The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 03-15• CITY OF IDAHO yFC �H. & T4tB.0.y 4ii4il lr?1%kY t� 1 � 9tj�13 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 15, 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 _O Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe O Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Continue Public Hearing to May 3, 2007 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Continue Public Hearing to April 19, 2007 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Continue Public Hearing to April 19, 2007 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-003 Request acres from RI (Ada County) to L -O (Medium Density Residential), for Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane Council for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 (Limited Office) and R-8 zones Grau Subdivision by Stanley Recommend Approval to City 8. Public Hearing: PP 07-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L -O zone, and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -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: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007 (Re -noticed for Modification): AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 acres from R1 to a C -G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 12. Public Hearing: PP 07-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C -G zone for Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 15. Public Hearing: RZ 07-004 Request for a Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2nd Street for LDS Church by Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects — 1615 W. 2nd Street: Recommend Approval to City Council 16. Public Hearing: CUP 07-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I -L zone for Joint School District No 2. Jabil Subdivision by Joint School District No 2 — 1303 E. Central Drive: Continue Public Hearing to April 19, 2007 Adjourned at 9:48 P.M. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • CITY OFE=' w IDAHO ,�a� tiFc�E� e� Tne,u-uaev^�Y i�' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 15, 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 Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve A -S AmeAage,4/ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AP/0 r -C) tAc 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Poke 10ti-bSIC 'BM� 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 4b *rj l lq, -)-6)67 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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 NJ�Ilane Subdivisions t, 9 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RI (Ada County) to L -O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 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. } r• w„3a€_,�.'- - - .-: ,x2 4a ter= ,p •a^ t „=,r ,x A T' !:W L ,t • 0 (Medium Density Residential), for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West CherryLane: �&_ &0 M aurj Ap r ro va- --/V &*j 8. Public Hearing: PP 07-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L -O zone, and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Co sultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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 Do bietree Subdivision by Ron Babneau —1105 W. Pine Street: Cp_aomAp rovaf' -fo Nj 0 unci 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -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. ine Street: f� vm M.e, APPVVVaf -ID OIS a�qtn64 11. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007 (Re -noticed for Modification): AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 acres from R1 to a C -G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 07-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C -G zone for Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: , /� 15. Public Hearing: RZ 07-004 Request for a Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2"d Street for LDS Church DY Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects — 1615 W. 2"d Street: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 07-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I -L zone for Joint School District No 2. Jab' Subdivision by Joint School District No 2 —13 3 E. Central Drive: ,fir n � j0� be �� qr,.� ,-,1 I q x®07 Meridian anning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. . a fe i d h` n hy ka t r.% b - 5?' - r t r Date/Time 03-15-2007 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Total Paaes Scanned: 2 Broadcast Report 10:30:56 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x11" A MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING IDAW AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 1S, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. °Although the ` d of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations beftue the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of ft ability of the presenter.' 1. Roll -call Attendance: 4 Keith Bonrp P Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moa ,_O _Steve Stddoway _ Michael Rohm - ch_ airman/ 2. Adoption of the Agenda Awrow *.477014 � 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meating:.4oprooe 4. Continued Public Hearing from Februarys 1, 2007: AZ 08-083 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 606, 521.615 and 675 Waltman lane: 's7k Pt,abVe ale, t'r� �fn Qy S. Public Hearing: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Piot approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres In an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek nstrucUon - 4276 N. Jones Creek Lane, uprdlnvu- iubuc -ftp fi --" / /9, d,007 8. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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 Damen Glaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of n�Ilan �5ubdivisio (,arLft nue. i�- _ gear; rttl 4* Ajori 1 ! % moo? 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07.003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from til (Ada County) to L -O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones ldwidim Pt mni g end Zcniry commtsion Mdleaft Agenda— March t8, soar Pop 101`2 AD walwkds presented at public meetings shd became ptopertyr of fiv My of WOW. A%vm desiring aco mm%laft fpr tBeabifts related b docu n * andlw hearing, please wntadthe City Cie -We metre at 888-0433 at least 48 hours prior to the public amft. Total Paaes Confirmed : 34 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 955 3810160 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:00 0/2 1 G3 HS FA 002 955 8989551 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:46 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 955 8848723 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:01:11 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 955 8886854 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:38 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 005 955 8985501 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:01:10 2/2 1 JEC HS CP14400 006 955 8467366 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 