~ S:~ '+ ik ti~4~ +i 1 ~ .Y r tYu~~L ~ s ,~ n r aq~ ~"'' Y { ar M Q ,~, Y~ -r -;, ;~, ~ y-; _,.,,.- . ti ~,; ~`$ ~ I ~ "` 4~f~ ,~ ~ n i t~ v'r, i+ ~ i i' .., 's > Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 19 of 37 requested the applicant provide planning staff with sample elevations of the product .,-.; , E''`~ type to be constructed and development guidelines for the future owners of the multi- .~~ family property. The applicant has stated the renderings of housing product will be available to staff and the Commission tonight. As planning staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate these elevations and the development guidelines, staff ~'~ ~` recommends approval of the proposed Baraya Subdivision only if the Commission `" believes the applicant's development and -- development guidelines are suitable and the building elevations provided this evening meet staffs design requirements as listed in the staff report. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Are there any questions of staff at this time? {_ ~~' Siddoway: Only one. :, Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I see on the notes under compliance with the Ten Mile plan, you have yes. °` So, do I understand correctly that staff -- the applicant has met with planning staff to ~ ~` review the plans based on the updated Ten Mile specific area plan and it's found to be ~;~:~. in compliance? f;,: , Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, staff has met with the applicant and -- on January 11th, in fact, and we reviewed the submitted plans F,_:i and we do feel that -- that the new plan does conform with the Ten Mile standards. Siddoway: And just out of curiosity, did you include long range planning staff that's working on the specific area plan in that discussion? 'z=°~ Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, again, yes, we -- we did meet with Peter Friedman, he is the comprehensive planning manager for the Melridian planning department and he is the one who develops those sample guidelines -- the design standards that are in the analysis section of the report. And he >~~~<~ provided them to the applicant that day. ~~r:: -, {< Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian. It's a good thing I didn't come later. I thought it was going to be late tonight, but you guys went quick, so I'm hustling. It's good to be back and good to have a positive staff report after it's been about seven weeks since we were last in front of you and I know Mr. Rohm wasn't here, so I'm glad we got a full Commission here tonight and maybe just to bring us back up to speed of where we left off real quick. We did have some focus -- I know we kind of -- we worked together to get some focus for the lot -- left the last healring on kind of an area of concern was just ~:x~_r ',t s j ` ,~}"~~ji~~ ~? b . k t@ t~eP~~ C ~+.i't ~ i~ .T a f 1' . ~ zr. s r _ ~p t I +4:a t Y H^^x g~ ~,~ ~~~ FE4~~y' m SYy~ a~w ~~M__ !~ ~ ~ r' ~ ~~~ r i '' ~ -i ~ y ~~~''!!cc} y n; ar ~~ ~~.ay t i'-.%i s~ '~,r - w ~v '^~ r ~ ~' ~` r ~ °~ ~ ~ , ~ v Y ~ ~ + ~u~~ c.~~x~ ,ter .n-..,.. _x,.~..- _ a e~. ~ .S. L ~ ~~ s ~ ~~ dv, .tip ~{~ ~- SY e~.A:-.,.:'. -~ ~,. ~- ':',a { 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 20 of 37 :~ -~ ~5~:;, a ~_ ~+ ~..~ ,~ ref t°: :, ~,:~.! :;. ~, ~..- ; ~ >, ~~<< _s kind of the area -- the R-15 area didn't have the mix or the type of housing and maybe density is one component of that, maybe alley-loaded was one component of that, and we took the staff report, the hearing, into consideration, went home that night and worked the next few days and kind of reworked two main points. One was we created a distinct R-8 zone, where as before we were all R-15, and that more closely matches the Ten Mile plan, which shows medium density here and, then, medium high around here and, then, high over here. So, we went back and created an R-8 zone to follow right through here and all we had to do was revise one little block and we hit it. I mean it was a pretty simple change to make that R-8. We went into this area here -- we used to have a bigger park, we split that into two. This has a nice tot lot, it has some slope. This is one of those areas we mentioned before that has some slope issues. We felt that would be more conducive to just leaving open. And we reworked this whole area to provide more townhomes. We didn't put any alley-loaded lots in at that time, so when we came to the meeting a week later, one of the first things on Mr. Friedman's list of Baraya design considerations was de-emphasize garages. We chose to do that. There is different ways to do it. You can do some side entries. We chose to do it with some alley-loaded in these three areas here, which is a fairly easy thing to do, but at the same time it really kind of changed the whole mixture greatly. In fact, we got 20 percent of our whole site is alley-loaded, which is -- we used to have zero percent in the last one, so that's a big change. We have got a lot more townhomes. In fact, I wanted to kind of -- kind of just to summarize our percentage of -- kind of cut off over here, but this will work. So, we have 87 townhome lots, 14 percent 100, 112, 18 percent, 50 foot lots, 60 foot lots. This is actually an old one. No. This one doesn't have the alley-loaded lots over here. So, if I wanted to put this one up. Essentially of the product types of townhomes, alley-loaded, 40 foot, 50 foot, 60 foot in front, not any one type has over 30 percent. So, we have got -- and none of them have less than ten percent. So, we have got a good mix. You can see from this color exhibit we put together to kind of emphasize that mix and this is the zone boundary. It's got a great mix. I mean it's -- I mean it's something that from a production home builder standpoint, okay, it kind of slows us up, but at the same time provides good architectural differentiation, it provides good price point differentiation, it provides just a good wide range of mixes to appeal to a lot of different type of home buyers that may want to move in here in this area. So, we feel like from a mix standpoint it's exceptional and an improvement on what we had before. It truly is. Kind of jumping into the staff report, I want to kind of hit just a couple brief things. On page four there is an issue about seepage beds along these alley-loaded lots. Because we have a ten foot setback allowed in the front of those, which I like for alley-loaded lots, it creates a good architectural feel. There is a DEQ issue that comes up. We won't -- for seepage beds. We won't put these seepage beds on those roads. So, as far as Public Works is concerned, we are going to mitigate that with our engineering design. I lost everything. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just a real quick one. Do you have your elevations here? y F `. ~ . . ~ <~ w f,y ~~~' c y; r ~, ~ r ~k~l,~~~F S(.~ ., i r f _~ r ~~~ ~ ~ r r~~ -'~.y'r j~#,'~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ! T ~ ~` i ~~+?r iTMP~'i'. fax ~+`~' 34"x! ,r y ~~'I`~ 5 1 ,G4t, F. f F, ,Y:t: '~. ra 1 1~ ; _ ~ ~ ' t+c < s' ~ ~,,ti~s~#~. w ~ a ;' ~~ ~' 1 .~ ~ ~,, L i+ V ~' ~ .~, ~ ~ ;. ' ~ a~~ +~~A~1- ~ ~ e '~' c~ F~+ ~r 1 ` ~ ,r . F~,~4 r s ' ~ 't° '~~; `, y ,, n ~~„ F ~ 'r ~r 1 i r ~ ~ ~ -~- ~T, 4 r M 3 .Y ~` _ } _: ~ _ ,'~ ,~ .? ,~~ ~;t; ~~ ~~- . ~:- ;,~', ~ y""i ~5 ~Y~Y i ~~ Wt ,z, K ,, p: ~f ~, ~~~__ ~`~ ;~r'" ~ u, i~ i ~ ~1y~`~~4~ ~ s~ r A' ' . 9 ~ s r . }Y of Y7 AF t `' ~ Ark. ~ 1.T a ~ t . ~ ~"~!,~.' T ' ~ -- 4 i 'f f ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~+ > ~ ~ Yt Y 1 ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ c1 3 ~' ~ f t '} ;7 ~ r ~ 3' g G ~ L~~~r-~~ F E '- t i 2 _ s +~ ~ ~, L r t , ' ~ r}~:3u,t 3 s{. ~ n3~p ~G k t v y rr3,~ri~. £;'; ~ ~it ~ ~ i ~ ~~1++ y1~ .I.Y ~ ~ `Y:\ E`r'Y,;: i s ~'"c: ~.. 3+ ~C~ Sl1ti SE.~ ~ ~ i i o~ ~ r V~ ~. ~ ' ~~ ,te ~tLL.. ~ i ~ ~~• ~ F J ~ t~'; 1, .. }~r~ i ~~ ~~'hq ~ ~ Wit: `~.;L; rs` ~, ~ '~ $~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 21 of 37 u Schultz: I do. I do. That's part of my -- very shortly I will be there, the elevations. I know you're anxious and we will get there. Moe: There you go. Schultz: I wanted to hit some points -- just so you know, the staff report generally is very thorough. We agree with 99 percent of the things in there. There is just a few key points I need to clarify. Along this regional pathway we built a pathway in there with -- under alicensed agreement between the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It's a ten foot regional pathway. They don't like trees in that. We are going to try to get threes along the back of these lots, but definitely they are not going to want them on the other side of the path up against the canal, because they get in there occasionally, have to clean it out, and that's why we did not show trees, because we have been through this before. So, we are going to do all we can to get trees in there, knowing that Nampa-Meridian may prevent us from doing that. I like trees if they will let us. And that's on page 13. We had some minor street frontage issues up on these lots here at the end of the cul-de-sac, which we could resolve easily with our final plat. Or even a revised preliminary plat for City Council and that's not an issue, we can -- we appreciate staff pointing that out. And, then, last, but not least, there was a condition we go meet with the police department, which I went and met with Lieutenant Stowe yesterday. We just got the staff report last week. We, basically, clarified in our landscape plan that there is open fencing along all pathways and behind these tot lots, which is probably just an oversight on our part, that's what we had intended. We didn't move -- there was a tot lot over in the comer we moved to the center, which he wanted. And he had some concerns about this road here and we agreed to work with ACRD on the stop signs on either side of this road, be two way, and this one will be a four way stop. I wrote a letter -- I don't know if that got into the record or not. And I will hand that in right now if it didn't. It's just aletter to -- back to Lieutenant Stowe outlining what we agreed upon and he e-mailed me back and said it will look great. As far as the elevations, one thing I found out in going to work with architects, they don't -- they move at their own pace, so we have a lot done, but we don't have everything done for this hearing, because they can't be rushed and they have three months backlogs and that's just how they work. So, I mean -- did we get the projector working? Unfortunately. Can I hold them up in front of the Commission? I'll be creative here. These are some pictures -- and these will be in this area here of the 50 and 60 pictures. These are by CBH Homes in the Ventana Subdivision. Brand new architectural renderings. They have got good emphasis, architectural differentiation, colors, porches. That's one. These are all on 60 foot lots. The difference is the two car and a three car, going between a 50 and a 60. So, that's the difference. These are attractive. These are attractive homes. They provide something different on every one of these. There is only so many ways you can do a house, but I think this is a good attempt at doing -- trying to break up the monotony that sometimes comes into our subdivisions. This is in Ventana up on the -- Meridian Road north of McMillan. Did you get them? Keep going from here on. And I'll leave these for the record after I'm done, just to enter into the record, so -- °~ ~~=: ~;,~ =~ i it. ~: I .