JEC IHS CP28800 007 955 208 888 2682 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:35 2/2 1 JEC IHS CP33600 t -key • . "`- "� �, .. _ ; ,. at sMW z, � 1 4 s y yH, c v r. 2 A f Date/Time Local ID 1 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report 03-15-2007 10:31:02 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 955 208 387 6393 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:01:11 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 009 955 2877909 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:01:11 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 955 2088885052 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:53 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 011 955 8881983 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 012 955 2083776449 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:01:11 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 013 955 4679562 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 014 955 2088886701 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:35 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 015 955 8884022 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:02:07 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 016 955 3886924 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:45 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 017 955 8841159 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:36 212 1 JEC IHS CP31200 018 955 2088840744 10:00:40 p.m. 03-15-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 JEC IHS CP28800 Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct Ys Rs m z t. r b it _ $ �"�� . fi F�`� _ } � #� „ d"°`. r F t, e y# "r 3 {' i $wk 4 S Ys Rs m z t. r b it _ $ �"�� . fi F�`� _ } � #� „ d"°`. r CITY OF IDAHO , s �/ �C, -)3✓ l�t4bl11L *re -_7haA4ts1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 15, 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 Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: 5. Public Hearing: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RI (Ada County) to L -O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 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. 0 (Medium Density Residential), for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: 8. Public Hearing: PP 07-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L -O zone, and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: 9. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -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 February 1, 2007 (Re -noticed for Modification): AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 acres from R1 to a C -G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 07-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C -G zone for Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: 15. Public Hearing: RZ 07-004 Request for a Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2nd Street for LDS Church by Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects — 1615 W. 2nd Street: 16. Public Hearing: CUP 07-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I -L zone for Joint School District No 2. Jabil Subdivision by Joint School District No 2 —1303 E. Central Drive: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — March 15, 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. b Broadcast Report Date/Tlme 03-12-2007 01:29:05 p.m. Transmit Header Tent Clty of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5 "x11 " �'" °' MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING B77GOpi4 1 REGULAR MEETING to,Nto AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, March 19, 2007 at 7:60 p.m. °Allh ough the City of Meridian no longer reguIres sworn testimony. atl presentsNons before the Mayor and Cffy Coundl are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the obfiify of the presenter.' 1. Roll -call Attendance: Ketch Borup David Moe 7- Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: Wendy Newton-Huckabsy Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: AZ 06.063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C -G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521. 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: S. Public Hearing: PP 07.008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building Joie and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres In an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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 Biaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave In Lot 3, Block 1 of Maliane Subdivision: 7. Public Hearing: AZ 07.003 Request for Annexation and Toning of 1.0 acres from RI (Ada County) to L -O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones MeridianAW rrurte b presented at ppAk ea dreg Match 1&, 2007 Page 1012 property oT the Coy of Meridian. Anyone desbk+g ewmnmodetlm f r dreams raged to daaarom andler harUg, please cornea 9ta city Cterk's attics at 888 A433 et least Q haus prforto tha pu6Wc meaft. Total Pages Scanned: 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 36 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 929 3810160 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:15:25 0/2 1 G3 HS FA 002 929 8989551 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 929 8848723 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:03 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 929 8886854 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 929 8985501 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:03 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 006 929 8467366 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 929 18950390 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:33 IHS 1028800 ji .y T y .. Jg � k 3 iY Broadcast Report Date/Time 03-12-2007 01:29:12 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 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 929 2088882682 01:00: 16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 009 929 208 387 6393 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:02 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 929 2877909 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:03 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 011 929 2088885052 01,00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:31 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 929 8881983 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 013 929 2083776449 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:02 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 014 929 4679562 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 015 929 2088886701 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:30 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 016 929 8884022 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:01:54 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 017 929 3886924 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:39 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 018 1929 18841159 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:33 2/2 11 JEC IHSICP28800 019 929 2088840744 01:00:16 p.m. 03-12-2007 00:00:37 2/2 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: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct �" P fit# tN}i �.ri.' 4` 'S �+� r� krjr•:Y N?{ '$NS 3 Na 4. y*f��T. spr J, e3 pa :t Inc Meridian Plannina and Zoning Meetina March 15, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 15, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, and David Moe. Members Absent: Steve Siddoway and Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Ted Baird, Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Sheree Finch, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters, Amanda Hess, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman 0 Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and I'd like to welcome you to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and we will begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. Thank you. First item is the adoption of the agenda and there are a number of changes and the first change is project AZ 06-063 for Waltman Properties will be continued until the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of May 3rd. Public Hearing PP 07-006 related to Moose Creek Subdivision will be continued to the April 19th meeting. And Public Hearing CUP 07-003, Joint Use School District No. 2, the Jabil Subdivision, will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th. And other than those changes, everything else will remain as posted. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda as amended? Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Agenda has been modified. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. X J_ 4"moi } { l �i i i t. -P Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 2 of 49 `. Item 3: Consent Agenda: x,: r A. Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing -- 4'. Moe: No. Consent Agenda. lukr Rohm: Oh. Excuse me. Consent Agenda has one item and it is the approval of the minutes from the February 1st, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any .. changes to those minutes? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. q Borup: Second. r = Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. z E,x Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request K for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G 4< zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC — 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 1 st, 2007, for the project AZ 06-063, Waltman Property, for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. _ Moe: So moved. 1104";< Borup: Second. W Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-063 to May 3rd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single-family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Y' €v ' a4, ry !r. �4 ys, Y r e. v M v k5r4 • "8 Y ,. 44 r .. : .... iN 7' 71'`�i dh�`S'� K, z.j't•3 p "?3 t Y i,. t , .; �J Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 3 of 49 • Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearings PP 07-006 related to Moose Creek Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items PP 07-006 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Good. That's just a little housework here before we really get started. Before we open up any of the rest of the hearings, for those of you that do not attend these meetings on a regular basis, the process by which we use on these hearings is we will open up a hearing and we will ask the staff to give their report and, basically, the staff will comment on any proposal based upon its adherence to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. Once they have given their presentation, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations are completed, then, it will be open to public testimony. At the end of the public testimony, the applicant, then, will have an opportunity to respond to any public testimony given on their project. Once all that process is done, generally speaking, we will close the opened hearing and we will talk about the project amongst ourselves in full view of the audience and make a decision at that time. And so that's the procedure and there is this little timer up here and the applicant basically gets ten minutes and each respondent gets three minutes and if, in fact, there is a little bit more than -- we will usually just tum the light off and give you a few more moments. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: But with that being said, at this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 1st, 2007, of CUP 07-001, related to Jamaca Me Tan and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Get to the right spot here. Okay. There we go. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building. Jamaca Me Tan is proposed to be one of the businesses housed within the subject building. The property is generally located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a half a mile Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 4 of 49 west of Eagle Road, and is currently zoned C -G, as you can see on the slide show. The site totals about three-quarters of an acre and is located on Lot 3, Block 1, of the Mallane Subdivision. And this is the Mallane Subdivision right here. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not be required for this project, as retail uses are principally permitted in the C -G district; however, per the conditions of the final plat for Mallane Subdivision, all development within Mallane must obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to submittal for a certificate of zoning compliance. Let's see. The access to the site will be from the extension of internal drive aisles that connect to previously approved access points to Fairview Avenue and Hickory Way and that will be over here and up here and over at the side here. No direct access to the Fairview Avenue is proposed on this site, nor is it allowed. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new driveway near Fairview Avenue that is off site on this property to the west. This application was originally scheduled to be heard on February 15th, 2007. As a condition of approval for the project staff required of the applicant a cross -access agreement with this property to the west to allow this property access to that off-site driveway. The applicant requested continuance of the previous hearing to negotiate this access point with the neighbor. Staff isn't aware if an agreement has been reached at this time. Additionally, the Commission should note that the applicant has submitted west and south facing elevations for the proposed structure. Until today staff did not have elevations for the east facade -- and that's not working quite the way I had hoped. Staff is supportive of the proposed west and south facing elevations. However, the east facade will also be highly visible from Fairview Avenue. The Commission can decide this evening if the submitted elevation, which you cannot see very well, is acceptable or whether changes are warranted to the design in materials of said elevation. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: I guess my only question is did you bring the -- a blueprint of the elevation? Hess: I did. I was not given a reduced copy of it and for some reason when I -- I had worked on this slide show prior to the hearing and it was fine at work, but here it doesn't seem to be showing up -- Rohm: That's fine. Hess: -- the way that I had arranged it. Rohm: That's fine. As long we have this, that's just fine. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And just state your name and address for the record. Moffatt: Curtis Moffatt and I live at 77 Silverwood, Eagle, Idaho. Rohm: Thank you. Moffatt: I'm representing Darren Blaser on this. He's the owner. And Bill Cafarelli also. And that's the plan to just put Jamaca Me Tan in there. Other plans were health, fitness -- we have another guy who would like to move in, Reid Merrill with the Idaho Fitness. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 5 of 49 He might even want to join us. So, it's mainly just health, you know, in the other and that's what we are looking for. Rohm: Good. Good. Thank you. The cross -access agreement, do you have anything to respond on that? Moffatt: Well, Bill -- now, is that with the Ewings? And I was told by Bill that that was a verbal agreement, that we would be willing to move that and do that for them. Rohm: Okay. I think we -- albeit that that's -- that's a good step forward -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- I think we will need something a little bit more formal than that -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- before it's consummated, but that's -- Moffatt: Yeah. I think that's -- that was the verbal discussion, I agree, and I -- you know, standing in for him, that's just what I have heard. Rohm: Okay. Actually, this is your time. I apologize for jumping in there. Moffatt: No. No. That's fine. You know, this is the first time I have been here, so -- Rohm: Okay. Basically, the process normally is that you review the staff report and if, in fact, you have got anything from the staff report that doesn't set will, then, it's your opportunity to rebut anything that might be in the staff report or -- Moffatt: No. The only thing that, you know, Bill mentioned was that easement. Rohm: Okay. The cross -access agreement? Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. I guess, then, at this point probably we should talk a little bit about that is it the west elevation -- Moe: East. Rohm: -- the east elevation that was brought in to us this evening. Moffatt: That will be similar to the west, so -- is that what he's got on there, the windows, stucco, and the rock? , 1 �s i, 4 rpt r f 3t �' SEC R 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 6 of 49 Rohm: Yeah. It doesn't have very much definition there. Borup: It doesn't have the windows. The blueprint does not show any windows. Moffatt: It's not showing windows on that side. Borup: That is the plan? That's the side the parking is on, isn't it? Moffatt: Yeah. I would think -- if we got it on the west, we'd put it on the east. Rohm: Well -- and that's -- that's kind of the way it looks as it should be to us, too. Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: And that's one of the reasons why we'd like to see these elevations before we act on an application, because we want to make sure that the building presents itself well -- Moffatt: Right. Rohm: -- and are you willing to commit to placing windows on the -- Moffatt: Yeah. Whatever -- I think he -- he's willing to do that. You know, we are just taking the center section there -- Rohm: Uh-huh. Moffatt: -- so, if that's something that we got to do to throw it in just to make that elevation the same as the other, then, yeah. Rohm: I don't know that it has to be exactly the same, but I think that -- Moffatt: Just to give it a -- Rohm: -- by placing windows on that off to the side it breaks up the facade some and -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- it's -- I think we would like to see something along that line. Moffatt: More symmetrical and -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is some break up -- there is some undulation a little bit in the design. Each unit looks like about two feet different than the unit beside it, which does not show in a two dimensional elevation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 7 of 49 Moe: Are you aware of this elevation? Moffatt: You know, I just -- I had a glance at it. I was kind of thrown one at me. I looked at it, but -- you're saying that the -- there is not equal -- Borup: No. I'm saying there is -- well, at least the plan that -- well, right there. Moffatt: And you're showing -- Borup: I'm not saying that -- Moffatt: The floor plan dimension. Borup: Well, I'm just saying there is -- there is some break up in the -- the facade with some of these jogs in and out, which the other side does not have. Moffatt: Yeah. Now, that's facing -- that's not facing the main road there. Borup: Well, the main road is right here. This is your parking here. This is what's labeled as the front elevation. Moffatt: And you're saying you'd like to see something there, the jogging? Borup: No. There already is. I was just pointing that out. That was just an observation. Moe: A couple of things I'm curious about. Moffatt: Okay. Moe: I assume -- you know, we have got brick going here on the vertical side and am I assuming this is a horizontal piece of the stucco or efface and whatnot and, then, this In :: body is the rest of the efface or stucco that you're putting in here? Moffatt: Yeah. That's what I -- Moe: And I would anticipate these are signs, as opposed to windows; correct? Moffatt: Right. Yes. Moe: So, basically, what we have got is we have got a fairly blank rear of the building, except we are doing some break ups of the field of the wall itself and these are just signage above it identifying the back side of the buildings that are nicer on the front here that face the west. A A' #r , YA''d4� A § ..:U• 4i � i } r.,.t�§3- � i Fi .. ii :S :. `�iC K i.+ f h 'Y A t t 8 : t a, r ik'3"i* xxh c i -X yil5,u' 14 i �fkr }} M1 ( f 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 8 of 49 Moffatt: Okay. And so are you -- now, see, with those being TI's, though, they have the option, right, of putting in -- Moe: I don't know what your construction is on this thing, but -- Moffatt: That would be the construction there. Moe: But I don't know whether you're doing a tilt up building or frame building -- Moffatt: It will be wood framed, yes. Moe: Yeah. Well, I mean whatever your developer wants to do. But just to make sure we are all aware -- there is really no windows planned back here at all. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we were kind of wanting to take this, is to have possibly -- Moffatt: A little more detail. Rohm: -- a window maybe from each back door or adjacent -- not necessarily adjacent to, but for each unit. Does that seem reasonable? Moffatt: Yeah. I -- you know, I don't -- I don't see why not, just to make it look -- the appearance -- yeah, I don't see why that wouldn't be a problem. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: Not right now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Hi. I'm Sherry Ewing. I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and tonight I'm representing Tico One, who has the property which is just west of this property. So, I'm reading my little script here. Tico One wants it to be public record that at one time there was an agreement with the developer for an easement on the Tico One land located west of this development. However, due to an ACHD requirement which changed the location of the access onto -- onto Fairview, that agreement was voided and at this time there is no agreement, either verbal or written, for an easement, but Tico One is still willing to negotiate. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Okay. I guess my question would be do you believe that this negotiation can be completed prior to City Council hearing this project if we were to move it forward contingent to -- Moe: It's a CUP. *< s Vii. II ' v 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 8 of 49 Moffatt: Okay. And so are you -- now, see, with those being TI's, though, they have the option, right, of putting in -- Moe: I don't know what your construction is on this thing, but -- Moffatt: That would be the construction there. Moe: But I don't know whether you're doing a tilt up building or frame building -- Moffatt: It will be wood framed, yes. Moe: Yeah. Well, I mean whatever your developer wants to do. But just to make sure we are all aware -- there is really no windows planned back here at all. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we were kind of wanting to take this, is to have possibly -- Moffatt: A little more detail. Rohm: -- a window maybe from each back door or adjacent -- not necessarily adjacent to, but for each unit. Does that seem reasonable? Moffatt: Yeah. I -- you know, I don't -- I don't see why not, just to make it look -- the appearance -- yeah, I don't see why that wouldn't be a problem. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: Not right now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Hi. I'm Sherry Ewing. I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and tonight I'm representing Tico One, who has the property which is just west of this property. So, I'm reading my little script here. Tico One wants it to be public record that at one time there was an agreement with the developer for an easement on the Tico One land located west of this development. However, due to an ACHD requirement which changed the location of the access onto -- onto Fairview, that agreement was voided and at this time there is no agreement, either verbal or written, for an easement, but Tico One is still willing to negotiate. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Okay. I guess my question would be do you believe that this negotiation can be completed prior to City Council hearing this project if we were to move it forward contingent to -- Moe: It's a CUP. *< s 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 9 of 49 Rohm: Oh, we can't -- no, we can't do that. We are going to need to let you folks work that out and -- because I don't think that we can really act on it favorably without a cross -access agreement and if, in fact, there is not one in order, then, we will have to either continue it or deny it. Anyway, that's from my perspective. Thank you, Sherry. Borup: Well, I -- Mr. Chairman, I think -- I still have some questions. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Borup: You had mentioned there was a written agreement and what was that agreement? Ewing: I believe that it was a verbal agreement. Borup: Oh, you -- previously you said there was a written agreement. Ewing: No. I said that there -- I say at this time there is no agreement either verbal or written. Borup: I understand that, but you said previously there was a written agreement. Ewing: There was an agreement. I didn't say written. And I think that that agreement was a verbal agreement and -- Borup: The one that changed because of ACRD? Ewing: Yes. Borup: And what was that agreement, then? Ewing: Well, at that time -- can I just walk -- well -- Borup: You have got a pointer right there, I believe. Ewing: At that time -- Borup: Could we go to the site plan; would that help? Ewing: Yeah. No. That's good. At that time it was just taking out the tiny little comer on -- well, on the Tico One property it would be the south -- well, right there. That little tiny comer. And so you would drive in and tum. Borup: Okay. Ewing: Okay. And, then, with the ACHD requirement, they required that the access actually be down where it lined up with the other road, so that would be -- right. Exactly RC'3„ A Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 10 of 49 there. And so when that happened, Tuck tried to get with the owners and they have not returned the calls at this point is my understanding and so Tuck has not -- Borup: The owners of this property? Ewing: Pardon me? Borup: Who has not returned the call? Ewing: The Jamaca Me Tan people. Borup: Okay. Ewing: Or whoever. The developer has not been in touch with Tuck again. Borup: I guess I -- clarification on where that easement was expected to be. Right here? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- yes. As you can see, north is actually this way. So, here is the west property and you can see how they propose to build half -- a little piece of it on their own tapering out, but -- Borup: So, this is the property line right here? Hess: Correct. Ewing: Does this project need access to Fairview to be approved? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it does not. It's not a land -locked piece. This isn't its only option for access. It will have access, as I stated, to the east up to Hickory in a couple of places and, then, out to Fairview here as well. Borup: So, what you expected this applicant to do was just to grant Ewings access to their property, not the other way around? Hess: I guess -- I'm song, I didn't under the question. Borup: This applicant would need to grant the Ewing property access, Ewings don't need to grant them access. Well, I mean a cross -access would do both. Hess: Correct. Borup: But this project doesn't need it for its application. Hess: No. Mr. Chairman, no -- Members of the Commission, no. This application can survive without this direct access to Fairview. t y� w.S'NF 'ytCl f f p v 2 a 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 11 of 49 Borup: Okay. And Mrs. Ewing, you had mentioned you would be willing to negotiate and I'm not -- I'm curious what was it you felt needed negotiation? Ewing: Well, they -- the developer wanted to go across Tico One land to get out, so they had direct access to the front of their building to get out onto Fairview and Tico One doesn't want -- doesn't care if there is access or not. It's not a big deal. But they had come to -- Borup: Well, you might if you ever wanted to develop the property. Ewing: Well, they aren't planning on doing that at this time. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. I understand. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. There is -- there isn't anybody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone else has input, this is the time. Seeing none -- before we ask the applicant to come back up here, on this -- to staff, the cross -access agreement that -- that we are talking about is to the property to the west; is that correct? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, this agreement refers to the off-site property owner granting permission to have this property owner and all of the customers access onto an off-site property, essentially. We would still require future cross -access with the property to the west -- we would require this applicant to grant cross -access to this property to the west, because that's typical with developments, but if we can't get confirmation that they can get off-site access, then, they will be limited to within Mallane at this time and we would probably like to see this landscape buffer extended to fill in that driveway that will not happen at this time. Borup: And my feeling would also be when that property to the west developed, would require a cross -access agreement or it wouldn't be approved. Rohm: Well, just -- Borup: So, it's to their best -- Rohm: We are kind of in a spot here that seems -- if the applicant's willing to grant cross -access to the property to the west, then, for this application they have fulfilled their responsibility to the adjacent property and when the adjacent property develops, then, they will need to work the cross -access the other direction. Hess: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? I'm not sure that you understood exactly what it -- are you with me on this? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 12 of 49 Moffatt: Yeah. El Rohm: And do you think that -- I don't know how we can act on it without having the cross -access at this point. Maybe -- Moffatt: And we are willing to develop that, right? That's the agreement -- Rohm: Right. And I think that we were in hopes that you would have that for us here tonight, so that we would include that as part of our conclusion. Borup: Wasn't that the previous staff request to have that? Moffatt: Yes. See, now, this is what I'm getting secondhand from Bill Cafarelli and so that was the understanding that he had talked to the Ewings in an verbal agreement to -- Borup: But that wasn't what staff requested. Borup: Yeah. And so I -- you know, that's why -- Borup: And that was part of what they did, but they wanted a written agreement. Moffatt: The written agreement. And he said he was still working on it with the Ewings. Rohm: Yeah. You know, I think because -- just from my perspective, the best way to make sure that everything -- all the I's and T's are dotted and crossed is I think the best thing is to continue this yet one more meeting and you come back with a cross -access agreement and, then, we can approve it or at least act on it with all the parts being present in the application. Keith, how do you feel about that? Borup: Well, I think something needs to be -- yeah, needs to be settled. An option may be a written statement saying they are willing -- that they will grant the access, but I'd rather see it already done. The question arises what if the other party does not wish to enter into an agreement? Rohm: Well, I think that you can grant one without having a joint agreement. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Can you not? Borup: Can that be one sided? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, it can be. It's not ideal, but if it's the requirement that it just be one way, it's really an access agreement and not a cross - access agreement. How many times has this thing been continued? We have got -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 13 of 49 each time somebody is showing up who doesn't have the information that you need. If you're going to continue this one more time, I think you should suggest that the owner be here to answer your questions. It's a little frustrating to take everybody's time on this. It's clear you don't have all the information in front of you to make your decision. Rohm: I think that's enough said about that. Moffatt: Okay. Yeah. Now, this all came about from the ACHD, though; right? Changing their -- Rohm: Well, but that -- that happened quite some time ago. That didn't -- I mean all of this what we are talking about right now has been germane since this application was submitted to our planning staff and I think that that's probably the right answer and we are going to continue it one more time -- Moffatt: And have the owner -- Rohm: -- and we need the -- technically, you don't need cross -access, you need an access agreement, but we would prefer that you have a cross -access agreement when you come back to this body and also have the principals of this Jamaca Me Tan application be present at this hearing. Moffatt: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Cafarelli is the owner of the whole subdivision, isn't he? Not this one building. Moffatt: Blaser. Darren Blaser. Borup: Right. But you kept talking about Bill. Moffatt: Yeah. Bill Cafarelli is the developer. Borup: The whole development is his. Moffatt: Yeah. Borup: That's what I thought. Not just this one building. Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, a couple things I do want to make sure that -- whether or not you guys are able to get your cross -access agreement or an access agreement, one way or another, if it's going to end up being an access agreement, then, you also are going to need to bring a new plan showing what you're doing and taking care of your landscaping and whatnot all the way out, number one. A Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 14 of 49 Moffatt: Okay. Moe: We have also spoke tonight in regards to the east elevation about putting some glazing in on that -- those elevations out there as something that this Commission would like to see, so you guys may want to discuss that. Rohm: And when you provide that elevation to staff, it needs to be in a pdf format, so that they can put it up on the screen and not have to make something from a blueprint to put up on the screen. So, they need either a jpeg or a pdf file that they can import directly into their computer. Moffatt: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Moe: And, Mr. Chairman, the other thing I just kind of want to make sure as I -- I'm a little bit concerned about just extending them to the next meeting to get this all worked out. They still got to set up a meeting with the Ewings to go over those issues, as well as review the plan and make some changes to that east elevation. So, I think two weeks from today would be -- our next meeting is a little too early in order for them to get everything done. Rohm: Okay. I couldn't agree more. So, at this time could I get a motion to continue to Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, the next meeting would be April 19th and, then, the meeting after that would be May 3rd. Those are the next -- next two after the 5th, which is your very next one. Rohm: So, does the April 19th agenda still have some room? Hood: As long as they can provide everything that the Commission has required, it should be a five minute deal. So, I would say that the 19th should work. Rohm: Okay. Moe: So long as that's done; right? Rohm: Got you. Moe: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue the Public Hearing on CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of April the 19th, 2007. Borup: Second. IC A r r? c ,w� <oh v -. �, der-. 