~ ~> '~'~ -: „; Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 22 of 37 Rohm: One of the things that in the hearings down the road, you might bring those in pdf format or jpegs, because our folks can put those on the screen in that format. Might try that. Schultz: We just got these -- the renderings yesterday, that's why we were quick enough to get them in there, but I appreciate that advice. As another version, if you can go to the next one, please. Different use of architectural materials. I'm going to go over the Baraya design guidelines in the report that I know are here. We got handed these at our January 11th meeting and we felt that we could comply with those. Siddoway: Matt, one thing I'm noticing is that all your elevations you're showing so far have some brick, stone, and/or stucco on them; does that -- Schultz: Absolutely. Siddoway: -- fall in line with what you're saying? Schultz: Absolutely. If we could go to the next one, please. That house there -- actually, the three car version -- and the two car would fit on a 40 foot wide lot. It could be a version of an alley-loaded lot, too, with some different variation. That is, actually, a little bit narrower house, a little more efficient, probably about 1,600 1,700 square foot. Cute house. I mean there is nothing wrong with it. I mean as we get a little smaller, we kind of lose opportunities to do lots of different things in the front, but I think it's a good attempt to breaking up, compared to some of the facades I have seen around the valley. If you could go to the next one, please. We are getting into the -- now, this -- we weren't able to get to the alley loaded renderings, but this was the townhome concept. It's a work in progress right now. It's -- we are under contract with Hansen Design Group, Lars Hansen. He's an architect. He used to work for Eaglewood Homes. And try to provide some variation in color. We can even provide variation in some of the stone, stucco, within -- these are afour-plex attached unit that allows some efficiency in our design, allows different price points with -- and still allows the 30 or 40 foot backyard in how we have laid them out. So, we are still maintaining some private open space and that's something we sacrifice when we go to the alley-loaded, we lose some of that private open space. But everybody is different. Some people don't want that, some people do. So, what we provided within Baraya is a good mix of everything. And this is a work in progress. We are going to continue to refine this. I mean it's not going to get built for probably another year and the market is evolving and we are improving and we are looking for some feedback as well. I know everybody's got a different opinion on looks and what's good, what's bad and this is just one version of what we could do that we have been working on. We wanted to show progress and before Council we will have renderings of the alley-loaded, but we wanted to show you that we are working on it. Architects aren't and they are not easy to get going fast, like we move fast, so I think all in all, with our renderings, with our lot mix, with the conformance to both the existing and the proposed comp plans -- we have been at this for a year. We have been around the block two or three times now. But I think it's all been worth it. I think the fact we have got an elementary school site in the site plan is a good thing. I think the high r ,~.~~: ,., ~ ) 4' F. ~ f ~ ~ F r ~~~' }~~ awn'~a s ~w k 1 a~ ~ i x ~ a , '~ i ke F -rat i r+P+ ~ F. g y r~7-`r' ?s .~~` i / fit, y }r~~"' ` t' s r,~ ' N~ ~;~ k ;~ n,,,. .'~ 4 :, ~~ _ ~~ .~ 9kF ~/ y,`~~ iFIK i i..yf~r- l ~t ~~`,.'~V y ., * h ~ ~y~~I~qy-Vi ~ St ~ F'Cd~~'. t ~£y.; ~ ~ ~ h~ ~ ~ { - 4 ~~ E yrt( l ~ ~ ?T 5i.'i F 'S ~, y ~ ~ j r R T' ~y~~~ ~< ~~i t 1 AZ J ~ ~ '...~~ y~~ ~~ $ S R ~ ~~. i~'~ .~ ~ r~ ..: ( ~~ r t f ~ ~: x c t r - r ~ , ~~~ r ei . '~ `~~~ ~' - ' ` "~~ '- Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ March 1, 2007 a~: Page 23 of 37 .~< . ~" " density, which is something that was asked that we provide design guidelines for, ~`'`~ guess we are hanging our hat on the -- it's going to have to come back through at least a Conditional Use Permit. They will have to subject themselves to the full R-40 zoning ~~ ordinance and the full Ten Mile area specific plan design guidelines, whenever those do ~~, "' get adopted. I think those are still in progress right now, if I'm correct. Right in there. It hasn't officially happened yet. But we are going to subject that high density portion to °~ whatever everybody comes to a consensus on at that time. Right now we are kind of °y';<. not sure what that consensus is, so it's a little premature for us to say what's going to go ,, in there exactly, but we know it will conform to whatever standards you have in place at ~~~ that time when they do come forward with that Conditional Use Permit, which is ~'. ;:a probably a couple of years out, I would guess. It's not going to happen this year, ~- probably next year at the earliest. So, I don't think we are trying to get anything by on "'''-' that. We are -- you know, it's a blank slate right now in that area for the higher density. ~~ =~ So, I'm glad we have a positive staff report. Last time we didn't have any conditions to ~; ..< ~. act on. Today we do. And we have made some great progress and I'll stand for any ~~ ~`:„ questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Any questions for the applicant? ~' Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: You spoke of -- that you had guidelines for design? Schultz: One of the things that -- I think it's in your staff report, if -- do you know what ' ;~~ pages that's on, Amanda? It's in the staff analysis. She put it in here. 7 Borup: Section 10. Schultz: Page 12. Y,J~v; u~ ...~:~'~^: I e y,«i ~~~ Hess: Page 12. ~K - ; ~ Schultz: In the middle -- there was a -- and it's a reiteration of that and that was handed "`` to us at the January 11th meeting by Mr. Friedman, your long range planner. So, as we go down, he says provide a variety of housing types. We do that. Provide a variety in design and avoid monotony. I think with our variety of housing types, along with some other architectural features, we are overcoming that. And as you go down it, the only E ~~! thing that I think may be a little redundant is provide for pedestrian connectivity. I think ~;r~~ we have done that in our site design, so to state it again may be a little redundant. And, then, develop guidelines for the future owners of the multi-family property. We can take N ``~ a stab at that before City Council. Like I said right now, I think some of that stuff is up in `"~ "'' the air and we are going to subject that section of our property to whatever guidelines .` ~~ everybody approves and adopts in the Ten Mile planning area revision, which is going through the system right now, so -- p ,~ n~~Y ,f ~ ~^ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5 ~~ i~ ~F ~ i ;~ ~ ~~. ~, !~ ~,~ ,'~ w s~ .r} ~' ~4 ~ ~~ J ~ a.' ^3,~.~ ~ 1~ T.~ly. 1 ~ v r M, Y ¢ y ~,~ ~ ~ _ - +S ri y ~l .F 1 ~"=` ~ . . k; 7 ~N h a y ~ ~ ~r :y .~y~ii- y A TS'~>' ICi t~~ ~ j ~~• ~} kV F ~ 1 ~j r ~ ~ o Y.f 7 ~iyit :~ W 9- 2:. y , ~ ~3 ~ . ~ f ` ~ Y Y ~ ~ ;~ ~,, I ~ o- N ~ ° f ~t ti `~ ~ ~ !~~}~r r~ n ~. J/L ) , ~ t r + ~'Sr ~ t ~ 4~ ~.1 Y a~' ~ ~' ~.~ ;i! IX' ._. _3.., ,>t~.. ~ 3~ ~~S ~ Y~~~ ~T ' * i Y ~ ~•~ ~} 1 ~.. f '; ,f I 44 J~~,~..11~ ' Ir.. ;<~~; ,,~ M}: Lc` 1 ' ¢r~~ `i=~ ~, ,~,:_ :~ y,, ...1.!-3., l _..~, ;,:~ ?~~~~ ~~ ~-~~. k~ =~. ~~Y ~` <,.;r X~;;. ~~~~ z. ~~ ~, ~ `4 ;_ 4'_ ,,,, .<,~j~s t. ;_; ` :,~. :.,, . ~;, ,~ ~ ah > ~<- ~.. ,:~~: ~: ~, ~ ,`~,,~ rs ~. rk_. ~~, .,- • O Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 24 of 37 Siddoway: So, if we struck the bottom one, which is that you have to develop guidelines, could the rest be incorporated into a development agreement, in your opinion? Schultz: Absolutely. And I would expect that. I would expect -- I even think that pedestrian connectivity might be a little redundant, because, our site plan already provides for that connectivity and if there is any connectivity problems, we'd like to just fix it in our site design, but I don't think we do. We have got ample connectivity, so -- so, yeah, I think within the development agreement it should say, you know, the high density section shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and be subject to the Ten Mile specific planning area design guidelines in force at that time and, then, that would cover it. Siddoway: One more question? Rohm: Absolutely. Siddoway: The area with the regional pathway, do you have any land that is outside of the easement or is it all Nampa-Meridian easement? Schultz: I was thinking about that today. You know, we did have site design. We were told we could put the pathway within the easement and we did. The lots that back up to that are, I believe, 100, 105 feet deep. And that's where the Ten Mile -- or Black Cat trunk is in the ground and the road's in front of it already, so we are kind of fixed on that alignment, but based on the easement that we granted last July and -- that thing's all the way to the freeway now and through the site. That road is fixed and -- but we have got plenty of room. And, like I said, we are going to push to get trees where we are not shown at the back of the lots here, not necessarily on the other side of the pathway, because I know they won't let us. We have tried in the past and it just hadn't worked. Siddoway: The section you referenced earlier on page 13 of the analysis, not the conditions of approval, I'm trying to figure out if there was a condition of approval that requires those trees and if so -- Borup: 1.2.14. Siddoway: Is it? Schultz: Yes. In here. It's Exhibit B, 1.2.14. It, actually, says on one side of multi-use pathways, which I did not notice until just now. So, we will put it in the west side, if we have to go to blows with the Nampa-Meridian to do it. We are going to push for it and they should let us. There is a five foot gap there, at least, that we should be able to plant a tree and it shouldn't encumber their ability to access that ditch and maintain it. So, we are going to push for that. c > ;... ;3~: • S Meridian Planning l;< Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 25 of 37 Siddoway: So, are you okay with the wording as proposed, then, since it's only on one side? Schultz: I am. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Commissioner Borup? Borup: That probably answers my question, then, you had went through several -- several items on the staff report and this was the only one that I saw that -- Schultz: Was a condition. Borup: Well, it was a condition that wasn't already addressed -- I mean that you weren't already handling. Is that -- is that true? Schultz: Yeah. I mean -- and I even said I'd do it if Nampa-Meridian will let me. But, yeah, that's the only one. Like I said, the staff report is very clean for me and we can comply with anything in there. Borup: So, what's your options if Nampa-Meridian won't? Schultz: Come back and beg for forgiveness from you guys and explain that we tried and show you our documentation and proof and -- Borup: Okay. Schultz: -- you know, that's all we can do, I guess, at that time. We are going to get after it right now with our license agreement and that will -- that process will determine if they say yea or nay. We will do it early, so it's not something that will hold up the final plat. We will do it now, even though our first phase is going to be in this area over here. Borup: Do you have a maintenance road -- on which side? Schultz: They are going to have it on the opposite side. They will have a maintenance road on the other side. It's not pedestrian accessible. It will be fenced off just for them. So, they should allow it. I really don't see them -- Borup: They should. Yes. Schultz: They should. Borup: Okay. That was all I had. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any questions? `~f~ii:. mPx; .. ~i_4^ .a~ "ter ,1; ;~> ~7s54r ,, ~.V~; ,~ -_ 2~_ ~~ ~~ -~, ;:, x ~~~y ,.~; tit ~ c'r' . .;< ~~,~: -~'~_ ~~~, ~ ~' ;,. }~v:~•. ~;. 1 ^ ^ s Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 26 of 37 e Newton-Huckabay: Not any questions per se. I don't really care for the rendering of the townhomes. The big garages out front. They also -- like the same thing, different color. The elevations of the home, they are fine. And the alley-loaded you don't have yet? Schultz: We don't have that yet. He's working on it as we speak. We will take your comments into consideration and we will revise those rendering of the townhomes as we go to City Council. I'm not going to -- I want to continually strive to evolve those things and that was, actually, a second generation. I told them the first ones weren't going to fly and he provided that and, well, okay, we will see how that goes. It's an improvement and will improve from there. I mean we just need to provide that feedback that you didn't like it and I will pass that on the first thing tomorrow morning to him. Newton-Huckabay: At all. Schultz: At all. You were very stem about it. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I don't really understand the development -- staff did not include a DA provision which requires the applicant to develop guidelines for any future multi-family property. We didn't see that. You're proposing -- Schultz: I'm proposing, instead of making us provide those, that we condition that a Conditional Use Permit be required before any development happens and that that be subject to the Ten Mile design guidelines. Newton-Huckabay: And that's a fair compromise? Borup: It's more than a compromise, I think. Newton-Huckabay: It seems so to me, but I just didn't really understand -- Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that does seem fair. Staffs amenable to that requirement. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. That's all I have. Other than I don't think the not having all the building elevations doesn't meet the request by staff, but -- Schultz: We tried really really hard. I begged him and tried and he just wouldn't budge. He gave me half of what I asked of him and I apologize for that and I asked three other architects and they have three month backlogs, so I mean it was the best I could do. Newton-Huckabay: But if the rest of the Commission is comfortable with moving it on what we have seen, then, Iwill -- it's neither here nor there. Borup: The thing you have got with the alley-loaded, you don't have the garages in there, so you have got a lot of flexibility in design and if they are consistent with what ~a. ~~ ~ ' ~~,' r1:3ti~' ;K, ~;: r ~t::sc~; f, ;.:,. ~:` it ^ s e Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 27 of 37 they are doing on the others -- the alley-loads can have some very nice front elevations. When you don't have that garage in there you're not restricted in what you can do. Siddoway: I like them. Borup: You can do a lot. Moe: I think one of the main points that's been made is that he is looking at multiple components to put on these buildings, not just one -- one type of material and there will be a lot of blend to it, so that will help. Newton-Huckabay: My only concern is that townhomes, because it's a huge portion of that development and I would really be disappointed to see when it's built out townhomes similar to the renderings we saw tonight. Borup: These lots are how wide? Schultz: They are 30 foot attached, so 30 foot wide -- Borup: And you have got 20 feet of garage. So, you only really got ten feet to do something with, other than garage. Schultz: And you have seen some alley-loaded townhomes and we are looking at that as well and as a feature evolution, but we have got a good variety of a lot of things in here and I guess that's -- in different price points and different architectural features and trying to balance all that out. We think we have got a little bit of everything and they are not that bad. Newton-Huckabay: They are not that great. Schultz: I'll try to do better. Newton-Huckabay: But I will go with the Commission on that. If you guys are comfortable with that, then, Iwill -- Moe: We still might have somebody in the audience that wants to talk. Rohm: Well, I have one comment before we open it to the public. Your renditions that you presented tonight, you know, I think that they point out that you're willing to have differing architectural blends with each structure that's built, but just because you present it, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what's going to happen and I haven't heard you say -- make a commitment to all of the dwellings will have three different components to the facial street side. ~ ~ _ - Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Pa a 28 of 37 i 9 "' li Schultz: You know, if Pete would have put that in here, I would have probably said ~, ;` „~v l okay. I'm just -- I'm going with whatever people want to define as the guidelines. I ~, ~h~~t!, didn't know three was the magic number, or, you know, or four or five -- J~ ;~' Rohm: And I don't know that I have a magic number, but the thing that I'm always I concerned about is will these are -- the items that you presented for testimony, they are ~` not a commitment to that, they are just saying, well, this is what we might do. ~j Siddoway: I propose we make them a commitment to that as part of the development ~~`' ~= agreement. ~~ ~F ~1 i (~ 4 - - Rohm: Well -- and I kind of think that that's where I'm going with this, is I'd like to see a -; commitment to what specifically you are willing to -- to go with, not necessarily just the ~, : ~ elevations that were presented. .:;' Schultz: And I agree. I think there is more opportunity to do things differently than what >; was presented. I mean just as good or better or whatever. And I understand your ~ ,~~~` concern and it's a question I have for this Commission and the Council and maybe the `~~'~`~~' City of Meridian as a whole. How do we make builders build exactly what we want and x.. ;~ at the same time not spend too many staff resources analyzing every little building `~ permit application that comes through to make sure it exactly conforms to a written - design guideline. It's a complicated issue and I agree if you say you must do at least j `''' that's fair. That's fair. this amount of variety and put those in a development agreement , And it's a question to me. How do we -- I'm up here today and in the next three years ~_~' my builder may do something that I didn't agree to and that's a concern that I have, it's a r..~~ ., ~~ ~ ~ concern that you have, that I don't want to be misrepresented either. , ~_:- ~: ..=T Rohm: Right. And so is it fair to expect two components or -- w r `; Borup: What's our definition of component? Rohm: Well, brick. Stucco. Brick -- Y zh Borup: I mean you're looking at some type of masonry surface and, then, a masonite t: siding would -- would be two. What would be the third? 4 s ~~~ ~', ~~ s Siddoway: Many of those had what looked like shakes or something along those lines, but not all of them. Schultz: It's a very hard thing to define in words. ~y ~~ ~z~., ~}~'~ . Borup: That's what I mean. It depends on the design. A lot of that depends on the k ~~ ~ c design of the house. : ,;,:. i;.r--' R ' l ~~ ._' ~ i k-": 5~'y~: l • } ~ 44y~r~~f~~ff"" ,~"~ ~e Y{l 'r Y ~ r . t v~ ~'~'~h ~~ R ~ a y'S w - ~~.. ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ant'. ` r ti: it { ? v -si~• r s kt ° ~' ~ F ~.' '~'.~. ~ ' i :~ _~~ ~~~ t t.. ., f' a~ ° ~' r F ~~ .c ~ d ~ ~~ t'. 3 ~ ° a a F if i '~ .~ ~ l 5 i n ~; ~,~~ ar ~ kk~ ~ k r~~f'r`- ,~ ;Y i ~ ~~ ?af Y~k n xjr ~~, 1 ~' ~ ~ ~ - 1 y, ~{ q,x _, .r a.~ ~ ~~r.. ~~ ~ , ~f~_ a~ ~ ,,,~,,~,,,, 2 2Y ~,.3~.[ ~._. 1 S ~l+ ~ltj1 ~++ y ~~ VI'd'z ~! ,~ F ~~~: 3 T t ~ ` 1 t k~ ~, ~ b_, 7 A : ~ XY ^f' Y ~~ M • fi; F, { ~~~: ~.,, :, >r+_y ;av~ .~;:~. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 29 of 37 Schultz: It's very hard to write down and describe what you want. You know what you like when you see it. And it's hard to write that down, you know, and so it's a problem I have, that you have, and we all have in how do we define this. Rohm: Well, I guess I don't have a specific answer to that question, but what I was looking for, more than me telling you what Iwant -- Schultz: Uh-huh. Rohm: -- what I'm looking for is you telling me what you're willing to commit to in terms of multiple components within -- Schultz: Multiple materials types on the facia? Borup: I think what you're saying -- Schultz: You know, stucco, stone, and -- Borup: Yes. Stucco, stone, some type of masonry. Schultz: Brick. Borup: And, then, maybe something along the line of breaking up textures, so you don't have, you know, large walls of the same material in the front and you can do that and you wouldn't have to go beyond that and you can do that with -- Rohm: That's as far as we want to go. Borup: Yeah. Me, too. I think it's -- there needs to be some flexibility for the builder. Rohm: I don't want to be up here telling them how to construct their homes, but I do think that we want to give them a feel for what the overall -- Borup: I think we are all comfortable with the -- with the pictures presented, weren't we? Rohm: Absolutely. Other than the townhouse. ~.>`~rt'~ Borup: Yeah. Well -- and those weren't pictures, but -- and I think he -- in my mind ~~ ~' think you can rely a little bit on what a builder developer has done in the past -- on their ~~ ~ past projects and how they have -- how they conduct themselves there, assuming that .~;3 they are going to do the same in the future, if they have done what they said they are ;',;~_ ~I going to do. ~~~ I Schultz: Can I offer a solution? ?'~a"~_= Rnhm• ~henli Maly ~' t ~~ ~' ~' ~ ~' ~ ~~~ ~ ~s ~-~ ~ ~~ ~ Y '~ ' tG, h.~~~~+.A .7 }B~ ~ 4 4 }~ f d 'r, N `?Y~j ~• ~~~yy. ~F ..f~~:.:. 1 ;~ '' ~ , ¢. F 4 r fi.. ~ ~'~ a f ii ~',rY alp:: "i is ~' lr,~,r ~ ,~;s ~ ~r. ~~} ~~h M ~a`~ft a.''as.,,.~~'" 1~,~.r ~ )~ ~k p 1:. r r ~ t1F C ~' 1"~}s Ajj~ fl: ~-G t ~.ia ~ S ~'°~ ~ r' ti ~~a ~~,,.,r a n ~ ,°~~ ~ri ~~~ ; . ~~ -~ ~ t . : ~ 'N j y ': + ry T~ t ; 1~, k~r £ ~ r ~ ~h Y ~°~ - x I'.S ~ " A t ~u r a ~ i :a ~ A ~'~ t '~iry '" ~ hd 4 . ~~,~..~ ya p ~~i ~~ i G ~~~ ,v.} ~ I ,~~f. ~F L ~1i ~` ~cW ` y f i, k 3 :' i~T{ ' " ~_" r j~ ~., r.„~:_; _:,..~~. 3 ~~~~;. .:~~ ~. ~~~~', .r: ~r: _~r> „~ u:;Y ~ -~ ;:~; 'I? r y', o ~ ~. ~ r j;lry1 \i.'. ,, ~~~-~~ ':r:; _~~~: s Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 30 of 37 • Schultz: These Baraya -- the residential design considerations, which are part of the staff analysis, third line down says quality exterior, naturally appearing materials, architectural detailing -- we can add to include at least three materials, including, but not limited to stucco, stone, or rock on the front. We could add it to that. Rohm: There you go. If you're -- Siddoway: Stucco, stone, or brick. Schultz: Or brick. That's what I mean to say. Yeah. Brick. And, then, there is another one that says provided variety and design and use architectural elements to define entries. Windows should be designed to create shadows and give depth by protruding or being recessed. So, there is some more in here that we are willing to hang our hat on with that little addition to that one line I think would cover us, I hope. Rohm: That works for me. Thank you. Schultz: Yeah. No problem. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: To the townhomes for just a moment. I have to agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that it looks like a, you know, garage only development with the way they line up. What I'm wondering is could -- could we -- what if we added a requirement that the townhome garage be set at least five feet behind the living area and, then, the living area actually come up to the setback -- it's reverse of what you see now. Right now the garage is out front and the living area is recessed. What if you reverse those? Borup: That's one idea. Another idea I just thought of is what if -- we have got ample depth in our lots to modulate the depth of the front face as well and not have them all lined up the same. You know, we could offset -- have variation. I'll go back to Lars tonight -- I'll send an a-mail and I'll say, Lars, here is what we got. We want to put the living area in front of the garage, what do you think. Siddoway: With narrow lots I would prefer to see that ten foot living area come forward. If he has reasons why he couldn't -- Borup: Well, think about it. You have got ten feet. You need an entryway of four feet, so you got a six foot room. Schultz: I'm not an architect, but -- Borup: The living area that's left would be a six foot room, basically. Which is unusable. 3Cfi g.i.t :., wF. 7t a { r~,~,, -z.' ~ x ~~. r: ~~_ x',`~"; ~~ 3 , Y ~'- t'-' Fj ~: ;.:_~ ~Y ' ~4: ~~; ^~ ~~ ~ r, ,. - t <a~~ w-.w:,:, ~~ .~. ~, _, . ~.5~z ~- ~ `~~~ 4Ji '. `_ ~~< r(3 ~~: !:. " :5. ? h,` s s Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 31 of 37 Siddoway: Until you get to the back of the garage. Right. Borup: So, that's unusable. Unusable space. Schultz: I would -- I would recommend that you provide a recommendation that we work with our architect to modulate the front -- attempt to put the living space in front of the garage if we can before we go to City Council. And we will do that. I mean -- Borup: Well, I think you can, but you'd still only have ten feet to work with, assuming you want a front door. Siddoway: Yes. Schultz: You are a builder, so I know you know that. That's where the modulation comes in to maybe break that up. Siddoway: No additional questions. Thanks. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: There is not anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but at this time we will open it to the floor. And we don't have anybody else coming forward. Thank you. I think at this time a motion to close the Public Hearing is in order. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Moe, any final comments? Moe: I know this has been a long long process to get this done and I am glad to see that we were able to come to some understanding with staff and whatnot on this and we have had some good discussion this evening. I guess I would be one -- as far as the renderings that I saw tonight, quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen a little bit better job of that, the whole presentation part, but I understand your comments about the architects and what they get done, but I would hope for sure that when you go before City Council that you have plenty of information for them to look at at that point. But beyond that I think it's a -- you have done a good job to make the changes and i Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 32 of 37 make it work and -- but I probably hadn't chimed in on the townhomes and I would agree with the other Commissioners, they need quite a bit of work. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I was pretty clear. ~,;~ Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton --Siddoway. No. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: You know, I just want to be on the record saying that this whole Ten Mile y~=° specific -- the Ten Mile area is -- the Ten Mile specific area is something special, is what ~~ :' the Ten Mile specific area planning process has been about. I do commend the applicant in the revisions that they have made, their willingness to work with staff and ~ti the changes they have made to come in line with the design guidelines that are being l developed. It has come a long ways. This is his third iteration -- his third major iteration ~- s and robabl other minor ones in between. But I am favorable with the project. I would p Y ~ ~ like to see us add a development agreement provision that addresses the design guidelines that we saw tonight, with the additional language that was proposed, and I think I will be ready to move on. ~' F', A' Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup? ':;: `' Borup: Nothing more to add. Nr Rohm: Fair enough. At this time I think we are ready to hear a motion. '~ i Siddoway: I will take a shot at it. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant 4.% ,,~~ testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-061 ti?"~~ ~ :` and PP 06-062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1st, 2007, ; > with the following modifications: Would add that a development agreement be required ~. =_'~ ~ that includes the Baraya -- was it residential design guidelines? Is that the title? That k were presented tonight. That -- I don't have a copy of them in front me, so I don't know N ,~ i which number it is that needs to have the addition of the stone, brick, or stucco. Thank ` ;t~ i you. Okay. The third item, quality exteriors, natural appealing materials, architectural detailing to include, but not limited to stucco, stone, or brick. I would strike the last _~~. ~, :. ~. ~~ ,r ~ ,.~ requirement that states that the applicant is required to develop guidelines for the future ~' ,r owners of the multi-family parcels and replace it with a requirement that the multi-family ~ lots will require a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with the design guidelines ~t <_ i developed for the Ten Mile specific area plan. Finally, addressing the townhomes, I would like to request that the applicant work with their architect to modulate the fronts of ~` `~ ~~`- ~ those structures, so that it is not just a straight street of garages, to see if the -- to bring :."~ forward the living area, if possible, but to get some differentiation along that street line. f:A' And that would be the end of my motion. S *i ,, ,~.I :-J: Moe: Second. rC ~ ~ k, 5:v~v 7 ~~~` ~~J~~r~ , ~~. -' ,h ~." . ~.! =[~'~ r :ry R~ ~.~2..~yF ~~ tl [S ~ ~ h ~ y r ~' ~ Z ~ , fi ~. j ~ ,, .. ~; r, { '+ t wr. z¢ r '~ r ~,,r {r ~ ~ ,~~ P I c ,. f F ..i ~H ,~~. ~ 1 s '.H t ;~ ~i -s~ ay ~ k ; '', 4 ~ ~I y t • t ., ..;~~ Ii5 4 ZtYY'•T ~ S tr. ~ iS i x i {) ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ v S" 1.+: ~Y ~ _ i` K 4 ` :, ~ r r 4~ r y { ~ ~ '1R 7 t~ 'l ~ i T _ ~ ~,gir s ..~ t r r '~ ~~ .~~ -?. 3~ t;-:~ ,. ~~ • 4 _ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning _ March 1, 2007 Page 33 of 37 ~$ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending -5~ ,~; '"'"~ approval of AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, to include all staff report with the aforementioned <. ' modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. Thank you very much. ,: MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Before we open those other hearings, can we just have some general 's;;i discussion about dates? Is that appropriate? ;,_°~: ,~ Rohm: Absolutely. ~ Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Idid -- the second part of your packet '~ =' tonight I did include a draft agenda for the next -- be four hearings are on there, so just °-_`~~' to kind of give you -- there are four items on tonight that we need to find homes for and with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan amendments in April, April just doesn't look °h~~~! very good. So, the next meeting on the 15th, if I had to guess and we had all four of i _y ?.". ~_,~ ~, those, I think we could probably make it through those. There has been talk and has been our recent history we seem to have two or three or four that don't post or want ' ~ :>, continuation anyways, but if you put all of them on that date, you know, we probably will be able to get through them. The other option -- I talked to a couple of the Commission = members beforehand -- there is a 5th Thursday in this month, the 29th. That is during ~, ~" ~`I spring break for Boise and Meridian school districts, I believe. Both during that time. `~~-r=i I So, I don't know if everyone has plans for then, if we even have a quorum, but just f ~~ ~~, something to throw out there as another alternative. It probably wouldn't be a very long '`s"', meeting. But just wanted to have you look at that and I personally believe that the four - j' -the four items, basically, have all put themselves in this predicament and I think we ~} ~ should treat them similarly and fairly and if we can't put them all on the 15th or the 29th, our next available hearing isn't until May. So, putting one of those over to May doesn't seem fair. But I'll leave that up to you guys to -- ~' Siddoway: We do have one that has requested May; is that right? Hood: Yes. Yeah. Cold Creek has requested that they be continued to -- I'm sorry. Siddoway: Belhaven. ~~ Hood: Yes. I'm sorry. Belhaven. Yes. They did submit a request to 5/3. ~~~'~' Siddoway: I would agree with that one. . _: ~' Rohm: As far as I'm concerned, I think we should put them all on the next agenda and „ ;:~ I the bottom line is we have had plenty of time to hear everything that is ready at such `~ `~` time that the hearing opens. So, to put the balance of them at the next hearing seems to be the best option from my perspective, but either that or move them all to May. And °~'~~~~~ I don't think anybody wants to do that. ~:' ~I ,. ;~; ,,,ham ;~~~ :- sr~ ° r? i ` x S. r ~ i ~r ~' f Y~ '~l~ y~~. -~~ - a is + i` \~ ; i :;. ~ ~i ~~i si~.F ~ ~ , 2 f ~ ~[; Lf :. y. ; Mgt 3 ~', N ~rrC`~' ~ .' S ~w 1 ~~~ p~•.1..~'~ s a y } ~~~.;x y ''-i ~ t~ P ~ t~ 4.; ,' ,r si z r ".t , r~, r+;_2$ r ~ ; y~ f l-a h ;,~ ~i r a Z i f'- N ~{ ~ v~ .1.., r, c fyi;.,J' Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 34 of 37 s~~>:, `F.+'Y Borup: If we don't make it through on the 15th, do we still have the option of the 29th? Rohm: Absolutely. Hood: You sure could, because they would all be noticed hearings at that time and any party that's here knows that you're just continuing them for two weeks. Borup: So, I agree with Commissioner Rohm. Leave it on the 15th and, then, I think address it that night. Maybe that would be some incentive to move things along. Rohm: Right. The 15th of this month. Siddoway: You won't have Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and Ito keep the discussions lengthy. We are both gone that night on the 15th. So, you would just have the three other Commissioners. Rohm: Does anybody have a problem with doing it just that way? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any -- Newton-Huckabay: I will not be here. Borup: She likes it. Rohm: So, you don't have an opinion. Okay. All right. That seems to be the consensus, then, and if that works for the balance of you, then -- Siddoway: It works forme. Rohm: -- we can do it just that way. Okay. At this time I'd like to -- go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Well, regarding the 29th, because I won't be here on the 15th, I want you to know my preference is not to have a meeting on the 29th. I cannot guarantee my availability, because it is over spring break. Rohm: I don't think anybody intends to have one on the 29th. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Siddoway: We just want you to get through everything on the 15th. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: t.: ! ~ .,F ;; `, ,.1 ~' . ,'. ~I v ~-1 ,.~ ~:,~ ~, a. :.a ry_~ ', :~`~ ~ _,;~~, r ^s`.i r ;. ;~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 35 of 37 Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: Bingo. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public I Hearing on AZ 06-002 and RZ 07-003, for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 15th, 2006. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-002 and RZ 07-003 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common /other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: 07-002 and 07-003. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07- 001 and PP 07-001, both items related to Belhaven Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. ~~~=~4~~ Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-001 and PP 07-001 to ~, ,- the regularly scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed ` ~? ~ same sign? Motion carried. v' =`` ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ~~ ~_ :r~.>r t;, ~. ~.~ ,. ~i ~. y B I ~a < ~ ~ ~ t?~ ~. ,. 4 k }f ~ K~3 1 ~ , ~r ~t "~ l ~ ,.t ~ ~ i fi y l: i ~ - t :t Y v. . ~~ ... ,.1.~ r~.n ~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~i~r ti ^ 1r ~, ~ !(i w~' gyn., k ~ S2 Y5'i3 '. S'~ r :: it: ,' ~: ~v31 `: 'w ~ ~ r, ~~J a,~y k: ~7 rte., ~T h, k i ~~s ~'~, ~~~ ~kR~ ~.'t 71Y s ~4 Jiii'~/~9 n rL d ~' a ~4. Sy+~ s, fi' ~ r+ CF {s 1 • ~ ~+ r ~ 4 f`M "., ~'~ •~ f..~.i K i . ;- ~' ~- ~` ,.. { -.:.ti. ~;' .' ~° µ~ ~i ~~`~?~ `a ;;t }~ . _ ~, ,; ,,~~ ~:~~~ ,.,:.. ,. . `>' F. 1 ~,:: ~~ ~~'~. 4= }; ~:^ ta; -_:: r ;.-~': ,.,:.~.~ rs .w>;:< O Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 36 of 37 Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots (proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau -1105 W. Pine Street: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 64 multi- family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau -1105 W. Pine Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open Items No. PP 07-004 and PP 07-002, for the sole purpose of continuing to the March 15th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items PP 07-004 and PP 07-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 207: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser -North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from February 15th, 2007, of CUP 07-001 of Jamaica Me Tan, for the sole purpose of continuing to the March 15th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~~; ..-.__ fi. `'.1' i~ ~ ~~, • .~; ~? ~~~''~~ Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 37 of 37 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ~~ := "~ Moe: I move we adjourn. y , ~,} ~ ,ys Rohm: It's been moved to adjourn. ` Siddoway: Second. `F =~ Rohm: And seconded. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. ,; r~~' MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. .~ :.~`~ ' MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:44 P.M. ^::F. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROV rS ;x ,:~ MICHAEL E. ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPRO ~ ~~~~~~~~>, e ,o •~4~ -~'yY ~T~~~~ ~ ~ ` ~ 1 ` _ \~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ ATTESTED f,r / ~zL ~ ~ - ~~ , : ~ r', - d C WILLIAM G. BERG JIB, C Ty C ERK ~,~ .. . ~ = ~~ ~G~ ~~, ~ ® ~A~ -',i~' ~~ "~ S .:;~. ~~~~' iE ~: { _~Y 5' ~t ::.~,, ~x$~`~ -i.3~. $~~'t^' MII: 9 s 1 tt 4 {~~ -c,' 3 '~`~E (~...., . f5`,: - t• ':~; -.. li -. • February 26, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING APPLICANT St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store ITEM NO. 3-A CUP 06-041 March 1, 2007 _~ _..r REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval- Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the O-T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building - 213 N. Main Street 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 Findings ,4pprov`e ~f -C7 5~-~13 OTHER: Contacted: Date: ~ ~] Phone: 7 ~~' 3 `r~.~ Emailed: G~.l clri ~-~-~ ~~ ~j ~ ~'Z p, ~d, W-(~Q,. (~?~~ Staff Ini ials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ;~ s ~.~€ ? t~~„ ` 2 r ~ o `-. s211a e y ~. ., F j ~ "~'~ b ,, yr,-z~ `'~ ~~: 3} ~* m h~' , '~ ~' , i ma '~ ~a.~r ,~ >r ~4 __ S r ~ L Y ~ ~ ,~ r tt ~'*~ ~, ~'f ~ 'k` y '~~ t~ b D i~' ~>~r ~ ~ ~ y L~~~ c ~ . ~ `-' ~~~ f~ i~~ ,: ' + ~ v ny _g ~ ;ts; ti ~Ip S K ,k7~.7.,y~. N3 t~ l4 '~:~~t ~F ~IK 4. :'f 3 ~~ ~ ~ M ~ ~, < Yu Y '~ tt. ~, rt r -~~~ 4•; ;~~'~ <ry'HfyA F ~• y ,/*, ~r1 1. '.;'t F~~ ([~~ 1 ~ ~; l~~ N C ~}+' r r~ • • ~! -~; . f'A', ' f, .~. ,Y L~'t '~ ~.., =f, ;: ~~ S 1 ~= EE ~ ~ °~(pU7 n Y ~1 City ~f ~f ~Y~iddi~r~ , ~ ~_'p ti ~;ity C%le~°~ ~~~C' rr~ sr~ ~,~~ ~~' ~_, ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ;l~, `~ ~~, ~%~~ ,~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~,, ~ ,~~..g-~~, ~~~ LAW AND -, DECISION & ORDER ~- zap.. ~~, ~ ~-°` -~~ In the Matter of Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 Acres in the O-T District, by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store. Case No(s). CUP-06-041 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 15, 2007 (Continued from February 1, 2007 and Findings on the March 1, 2007 Planning Commission Consent Agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 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(S). CUP-06-041 a ,.54~z a ,~ ~S~ ~~ ~f5 ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ Ld~. ~ 1 f r. , v~-~ -. :'.t-= s ; _, fir{ .i?y-~ r xx Y`om` iY ~,~ 4 rr ~! S .~~ 'fi NF~ 3 ,i '1 -. f _ 3"~ ~ ~ w ~ ^x a 2 1 C~4~ ~ Yk ~ ~ wt } I. i ~/ f.~ ~ 1 ,~y9i4~ x '''j Ys r ~ b `~ iv ~J ~ 4 i~ 1 3 S kJ •~~. ~~ tc ~~~ ri. ~. 1 .. ~~ 47 " I k. ~ ` F.'1 H ~s?``^. 'S y'4 'C 3 ~,~~ Y , +, S~. i x2r ~ .w ~~ ~ j< ',.L ~"'~ r '~' '~ ,1 .. . t~g.~r ~,~.'r • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. ,'' ~~`;z< L .~,> :; t~+` 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 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 site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007 incorporated by reference. s `,~'' _: <.i I'~ ~. r ;;: j~' '~T ~~~;- t ~l ~;r ~,' ;'x. ~'~ :: ~:, 4.1 D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-041 i t i ¢~'r c ~ r' ~ ~ ~J~ y.j ~` }'t ''' ' k ~ ~'~r_,aev ~ ~_ ~ f i ~~ ~~ ~ .}py" ~~~-~ ~" a a~ 1~'a ` n ~~ ~`~ " ; N k ~ it ~ t ~, ~. ~.+;~° MM ~ j 4 } ~` ~ ~ lS ~ Aft°- ~~ ` 7 ~ ~'~ ~ ~ti~ ~ aA tF +"4' a .' `('v' Fh( } r ~~\~)`~`tj L f n_~, r ~ ~3~ rr~ ` ~~3 v ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r 3o-+ •s 'S~ 5 ,t. ~ s i ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ { { ~~ i ~~' r ~ f ~~ ~ELl;t's:`~2 ~ ~' ~~ ~ r u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~. ti ! r ~ x '~ ~ ~i ~ s'E 1 ~ b y t , _~ ,~ '. v s.4 5 ~. s R r ,r ~ r ' ~ d '~ ,,yy y,,, tt - `~~ ~, '^ ;,;?, ~~~ I, ,- ~'i =: ~; ,j`,.= x ~--, ;, '~, . ,;~~ .~ .~~~,' ~, .~ '-~<'; ;~ ~~'; •$, ',! ~.~ `~ E. Title 11. 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 February 15, 2007 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-041 ~~ t ~~ <i ~; ~~h A t r { } y .A ~'CCi ... .I x F? ~ .M 34 '..~$ ~ ~Rri - s ~f~ t '. r rte: h ~ i _ ~ ray ~~,F a~ may. 1~ ~l t ? _ p+t' w~ v r £ ,yd,- ,. i. r t ~~"-~ i r'`aure ~ SAa~~ o ~ ~~ :r.:~y,- ~ ~ ~ rn~~ ~ ~ i~ W cif i S'.F`'r y ~ ~~ 5'. ~.~q~; "Tn !s 5, 57?1hK ~v .~~~ E -e ~, Wr r ra ~.~ . t !t ~ "' x+ x ~ z~~s~ I Y r T s 'f ri y 1' ~ t ~ '~ c~: y'' ~' i '~'~x; ~ ~„r;. ,~ r , •N ,. ,_ N>x S ~~ t :. 3 P ~ ~#n k ~ a Bt'i~ rv: ~, ~~' 'v i 5 ~' ~. Var. ~"r y f r~~LL .~. . L 1. `1 ~r~i c"x R.: Y ~`. ~~t`t ~,.:, -;,, ;i<; ~,, ~: ; ,~; ~.s. ~~;= a~ ~{~~ ,~,- ~~~: is r': ~ ~µi. ~~~: ~ ": =~; ~~,: ~:. ". Y `~ 4y ~! ~~;; e e / S~' By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the / day of , 2007. COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY COMMISSIONER KEITH BORUP COMMISSIONER STEVE SID Attest: Tara Green, Deputy City Clerk VOTED_.~L~.I~s VOTED~Gt VOTED_~~j VOTED DOWAY VOTED_~ ~~ CHAIRMAN MIC L ROHM Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-06-041 `.",_`~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 1 } _r STAFF REPORT ^ TO: Hearing Date: 2/15/2007 Continued from 2/1/2007 Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Justin Lucas Associate City Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ,. .e V!~ :-, ~.,~ ,,' ~ 1~ St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building • CUP-06-041 ~ ' Y. ~i~~ C-p'C'Ai P d 7 F ~~ ~~{ ! I + '"a. ~z~~ ~~,~ t ~. ~~~ P_ _ 14k':i Conditional Use Permit fora 3,000 square foot storage building on 0.88 Acres in the O-T District, by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store. 1. SiJNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store, is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 3,000 square foot storage building on a 0.88 acre piece of property located on the north-west corner of the intersection of Williams Street and Main Street. The applicant proposes to locate the storage building behind the existing thrift store on this site. This area is currently being used for outdoor storage. The property is currently zoned O-T (Old Town). In Old Town all new construction that is not able to comply with the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. After reviewing the elevations and nature of the building staff determined that the proposed structure would not meet the design guidelines and thus the applicant has applied for Conditional Use Permit approval. 2. SiJNIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION Below, staff has provided detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends approval of the subject application, CUP-06- 041, with the conditions contained in Ezhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 15, 2007. At the public hearing, they moved to approve CUP-OCr041. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Mike Fairchild, Cynthia Rust ii. In Opposition: None iii. Commenting. None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Justin Lucas 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- 06-041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007 and the site plan labeled Sheet 1, dated January 25, 2007 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Ifurther move to direct staff to prepare an St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 1 ~~E x ~ ~ ~ ~~ yak 3~ .R. ~: ~.~ ~..'..T34i V~.~ 1 1 '~ ~ ~, ~ i f Nit c t :1 s ~~a r .3 ~~~ ~.X~"' t;, ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ + ~aa s x N g~~ii ~, ~,; .t y i Y~ ~ ~ xt ~}nS~~ ~. :~M f :...L $~-. i• r~ x g~ 3fL r ~ ~ ~7 4 ~ f: ~'~ ~. 'a.~i ~~~ r ~ ~ i~ +t~ i~!a ~ ' ~jj§a ~~`f N17r~~~f~ A:~' 4~c~ t ~i }'v 1H~t ^ )f '~~{ ~hJ }~j ` h t~ ~ Y ~y 'K.~~ ~1 ?4 .. 5J yh x Yr+ ~~ - 4~ ~ 3 ~~:~ j} ~ 1 1•~ f~ ~k ~@~ k ~'r~S 5 i g ~? `~`~, ~,,3 x • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 1, 2007. Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move deny File Number CUP-06- 041 as presented during the hearing date on February 15, 2007, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and include what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future.) I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate fmdings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing on March 1, 2007. t' ~. <: -'F Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP-06-041 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: 213 N. Main Street, north west corner of the intersection of Main Street and Williams Street in Section 7, T3N R1E :E}; fir..; b. Owner: Catholic Social Services of Ada County, Inc. 6464 State Street Boise, ID 83714 c. Applicant: St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store 213 N. Main Street Meridian, ID 83646 d. Representative: Mike Fairchild e. Present Zoning: O-T f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Old Town g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct a 3,000 square foot storage building behind the existing thrift store on this site. 1. Date of CUP site plan (attached in Exhibit A): January 25, 2007 x~~ 2. Date of Landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): January 25, 2007 ~~A< 3. Date of Building Elevations (attached in Exhibit A): January 25, 2007 ~. h. Applicant's StatementlJustification: St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store in Meridian is proposing to build a 50' by 60' by 12' building to house sorting and storage functions. The building will be located to the west of the existing building in the existing storage yard. This building will clean s ~ I up the storage area. The storage area is currently overflowing with donations that are exposed to '° = the weather. This is also an eyesore to the neighbors. The sorting area will also be expanded into ~~'~ this building. They plan to house all of the donations inside with this addition to their facilities '°` 'S a St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 2 :a ~~ r a ~;{: ] y~ ~ ~~ t ~ t i f f ,E~v3._ q t ~ ~ 5~~ ~ . n ~.i:.' Y I At~M ,?~~ 1 . ,y ~'~~ 14 ~h,~"'~7 ~j f P.~ -as ~ t s ~.~~ . x ,. r ~~ `rte', ~x x ~ £ ~ ~; i~ ~ ~} ~ r' `y~ -'' 1 a ~ ~a~~,'~` fti s _ fz ' ~' F, ~ r ~ air ~. r ~ ~ 't y, ~~ ~ t 'i~ 4 ~ . s ~ ~ i p ,.zl3=' .~ ~~ER x a -0 `, ~` .. j `. fi ~ ~~,. 4`' ~,r x y ~ ,~, ~ day 6~j s ~,-~: ~} ~?. ~r , ~'~ ' ., ~i ~o °' 'St H ~ : ~ ' r '~~~~-~. y~ 4,~~,. 3 ' '- ~~~ ~~,+ .C talk r ~' ~ ~ '+ 7r ~nk.~y,°Sr ~ ~ s 's I { t~ -,si .. ~~ ~y f ~ ,~` R F •{Z M1 :~; ;, ~~~ ~ s "=.'~ ' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 ,r _, ~ with no outside storage. (Please see applicant's submittal letter.) f.> 5. PROCESS FACTS ~ a. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as required by the development 4 ~;.~ agreement for this site. 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 15~` and January 29~', 2007 4.';i. °, c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: January S~`, 2007 "'`~ as,~' d. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 5`", 2007 y, ~~ ~ 6. LAND USE ~~ ;;.: ~~ ~ a. Existing Land Use(s): Thrift Store and Sorting Facility b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: This area is an established commercial center `-';~:; with various businesses in the near vicinity. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: ` ~- 1. North: Idaho Youth Ranch Thrift Store, zoned O-T , ~; 2. East: Main Street and a restaurant, zoned O-T ~~ =w~' " 3. South: Bank and other office uses, zoned O-T 4. West: Condominium complex, zoned O-T ~' '~ d. History of Previous Actions: There have been no recent actions on this site by the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council. -a .': e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: ~~~~: ?' ~>~ 1. Public Works ~ '"~? Location of sewer: On the northern boundary of this property. Location of water: Water mains in Williams. ,;- Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: N/A ~~ 3. Flood plain: The majority of the site appears to be located in Fema Flood Zone X5, .-~~ ;,`.~' which is defined as an area of moderate flood hazard where the exact frequency of the y,°° flood is undetermined. +~ }; 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: N/A _;, -~ 5. Hazards: See Floodplain above. `~ 6. Existing Zoning: O-T 7. Size of Property: 0.88 acres ~f`~~; `~~<~~ ..~: f. Conditional Use Information: 'f,, ; 1. Non-residential square footage: 3,000 square foot storage building ns 2. Proposed building height: 21 feet (12 feet, measured to eave) 3. Number of Residential units: 0 : g. Off-Street Parking: t ~'-;.. ; . ,, :;._ ti::,v Y.j "` ` St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 3 ~~y, C~~~^ D r ~."y'~J~... . t.[ ~~uF ~n ti T>' . . "~ "1! ~~ s ~~ _t ,, _. =~~'' ,:. :'.c-" li :~:;~ I y ,. r ~~ .'. °i~» ~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 1. Parking spaces required: 6 2. Parking spaces proposed: 3 new, 19 existing 3. Compact spaces proposed: 0 h. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to this proposed storage building is from an existing curb cut on the north side of Williams Street approximately 285 feet west of Main Street. ACRD submitted a letter with no site specific conditions for this proposal, or comments regarding the access points. ACRD will provide detailed comments during the Certificate of Zoning Compliance process. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On January 12, 2007 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 "Old Town" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The Comprehensive plan describes Old Town in the following manor: "This includes the historic downtown and the true community center. Uses would include offices, retail and lodging, theatres, restaurants, and service retail for surrounding residents and visitors. A variety of residential uses could include reuse of existing buildings for residential uses, new construction of multi-family residential over ground floor retail or office uses. In order to provide and accommodate preservation of the historical character, specific design requirements may be imposed. Pedestrian amenities would be emphasized. Public investment to ensure that Old Town becomes a centralized activity center with public, cultural, and recreational structures would be encouraged. The boundary of the Old Town district predominantly follows Meridian's historic plat boundaries. In several areas, both sides of a street were incorporated into the boundary to encourage similar uses and complimentary design of the facing houses and buildings." While thrift stores are not specifically mentioned in the description of Old Town above, staff believes that such stores can help to add retail variety in the city. The proposed storage building is designed to enhance the operations of the existing thrift store and allow for the better overall maintenance of the site. Staff fmds 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) YYhen 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: • Any necessary 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. This service will not change. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction the Meridian Police Department (MPD). This service will not change. St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE4 fi, ~YS ~:,ti x '~ ~ {~ ~' ~r v h~ ~ ~~ S ` ~ ~ ~~ v , ~iFi f u ~ r fin: .v N w~,.... •. ~7~_ t -. k } ~ ~~M~r .~tiz ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~'' ~ :, ~~s~ ~~ ~ s ;~~j ~e'~~ r, ~; ~ j'~, w raid y ~~' /S 1Y ~ c. 3~ 1 Ja M~} v n5 ~.~}~ „~.°'{ J V~ I ~1 it S r` ~ kS~ N Y :#4 } f ,'`~,'. ~S4 x ~ ` x ~ir~ ~ ,. e z : .~'~ . - ~;~, 'T ~ ~yr,,,:,,~~~. t 1 '~: ~s. 9 ~n7, rt ~~:1 S, 3 .~ E ~'1 q~.fyi] ~.J ~rY t 5 V ~ ,1~i 3~~i ~'± 1 '+ c ~ ~/,t.~ L t A d T F ~ ..~F' ~'y.y ~ , II h V :~< ~~ }p,Nk i3'. r r: ;.. .,~;~ .~ ,~~:: • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject annexation. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is proposing to install internal landscaping. Please see the CUP Analysis in Section 10 below for more information on landscaping this site. ;~~r i ~. ;a ' ,'i • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the proposed storage building will help to support the established thrift store and which does add retail variety to the downtown area. :.;,. '~- .:~~r ~'r.I :;~j `' E:"i ~1 Staff believes that the proposed building is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant s request is appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Traditional Neighborhood District: UDC Table 11-2D-21ists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the O-T zoning district. Retail stores aze a principally permitted use in the O-T zone. The proposed storage building would be considered an accessory use to the existing retail store on this site. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the O-T District is to accommodate and encourage further intensification of the historical city center in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. The intent of the OT District is to delineate a centralized activity center and to encourage its renewal, revitalization and growth as the public, quasi-public, cultural, fmancial and recreational center of the City. Public and quasi-public uses integrated with general business, and medium-high to high-density residential is encouraged to provide the appropriate mix and intensity of activities necessary to establish a truly urban city center. c. General Standazds: As mentioned above the purpose of the subject conditional use permit is to request a modification to the Downtown Design Guidelines which establish the majority of standazds for development in the Downtown Core. UDC 11-2D-4D3 clearly states that "Any applications that do not meet the criteria in the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines shall be subject to a conditional use permit as set forth in Chapter 5, Administration, of this title." d. Conditional Uses: In approving any conditional use, the decision-making body may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds and safeguards in conformity with this Title that: minimize St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 5 ~ c m,r 5, ~ ~ ~ • ,~z 3 ~ 3JJ~ fir' S~ Sad= .~, ~ ~.~ ~ F f~ ~ hL r~^4~. hh y? t j. _ F ~ S~ r~. - ~ Jt }L~- { xx_ : ~"v h ~y:`W ~. ~ ~. ~'# ~, ~. t ~, c{~ ~ sv > r) ~~ f ~;(~,p { L tf {~~ I ~1~1~'i2~ v ~I ~~ i .~1 f h£ `' F ~ ~. ~ r''"-'''4t-.t ~' ~ . l f k~« ~1k~~ ~ 4'. t ~ ~? .;. k. ~ ` _~~ 3 .. ~ g'r°~'`UF ti ~j ',Tjh r ' fi +~ : y ' ~ k ~ e {J A t ~!~, h „/tyP. ~CLL1/11 l`9. i ~-:1 f ji ~ NA~ - 1 ~~ a: ~ 4rx~t ~. `. y. r ~ S° r f r 4 i~ may, ~L ~ ~, S -a . } F.vj4p~L' >~ ¢• 7 1 : ,N k ~.Ei~.a\yp.~~. rt >, F ?iix t . ~~ • 4 :I' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 s 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 ~; ~, ' s is maintained properly, designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property 7:: ~} development, require the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, required more restrictive standazds 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 (iJDC 11-SB- 6D). 10. ANALYSIS ~ I a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation E : ~~'~ ~~I Parldng: The applicant is proposing to construct 3 new parking stalls for the proposed storage ' building; 19 pazking spaces are currently located along Main Street in front of the existing ~ t;', 6,400 squaze foot building. In combination the proposed pazking azea and the existing pazking r area will have 22 spaces which exceeds the required 19 pazking spaces for the two buildings. The applicant is proposing to construct all of the new parking stalls as 19-feet long and 9-feet FBI wide. Along with these pazking stall dimensions, UDC Table 11-3C-5 also requires 25-foot r wide drive aisles adjacent to the pazking spaces. Upon examination of the applicant's site plan `r~~.,~ it appears that this 25 foot drive aisle requirement is not being met in the pazking area to the ~~~` south of the proposed building. The applicant should modify this pazking azea to meet the 25- foot wide drive aisle requirement ,~ 'lY"'ll Landscaping: The landscape/site plan prepared by Mike Fairchild Architects, LLC, on 1-25- ;'> ' z,' 07, labeled Sheet 1 is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Per UDC 11-3B-8C the applicant should provide a five foot minimum perimeter landscape buffer along all interior lot lines that aze adjacent to ~ ~~>Y~`' parking loading or other paved vehicular use areas. This buffer should contain ~~~~ one tree per 351ineaz feet and shrubs lawn or other vegetative ground cover. • The applicant should comply with all pazking lot landscaping and general -~' landscaping standazds as described in UDC 11-3B. ~~ `« • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape -'' or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan azchitect designer -~ ~ , , and submitted prior to occupancy of the building. All standazds of installation <~~'~~~ shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. a.l ~~ Submit a landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, with the Certificate of ~~ Zoning Compliance application. ~I ~'`' -y _~ ~ Elevations: As mentioned earlier the purpose of this conditional use permit is to gain approval _ `~~ ~ for a building design within the O-T district that does not meet the standazds outlined in the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. These guidelines aze primarily designed for "storefront" retail buildings that would be visible by both vehicles and pedestrians traveling, in this case, along Main Street. After reviewing these guidelines it became cleaz to the applicant '-.' that the building type and use they were trying to achieve would not be compatible with the Design Guidelines which call for zero lot line setbacks, first floor glass facades facing public streets, parapets, awnings, and various other azchitectural elements and enhancements. The elevations submitted by the applicant show a much simpler steel building with metal siding w~~?, and some stucco banding that will primarily be used for storage and sorting of items donated to the thrift store. Staff believes that the applicants requested use and elevations aze reasonable for the following reasons: St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 6 ~r ,, ~, p, ,~ '' ~~ 4 ~~r ~ p -~~~..~+~ i i ~` 1~ h Z~~}'v t, '` ~ ~ ~l>g - r s i ~~r~ L :. Y f ' p ~~'~ ~' . <4 ~~ Y~~ ;; .3~ 9:+c!~r~ i ~: l~ >r<, _ ``~~ 4 ~3Y J b ~ ~ j'~ v~ Z. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a r R s a '' In y ~~ rS J f Y>~ - _ 4: (~ •a A i 1f t - _. ~r::4-~:. ~ ~ *4 ~ ,.7 x ~~~k ~ .. !' ,~ .:: 3 r ,~ ! , ' ` e` n `~ s y ~ f.~ ~~~ :' r ~~~ Y ~ 4 ;; - .~ , <'~`.:~: S ;.~:. ~„ r~ ~ , .w ~; :~ t fi~~a } ";~: r R K~ $I i 4~ .=: a, .t -~' ?` ~ rz:'s: ;~ _,,.~° ~~.~.: '~ i.. r:,-. a.: ~C~~n '' .+~. ~:~~': !,ti.: j 7w•" ~~ ,~= ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~. 4' .t ~; 1 s s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 1. The proposed building will be located behind the existing thrift store and will be lazgely out of view from Main Street. The proposed building will also be screened from Meridian Road by the existing condominium complex to the west. 2. The primary view of the building would be from Williams Street, which is a dead end street that does not experience heavy vehicle or pedestrian traffic. The south elevation facing Williams does incorporate a stucco band and one window which provide a minor architectural enhancement. 3. The proposed building will help to "clean up" the reaz portion of the thrift store lot which is often full of donations, and other items that will not fit into the existing structure. 4. The proposed building will help to house and consolidate the donation and sorting activities associated with the thrift store. 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 (iJDC 11-SB-lA). To ensure that all of the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B aze complied with, the applicant should be required to obtain a CZC permit and occupancy sign-off from the Planning Department. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-OCr041 for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of February 15, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 15, 2007. At the public hearing, they moved to apurove CUP-00041. St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 7 «~ ~' ~: s }:~~; ..~= „~~,,< u ~ ,,. ~~ ~w~ - ~. ~:'kt~5. >,w, ~yt~ ;~ u„% ~, ~~:ky~_ ;fir ~``~~ a ~ F :'~~. V ~;."Y' ~~; ;,':ya;_ °^.' '~. 'w`j~ wk, '~ K t' ~; '.: `, ~'~::: ri,`~~ a ~ j ':'EiE' '~~: , ss~. e e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 11. E~~ITS A. Drawings 1. Date of CUP Site/Landscape Plan: January 25, 2007 2. Date of Building Elevations: January 25, 2007 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Ada County Highway District (ACRD) 6. Sanitary Services Company C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building CUP-06-041 PAGE 8 • s CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 ~' , c,' s z:;;',' ~, `yt_~ s%~~,?u ~I f Yt 7 ''i -~;~~ ,~ ,.~F.., 1i ,'~i `;"~ A. Drawings 1. CUP Site Plan/Landscape Plan (dated: 1/25/2007) r s m 6# $ Q ~~ I~ i~ s ~+ '~ ': '~+~ ~j ~, ti; i, ,. ,~i ~t~f f'' ~ e . _ 1'. `+ ~i ~~.. _•!i r ~i i i .~~ i. _. rr.: _ ---~- fir.. a 1 ~.~. .~.,.~ ~...,.d aase,~ Exhibit A Page 1 ~' ' a ;~' ~'~ ~x ~ ¥ r~ 1 ~r, ~ ~ 7 ."`~i '• ~ ~~µ: ~ ~:f~"a 't' ~4 a.bF. ~ 4 i SA Ya T ~7 ~.. ~ ~ f i7t'~ 1 ~v ; i~*'j^ n ~WtiaS r~~ t ~,~ r ha JS t i]~ r;~ Y- 5 aS_4~~ ~. a in A.k ~~ !. X25 ~•:'1 •r- d ~~. ~' ~tE M ~ ~ ' Y ~M £ c .'' l r a+.. 6 i ~ylJ~ y y, 1 ' Rj K 3-, gr.Y, ~!}: xl ~i ~ { L~ Yti iK 1~^-F9 X41 ~~- f 1 ~' 4 ' .: ~~ F 1 yip 1 ~~} yy~ ~l ~ ~ t ~ 1 k ~, W:'. 1 ~ ,~~~ ~. ~~. r~s> ;, ~ 33 j "~f ~ ~gy~ e ~„ .~k `~ T ~t W ~~5 `~ ~ ? ^~ ~~ .-,. My ~ .M:.,:: G (~. _;~- er'r~T ~ ~ ~:~~~ ~_ y `;. ~,f ~. ••'~'t .~;:~~ f j ar ",'•`S ~+i::,-- ,r v ;A' r, ~fi 1~ 2:~''; r~: ~F4 i. FF'~1 t;. ~: ;i . -,t< `J; C ' ty y~:~~~. ;,:; Y;q,,..' • ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 _ B. Conditions of Approval ~~' ~`r 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT '~ 1.1 Modify the parking area to the south of the proposed building to meet the minimum 25-foot wide r_<'~'~' drive aisle requirement described in UDC Table 11-3C-5. 1.2 The landscape/site plan prepared by Mike Fairchild Architects, LLC, on 1-25-07, labeled Sheet 1 ;'a2 is approved with the following modifications/notes: ,.F' • Per UDC 11-3B-8C the applicant shall provide a five foot minimum perimeter -; ",~'~= landscape buffer along all interior lot lines that are adjacent to parking loading or ~ other paved vehicular use areas. This buffer should contain one tree per 35 linear feet x'~ and shrubs lawn or other vegetative ground cover. • Modify the parking area to the south of the proposed building to meet the minimum '~'Y= `~ >, 25-foot wide drive aisle requirement described in UDC Table 11-3C-5. • The applicant shall comply with all parking lot landscaping and general landscaping -'>,,c. standards as described in UDC 11-3B. ~~} • A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, ? ~:~~5 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. t; ~' ~ '` Submit a revised site/landscape plan, reflecting the changes/notes mentioned above, and throughout this report, with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 1.3 The applicant shall construct a 3,000 square foot building that generally complies with the ~,;~ submitted elevations prepared by Mike Fairchild, dated 1-25-07. ~, 1.4 To ensure that all of the conditions of approval for CUP-06-041 are complied with, the applicant shall be required to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) permit, and sign-off on ;~'~~ occupancy, from the Planning Department. _,~;i 1.5 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 f ~~;., required improvements (including paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must ?~~~ accompany any request for temporary occupancy. '~ 1.6 No signs are approved with this CUP application. All business signs require a separate sign "f~`€ permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. ., `_, - 1.7 The applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord '° '~f~r 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 ;,,' ~ I 2.1 The applicant shall coordinate fire hydrant placement with the Public Works Department during -,:,~„, ~~~ ~ plan review. ''- ~' 2.2 During plan review a looped system may be required to achieve adequate fire flows. `::"y~` 2.3 There shall be a 10-foot separation between all water mains and the high water mark of any ~: Exhibit B Page 1 ~,~ t ;ar ,~, ~~~r~; yy q~.'-. t> t 2 iF 7 ~f I. . 2 ' ` ,•S ~ ~ +] Y X ~ ' li ' ~~f ` " [ ~ R 5~~; ~ ~ T~ E 1 } ?.. T ~" 7 '~flf'Fl~ a R t} ~i (~,: 44 Y } 1 ' ~ x ~ 5 ~t •' i ~^ _ ~ n ~ t f ~~d ~r ,?~ K.. ~~~ _. y~tt YYa r ~ t ~ • , I ~ ~ _ ~N a ~ ~ ^ yAn`~SI.. • . . ~ L U S~r `l. ~~J 0. x ~ ~SA"~ f ~ ' ? f Y 1 C t~~{~^ 1~ f ~} L _ P C ~~ ( ~i; ~ - i ~~ t~ ~ - ~ 7 f ~~~~~ ~ A. u n ~etKr ~ ~ r D7 L3 •~y:.. FF 1 k9 ' .' ~: t ' yy,~ $ hit tl~ ` ~ ~ r t ~J i t y1' h T f ~~ ' N r ~` 4 ~ e C F ~~, ~ ,~ 4~ ~ 4y4 ~ ~,,, .:. ~ ~~ ; ~ t ~~ ' t ~ d '~~ r, s r ~r . t ~ 1, '`.;'. -~f ~;_ ~ `7 rl z t. -I `'~,~ III 4' _,~ i ._; ~ I :<G, `; ,;F: ~~; =~+. ='%, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE NEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 drainage Swale. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). Submit an executed easement (supplied by Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 2.5 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive fmal approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.6 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process. 2.7 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. 2.8 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.9 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.10 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 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 Install bollards or curbing to ensure that a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure is maintained at all times. Exhibit B Page 2 „~,.. ~ ~ 4~7_F`.rtr ~:" " ~' ;~, . ~~~ rat ~~:. z ~['~ p`U 1?y,! Y ,~ M ~ ~ 1' ..:1 ~l ~ ~ + t^sy ~ ,. ~ ~~, JS n ~*' ,. < - '~' ,r ~ G ~~~. °~ ~ ~`~ie~i,~ i ~ -~~~ Yrt ~~. r&r~ ~ r"~ ~ rig G h. k~ i {f ~~",Sh.~. ~l~ ~ ~ ~.~ m ~ t ~,~ i ~, x r ~ rr~~ r ~'~ py ~ ~~ ~'~y`. ~7Y ~ '1; 1et1 ~ ~ j R e 7 ~ ~ M h py{ , V .w ~ ~1 ~~ ~~, L : ;. 4 ~fx: ~. y. ,~ ~~ ~~ •~ ~ h ' ~ t F • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 y. n~. `~"`~~~ 3.7 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. "`~`' ~ I 3.8 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall '~ be required to comply with the Intemational Fire Code. -:_, 3.9 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. `' '~`~ 3.10 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the °'~;: jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as ~'~~ measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants ~,..~: s~,~ and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section ~~;~` 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). ~f .• 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 ~:{ ) .t~<~c m ,a 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT • 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not • •r - ~'~ exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 5. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ~~ 5.1 Prior to fmal approval you will need to submit plans to the ACRD Development Review ~.~ ~'`~ ~ D artment. eP 5.2 A traffic impact fee maybe assessed by ACRD and will be due prior to the issuance of a building ~ -` ,; permit. Contact ACRD Planning & Development Services at 387-6170 for information regarding ~:,_ impact fees. 'y` ; i .:'-i 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 1 ~.•~;;;~f 6.1 Waste enclosure bumpers or stops: The applicant shall provide bumpers or stops inside of the k~,. ,~~ _ enclosure to prevent the container from damaging enclosure walls and gates. ;;-~ 6.2 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. a,;f~ .._i ,u r,' `- ;`.`-'~~ Exhibit B Page 3 ` " ~;~ f' r ' ~~ y1 ~I. fS~ r ~~ ~~~, ~ (y VU pdy.~ ~~4 ~F w 4 ~if d .? !C ~y ~~T ~ y c~!"~P~j~ t r 1 Lrf ~. ~; ~ ~ "~+ yQ. ~.'~. k~ ~ A ~ H X ~I~C a ,^ r ~ 1 r ^~~°'~` ;,rte ~,E yrr{ < ~.: u~, ~y i ~$x~~.: ~K~~4~~' J3~ yr` YdwS~'S ~~uy~J~ Y~y,~.. ~k~l~r ~r~~ - 7 t 1 ~f. ,,~,, • ~~~ ~~ _ ~ ~~ ~_ i~~``,; 5 ;. f~V~f !f~t22 1 ti ~L~ ' .:4~ ~~ 7.11. b •1/~ 4 as ~P4 , ~r ~~~.~ h '~ l# Sr`~~e '~' ~ ~k ~ ~~ .t ~ ~ ~. ~ 4 ~ ~ Y . +~, IC ~.:F'_ ,` ~% ( .fir. ~G C ~'~..a S Y }f~:~.'. 5~ ~ • -~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code CUP Findings: ~ The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon ~'w 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. .;;. Commission finds that the proposed building and uses on this site can accommodate and meet all dimensional and development regulations of this district. ~~h =~ Parking stalls are required at the ratio of one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area in the ~ O-T district (UDC 11-3C-6). Per this requirement, 19 stalls are required. There are 22 parking stalls proposed on this site, with designated handicap accessible stalls. This provision exceeds the . ~ City's minimum parking stall ratio. Staff finds that the project should have ample parking. x ~ `: '.~. Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the required yards `I w (setbacks), parking, landscaping and other features required by the ordinance. Staff recommends :~, the Commission rely on Staffls analysis, and any oral or written public testimony provided when ~'t determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Commission finds that the designated Comprehensive Designation for this property is Old Town. The property is currently zoned O-T, with a requirement for CUP approval for any new construction or exterior modifications that do not meet the design standards as outlined in the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (see Sections 8 and 10, above for more information regarding the requirements for this use.) 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the general design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building 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. Commission fmds 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. Exhibit C Page 1 L' lY` 7 ~ 1 iaiJ t _ : v r ~~ ~ •~ ~ s r ,i i ,J ~i 1 1 ~~ ~ , w,~„ } ~k ~; ~': 'r ~ } ~ ,~~ ra ~ ~ ~,4k.. ~ i~ ~ 4r y ~S M cE~it~ t!~~ ~ I ~N~ .+6j ?:; fi~11 ~ ~ ~ SXb ~i 4 9 Y a 4 ]~ '_ ~N ~ rO~ ti~ ,5 ~ E l r , .,`., @y ~' .fit `A fl~ ~: t t a x.,~,., ~, - i `(i y ~~ 6 I . ~ ` „5 h f S ,a" - 9 ,, ~1 , 3} '~41P~,;U ~~ ~r~~ -. 1 4F A ~ ~ ;C,= `~, ~ ° ~ k rr _ s ''``.;7, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2007 5~_ai. i_ti <s~~ ~ 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 •::y i structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. }~ ,,~ .;; J _- 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 '-~~t~; and ACRD. Based on comments from other agencies and departments, staff fmds that the ~~`~` proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. ~ I 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and `~ °f "±~ 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. ry Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the -~~~A", 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 #' =`..~~ I welfare b reason of excessive roduction of traffic noise smoke fumes glare or odors. Commission does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Commission fmds that the proposed uses will not be detrimental to people, n, 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. _ _, :::J 1` -~~ f Commission fmds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with this proposal that should be brought to the Commission's attention. Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of maj or importance. Exhibit C Page 2 1 ~:. ~. ;'sax '~ r~i. s ~ ! `~-fit 'y f a ~: ~ ~ lnl.1F~:'. ~y ~ ,~ _ g ~4r^~.' rt~ ~Sa~ r ..' 'k ~~T;~: ~' _'i SS z ~r ~~ ~? ~ ,- '"~". ~cc`~`~~ > >. ° i` ~`k ~ap,.F FMK ~~ rib ey ~ " [ k ~ , ~ 'f `ryti, a :,yA:GI ~ ~ ; v .~ . . •}.. ~ ~. `; y ~ etle~~~ .~ t y, ~~ hj ~ ::. 'Y: ~~~ '~ 1 4~~Aa3 Tc ~ i jt p r ~ ~4cL` ~"`~ ' '~ ~ ~fr ~~ C ~ ~j~ G } TS ~~ ~ St, 5".".. 51 y Y `1~:4:' ~') I l "Y ~ .lrh~.~' n f --IA ~~ x •~- r a ~ r ~~T i a< n ~~ ': '. ~~r. ~, .', -~ . ~4 i.? ;' s:~w r3?t ~, February 26, 2007 AZ 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ ZQNING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT HarfZ MUSIC Shop ITEM NO. REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop -east side of N. Meridian Road 8~ north of E. Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: `-' ~ CITY ENGINEER: ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo for Conflnuance ,~ ~' =.;.- CITY ATTORNEY ~~:~~~` `., CITY POLICE DEPT: f, "_ ;, CITY FIRE DEPT: ~; ~;~~ ,., CITY BUILDING DEPT: '~'`~`? ;. : CITY WATER DEPT: , ,:; jl~ '`~~~' CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment 'T` `; . CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1 SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ~~' NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: No Comment SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~. IDAHO POWER: ~Y INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: .~ , Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at public m®®Hngs shcll b®com~ prop®rty of the City of Meridian. ~, T ~.`Yd 5` y~ sky ft Z, v' k S t ~ `: ' N 3 F,~~ .: e d~' t ~~~,~ ~ ~ i':'~' cq ~,r~y~i 4_ _ •fi ~ y} 4 `k~ # '~ ~: ~ r ~L! 1 2 )j "~~~+~~ Il h'rn~~ +I !y. t j~ c ~3.; ~{ Y ~~ ~ { a~ ~; ; ., ~ i' ,~ I ~ ~ rl ~~ n ,, vl~' § , ~~$- r t ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~''~ ,' ~'` ~~ .~ f ~~ i c r s~rfki i ~ X ti ~- a ~ , f~-; '~ I~ ,rw o ^, ~'f} a, Ir . Qy ~ t > f r~ T.1~ ~ ~~y f .~~~~~' ~ ~ ~: ~ 'x+.r ~ l "~' ~~: a ~ s~ , ^4, t `i sI h~N~ ~I '~',.,''.,k: ~I >..v: :~_~~ ~i ~. =~ I' - I 'i is i, 'G '~I ;;:~, ,:: _,"``'I _ ,x, `'r: RZ 07-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT Hartz MUSIC Shop ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road 8~ north of E. Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS .s...® -~-~-.~ CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridldn. ~ ,' ~ , ~ -• wli3 ~~; twE ~^ ,`r4 , ~ W ~ r r ~ f; 5~ ~y~ .1! 1 tt~~~Y.p. ~ 5 - GCE;iceC~ ~ ~ .. l ~ Ku''~. 4 ~. ~. ~ i ~ wa ~ '~ ~ rd~: ~ ~, - ~ ~, ~ ~ irk ~)'~ a w ynG F ~"''S ~ ~; t d x G i ~~u ~ .~i .~~ ' ~~ ~~ "!, .~„ `~ ~ w. k ~ ~ { ,<7 ft ,..r 7f i~~C, u ~i aC Nf i~~~ aT ; ~ t ff ~ S 5 ~ ~ i~~ Z' f A ~ °'~ Y~ r ».. i ~n~ks`4 ~ Y, j,, ~iti . _ W.. / A 1 ~~T i t 'jY .. ". S A. ~ d` i Y ~ f Y~ February 2b, 2007 PP 06-064 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 _~. APPLICANT 13SC, LLC ITEM NO. 6 ~..''. ~~ ~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 2/1 /07-Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots & 3 common lots on 4.19 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision - ''~ north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road ,~ AGENCY COMMENTS ~.~,{ CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Minutes ':~~~: `~ CITY ENGINEER: ~ >~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report s.<._: 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: ~~"~' I 1DAH0 POWER: "~"'# INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting /Revised Planning Application ~ Narrative -~`` Contacted: Date: Phone: ';'~",~, ~. Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CMy of Meridian. ,,,,;,: i '.':''s ,. F. t) 1~a 4 -!Y r:. Z s r ~, ~t~ ~ : ~ .. IS' ~ < ` j 1 ter ~ {vs ~~ y ,,. . ~~T ;~~~ Y.: r . '.. ~ f .:. ti a ~ ,, S~; ~ i N L ~~~ k ti ?w F ~ t ~. "~ k ~~' ~r ~~ ~ ~. `~ ;~ F ' -' z ;~~ i~> ~ :.. >~ , ~~ a ~ ~~' s - _~ j; R ~ ~. fi ,~ 7~ wax S 4 S ^~~ ~.A n '~ 3 - r~~ - .,~~ ~ ~ ..i??~ ~ ,~ S attx ~t.. i i- . ~ e ~ .~~..~ r'?2 :~ f v ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ i~ a .:.,.._ ~ ~-~~, T' h ~n` ~rgi, ~,~`' ' February 26, 2007 AZ 07-001 ~. r,' MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 7 f .1:',W ~. `,-' " REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 2/15/07- Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road ;1: ~ 1 AGENCY COMMENTS i ~~>~; ,;: .~. ~z, ' ~, ~it4 t' r ,. 1 `'' I €_~ ~: R CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes 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: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posing Contacted: Date: Phone: Emciiled: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CNy of Meridian. h ~~ 3 ~(~y ~' ~~ r ,~f ~4, ~~ ~ A tt .. , M4 ~ Ski ~~~ ~ p4 f ~n ~T" ' ~p ~, ~, ~~ ~~ ;~ <<5 <~ ° 3 ~~, t :*'~ ~; ~° ,t , ~~ 3 M~' it ~.~ s ~}c H L 4 ~ of m"~ s ~~ ~~ ~ x~~~ ' '~a 3 ~, 7 ~ i:r; f! ti i _ ~i",~ 1 ~~~ yx ~~~ t ~ ~ ~~ xlx -' ~~ 7 ~~~.. ~ R ~~5 ~r a '~ YTv it r - ~ .. ~ii ~, "' ~ ..~ '~~ i~ ~ ~ F ~nCFi M' L s ~kly ^~ y ; f f } 5 ~`~[ PY..k; ..»~. .. .. ~ _. ~~ .~~~ c~~ "~ ,. `5 ,;; .;r ~,_~ ~. ;~ ~`'s .4i i `.+( __ _ ~I ;. ~,,~:_~ .J:li February 26, 2007 PP 07-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 2/15/07-Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single- family residential building lots and 5 common /other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road AGENCY Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubdc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 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: a °_ r .s~rfflr ,~ ~ ~ n f r~I.@' S h~ ~ ~ i x~ ,'h„~ t .ti 33~~ ~ z i` S 1 5 4° t A'I~ '~' ~ r ~ ~ tix ~~ '~ f H~ 2 ~ } °: ~ - ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~~~ :a ~.. Y ry~ ,~ ~4 Y t.; -~ ~~~~. .; ~ R ~~:, ;a rh ~ l ~ w Y ~ ~~ '' h a. 1~ A, :~ i ~t F; a {: ~;~ k~ ~~ ,~,~ ~~, ti ~} ~, c ~4~ ti~ fa +_~. ~. ~ ~ a~'~, i 4 ~ Q ~~• [~~~~ss ~~ _ F°Y fk µt '` 4 r~ ~ ,.~,, r :f i ..339 . -~ See AZ Packet COMMENTS • February 26, 2007 PP 07-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 1,2007 APPLICANT Rob Babneau ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots {proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision - 1105 W. Pine Street ~""" AGENCY COMMENTS ~. CITY CLERK: -=' .r, CITY ENGINEER: ''"~; _ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~~F CITY ATTORNEY _k j; ` CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~I' GITY BUILDING DEPT: E- . ~ a CITY WATER DEPT: :,;;. CITY SEWER DEPT: r" "~~~" CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: .~} `<'~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached ~OmmEntS ~; NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: ~~ .. ~:? INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: 4 Emailed: Staff Initials: Mafedals presented at public meeflngs shall become property of the Clay of AAeddlan. ri ~x ~ ~k ~ + ~ S~Spr~ r ~+ , : ~'~ yew ~~ ~f ~~~ 4 ~ #~4 ~ ~t~' .n r:: D '~ ~ 'S t~, ~ ~ ~ j~` 'i } y y J rya 4 3 5~ (~ ~ } ~ F ~ Y}~ s r < ~4 .~ ~ F ~ ..~ ~'a ~ l H ~ ~ ~ ~1' Y ~ ~' x ~~~F ~ ~i, j ~ T4 ~ ,+ t,~; 1 '~ ~ ~ `~ ± ~{' ~ ~;"~ kit 1 ~ s ~,,. r ,5 y. ~ ~ t. Yj~ ~ _ ~` ~ 4''x'3 y1 , ,~ Jyr T f H~j 1 h 1 .~ ~ 'E' F S ~ a~,R f 3 i'~ ~ +t1 -~ ~. i 3 ,~,-<. ~:y; February 2b, 2007 CUP 07-002 MERIDIAN PIANNING & ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT Rob Babneau ITEM NO. 1 O REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit approval to construct amulti-family development consisting of 64 mufti-family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O ~ zone for Doubletree Subdivision - 1105 W. Pine Street AGENCY COMMENTS :; s: iK' '`~~ CITY CLERK: See PP Packet ~n CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY ;;.., CfTY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~'~'' CITY BUILDING DEPT: CfTY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: ti~ CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: =- SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~; '~ .t: IDAHO POWER: %';Y• ~, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ~', OTHER: ,~ ;-. Contacted: Date: Phone: ;r~ Emailed: Staff Initials: ~ r ~'~ ~~' Materials presented at pubUt meetings shall become property of ttre Clay of Meridian. <., ~;{. 9 id's ~ • 1 f~~ L '~-; r ,n ~ ' , ~ ~: ~" s• 3 ~ ~' t ~ ~ - . ~~ , Asa-g '~ ? t r, V Az _ `~ ~4 ~y ~1 C i'f` 7 ~r~. -. . y°k x ~. ...d, . ~ ~ ~.., > 3 ~ '1~ 7 ,~ ~ ~; ~ 4 { ~ , ~~i ;~r~Fi~ ~? i~G n r a~ ` ~ ,, iff` tea . s~~a {~. s ,Cl E .F1 ~ '~ !'S ~i - ~'~t r ns°'f; _ i~ .._ § k h ~, rtf ~ ~ r' r ~. ~ +~.a~ ~ ~., r ,. ~~~ r, I~ :~I ~.;`'~" y ~. ~k ~'~~! ~t i ~~ ,; ~, 1 ~~~, F, >r '' gat Y3 February 26, 2007 AZ 06-061 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING March 1,2007 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, InC. ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007 -Annexation 8~ Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision -south of Franklin Road and east of Black Cat 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: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: ;: ,~ `" OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting /Attached Maps & Density Scenarios >:..F Contacted: Date: Phone: °, `~'~' Emailed: Staff Initials: .err II Materials presented at public meetin®s shall beeem~ prop®rty of the City of Meridian. ~~.^ '' r,, ., . ~.. j ~ 4 ~'~~: xqy ~ ~C' x ~'~ "~ h~.. ~~ i~,"~. 1,~;. QSt ~ ~ " ~ '' 9.+r.. ~}ri s 7 j: ~. .~ } ~, ~~ z a , ti't ~, ~'''~' ~i U ~ .s ~Y NxN t ~ (~ 1 Z [ S6 i' u ~ wa :, ~`F'= f 'fit k ~ 1 ~ [ C ' ~ ~ ~ ` f,~ ._ ~`~ ~ ~~~~ ~`~ t~~' ~ ~s 4 . > , s ~'' ~, ~ ~~ tr .a~# t ~ ~ fir, .... .~~~.r~. . ~ z r ~~d4. ~ xr r ~3$ a t } ~4f; ~ dig ~ $~~` ~ ~Ry ~1~. ~~ '~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~:: ~.~~. `a _. ~. ~, :: ;, ,-, 5 '. ~- '=~ ~_ ~: x=' .{ ,Y;~. .~' ~~~~,:. ~'.~-`~ ~r"I ii ~~~!. ~:~ February 26, 2007 PP 06-062 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT RMR Consulting, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ Z REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1 /4/07-Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single family building lots on 26.41 acres in a proposed R-8; 216 single family building lots on 38.26 acres & 1 school lot on 14.98 acres in a proposed R-15 zone; 2multi-family lots on 13.01 acres in proposed R-40 zone & 3D Common lots for Baraya Subdivision -south of FrankM Rd & east of Black Cat Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet 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: Concocted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubile meetings shat! become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ ALl? yt "'M*".t S~t"~ '~' i) q 7 ~.i C ~I M ~ t N. ~ ~ b~ h\~.u ~ ~'~ ~ ~ h~ ` i -~~ v~t ` ~~ h s-t ~ f i t ~ ~~~F ixn , ~~ f ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~t~ f ~; ~~{ ~'? ~ R ~ "~. L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~Y yf ~ ., . ~+til:.' , ~f h ~1f ~.. tj ~~ #{ ~< jai r i .~s. ~ -- j T 1 ~~ ~I N r. }-N - ~~ k 5 % t Z ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 3 gygy ~ ~ . ~ y , ~' ~1 x1 ~ ' ' Y 4 ., «~~y ~ '~~ ' m 9 ~ 3i y ~_c 1b ~ ~a 'L '? ' 1 ~ i ~ '?'~, .4` v ~ ~i~~r` ~~ February 26, 2007 CUP 07-001 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING March 1, 2007 APPLICANT Darren Glaser ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 2/1 S/07- Conditional Use Permit for an 11,0 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .7S acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan -North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision AGENCY COMMENTS .._.-...mss ~.~,~..- CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubUc meeflngs shall become property of the City of MerWlan. ~t H~~xf l.. ~~~ t ~ ~ ~.« ' s~ ~ ~ ~1 ~~ ~ ~;~ yh ~'_~~ r* ,:z4,~~, i-,r a~ u z ~ yo - F' ~?~ _ i` ~~ ~ '~ ~ C }s :~ , ~H ~4r~t ' F~ Yk ~Y ~~ ~f ~w t.a 1 y14 1 '~~{' ~ of (*~.k~. ~' il~ ' +~ F i ~~ !y '~/ ~ ,T ' ~ ~ ar ' ~ l ~~CC ' ~ E '~ ~ , ~ i?. ~~ ~ ~ ~fi~ „ ~ir~` 5 i, ~~ ~ 7 ,. ~ 5{l~ ~~~~~ r ~~ 1Y .. ~j}$y ;, E~ y . b r ~ ~. r r -~ ~ ;~ / .e ~ FC '_ `A- t ~~y~~1 5.. u5~ i- '4 P ~ra7~ p r4~ y ~'~ } . x # .r ~ e... r 1' ~. yi'; a y i`C ~' y ~- '~i d . .,, ill ~"w A~ ! tTM ~ c. L~ ~ ,.~ rr E a,1'~i ~, ~. R ~" .j. Y, i ;.:::~ March 12, 2007 RZ 07-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Hartz Music Shop ITEM NO. ~ 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/1!07 -Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS ~~_ CITY CLERK: See AZ Packe# 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 D{STRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INYERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubNc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. I ~ T a i ~~,~ ~~a~ ~.. „F: ~ 3~ ,f ~ } -~ ~ ,a ~_ - ~ ~ a~; t r '7" d .~...~k ~ ~_~ :~ e :L . ~ L ~„ ~ ,C,pp/ +~ yr, ~ i _ nn x `v-¢i1 i ~P '~ Ri;f ~.ri t .~ _ }q~ err`" ~ ~5 v . __ ~s~ ~ ,'. ~ ~ .« ~ t r,,, :-~ ~ ~ va3 ~ vf'~ ~°''+x ' ~'r~1' s V~ ~ r: x ~ n v ~ . ~ ry ~' 51. ~ 347€ ~ l1 t f, r, Q 7 Ic 4 ~ AA k' ~ 1' ~ k ~ T~ t ^' r ~ ~v+ a ~ s v ~`b~~ - Y'S yt i '$ p ~ ? i 7 ~ 4, yy~ 6 ~~ ... ~C u. ;. ~~ ~~ ' e, "'~ f ~ ~, ,. At ~~ f ~': ~.,c ~,: A ~1~# n r: ~ as {{~~ ~~jj "AA ( ~~ $$ ~ i U ~ 7 ISSN ~~~~ F = ~ f 2d~ x $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r a ~r r ~~~~ w Wow k 'a ~ p f~ i v~ a, a t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~S~I] ~ i 3 , E~1~E1 ~ F1 ~ ~ ~ " S~ ; ,i ~ t 1