3 _ ;.<- .: �.•� ti- c . � � ,. su -+.�P n u Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 15 of 49 F-7 L Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? And thank you for coming in. Sony to have to put you on the spot, but the bottom line is we are not going to move forward without these things being cleared up. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 07-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RI (Ada County) to L -O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones (Medium Density Residential), for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 07-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L -O zone, and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants — 4135 West Cherry Lane: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005, both related to the Grau Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Grau Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of one acre from R-1 to L -O, limited office, and R-8, medium density residential and preliminary plat approval for one office lot and one common lot in a proposed L -O zone and three single family lots in the proposed R-8 zone. The property is designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. However, in 2004 the city approved a resolution which allows Council to consider office uses on a property with a residential Comprehensive Plan designation if that property has frontage on an arterial street and is three acres in size or less. The subject site does, in fact, have frontage on Cherry Lane, an arterial road, and totals one acre. Let's see. Sorry, Commission Members, we are having difficulties here. The property is located on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately at the half mile mark between Black Cat and Ten Mile Road. The sole access to the development, as you can see, will be from a private street, which intersects Cherry Lane. This is the proposed private street here. A shared driveway will serve the proposed single family residential lots at the rear here, as you can see, to the terminus of the proposed private street. The applicant has applied 25 percent of the site in the form of landscaping, although not required. There are a couple of issues to mention here. Staff is generally supportive of the landscape plan. The UDC requires 20 foot landscape buffers between office uses and residential uses. The Commission should note that here to the east -- to the west and these proposed residential units will all -- should all have been buffered by a 20 foot -- feet of landscaping. Let's see. However, the footprint of the existing home, as you can see right here, which to be converted to the office building on the office lot, encroaches ten feet into the required 20 foot landscaping buffer at this west property line and in order to accommodate the private street, which staff required, the 20 landscaping buffer at the east property line is only proposed at five feet. Therefore, the applicant has submitted 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 16 of 49 0 an alternative compliance application to mitigate for this. In lieu of providing the full landscaping buffers at the east and west property lines, the applicant will install denser vegetation within these buffers. Staff is supportive of the proposed alternative compliance with the following modification that the applicant increase the buffer at the west property line adjacent to the parking area to, at minimum, ten feet wide. So, we will have a continual ten feet wide landscaping buffer at the west property line. Another issue is that staff has recommended that the city limit the uses which can operate on the site to an office -clinic type per a development agreement. Additionally, we propose hours of operation for business on this office lot to be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Another issue is that perimeter or internal fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or the preliminary plat and the applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the boundary or what type of fencing is to be installed around the common lots or not. The applicant will need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hall: Hi. Good evening. My name is Candy Hall. I reside at -- business address 1940 South Bonito Way, Meridian. I have a handout for you, if I could, please. I have a few changes. Rohm: Caleb, do you have a copy of these? You do? Okay. Hall: I have a board also. Can I set that up? It's a bigger -- okay. I have handed you a revised copy of the preliminary plat. We have a couple of changes that have occurred due to the adjustments being made to the topo. The existing home that is there, we had some changes. We -- it was off by a few feet, therefore, the sidewalk had to be moved. We went to the city and asked what their thoughts were and staff was in agreement that we just move the sidewalk. So, we did. The sidewalk to the east will be moved to the south. I'm sorry. Will be moved to the south of the existing home, which we have worked out with staff. Okay. Second, we have shifted the location of the parking lot. We just shifted it down just a little bit. Still we meet all the dimensional standards with these changes. We have a one acre parcel located on West Cherry Lane. These are -- these lots are residential. We are requesting R-8 zoning. These lots range in size from 5,400 to 10,000 square feet. The existing house is being converted to professional office use. In the staff report it states that the legal descriptions have to be revised. They have been revised, which we will be turning in for City Council. Staff has recommended constructing a private road to provide access to commercial and residential lots, which we have provided. Due to the location of the existing home it was impossible to meet the dimensional standards for the landscape buffers, therefore, we are applying for alternative compliance for landscaping. We have increased the buffer and front of the existing home from 20 to 26 feet and also all the vegetation landscaping around the perimeter. Staff recommendation is that we increase the landscape buffer on the east side to ten feet and we have done that. We will be putting more vegetation as required by code in the mitigation plan. We are putting more. Elroy Huff has been 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 17 of 49 contacted by the landscape architect and they are meeting next week. That's also in the staff report. So, he has been contacted and they are all meeting next week. And all conditions will be met for -- that are in the staff report. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Thank you. Okay. Would Lary Taylor want to speak to this application? Taylor: Good evening, Commissioner, Chairman, staff. My name is Lary Taylor, I reside at 851 East Antilles Court, Meridian, Idaho. I am assisting Bill, the owner of the property, in accomplishing his preliminary and final plat. I have an interest in possibly improving to residential lots to the rear and there was an indication about the fencing. The fencing will be with the requirement of yourself and/or City Council. We will meet whatever the requirement that you or they will put on us for that. The remainder of it is as stated by Candy and staff and I'm just speaking tonight for approval. I'll stand for questions. Rohm: So, you're part of the application? Taylor: I am with Mr. Grau. Correct. The owner. Rohm: Okay. I think that, typically, we try to get a perimeter fencing around all developments as they come forward and so you're saying that you would be willing to fence the project? Taylor: There is an existing perimeter fence on the west boundary that is between the existing subdivision, as well as the southern end -- the western boundary -- or the eastern boundary. We will be -- if there is any additional fencing that is -- needs to be improved, we will make it in like structure and/or material. Rohm: Sounds good. Borup: So, presently there is fencing along here, here, and here? Taylor: That is correct. The fencing on the -- the eastern is not at all similar to the western. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In regard to the residential lots, what are you planning on each one of those lots, far as as -- Taylor: Well, we haven't had specific design at this point. We will be doing a market F analysis to find out what the best possible features and functions for that will be. u I 4 � v v 0-0 w i t ° t 02x A_9.. E Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 18 of 49 Moe: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Bill Grau. If you would like to come forward you're certainly welcome. Okay. From the audience he says that pretty much everything's been covered. You will need to come forward if you're -- Grau: My name is Bill Grau, 4135 West Cherry Lane. On the west side of the property it's a vinyl fence and on the east side of the property it's a wood fence. Rohm: Okay. Is there any way that you could get the east to match the west, then, or -- Grau: I'm sure there is something that could be worked out. Rohm: Okay. Those vinyl fences are quite attractive and they appear to -- Grau: Longevity? Rohm: Yeah. Grau: I'll have to talk to the gentleman on the east side of the property, because he has the same wood around his property and I'm not sure -- Rohm: Yeah. Grau: -- that I can do that. Rohm: Thank you. There is nobody else signed up to testify to this application, but at this time if someone would like to come forward and provide testimony, now is that time. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of staff. Amanda, have you seen the revised plat and whatnot? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have not seen this one exactly. I have made some suggestions on meeting with the applicant's representative that we would be amenable to moving the sidewalk to make room for this extension of the house that encroached into what would have been the sidewalk. What I'm looking at -- as I'm looking at this -- this plan, what I would like to see and what this plan doesn't have, as opposed to the previous one -- the previous one showed a sidewalk that went all the way out to the sidewalk that would be installed along Cherry Lane. As you can see, the sidewalk proposed here is solely internal. I would like to see a connection out to the Cherry Lane sidewalk here. Rohm: That would be the sidewalk on the west side of the building; is that what you're saying? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 19 of 49 Hess: That would be to the west side of the building. Correct. Moe: Okay. Could the applicant come back up and discuss that? Rohm: Yeah. That's probably a pretty good idea. Would one of the applicants like to come forward and -- Hall: Yes. That's agreeable. That's fine. We will comply with whatever needs to be done. That's fine. Moe: And so your plan will be changed to show that before City Council? Hall: Absolutely. We will make any changes that need to be done. Moe: Careful as you say any changes. We could be here for -- Hall: Well -- sorry. Limited. Moe: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Hall: Thank you. Rohm: Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this Public Hearing? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, would you like to make a motion? Moe: Not really. Borup: Then I will. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of City Council the file numbers AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005, as ' A-; v F tt h k ,L g•. i y \ >3. , pkv". 1�" r+'tS4r b ,A:.`i t f.. }5 t , =ry ,x ry c, s •:x a'}3 y s" Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 20 of 49 presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, 2007. And I don't have the spot where that would go, but adding to the site plan showing sidewalk extended to Cherry Lane. Moe: This would be the revised plat; right? Borup: Yes. The revised plat. And I'm not sure what paragraph that needed to be inserted in, but I think staff can figure that out. End of motion. Moe: I would second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005, to include the staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -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: Thank you folks for coming in. Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from March 1st, 2007, of PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002, both items related to the Doubletree Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant has applied for preliminary plat approval and Conditional Use Permit approval for a multi- family development consisting of 64 multi -family dwelling units within 16 four-plexes on 16 building lots and three common lots, all on 5.7 acres in the existing L -O zone. The site is located on the south side of Pine Avenue approximately 1,000 feet east of Linder Road and the project site is commonly known as Lot 2, Block 1, of the Treymore Subdivision. And the site is currently vacant. I'll give a brief context of what's going on around the site. The zoning map will help. To the north is the Treymore Senior Apartments, which are located right here. You can probably see those even on the aerial. This structure right here on Pine Avenue. To the east is the Rock Creek multi- family development, zoned R-15. It doesn't show up on the aerial, but it's actually -- almost all of those buildings, from what I understand, are just being finished right now. And to the south is the Union Pacific Railroad line and the large land holding that they Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 21 of 49 have down there. And to the west is the Sunbridge Living Center, which is this entire -- well, it goes up and around like that. Entire parcel right there. Just to provide a little bit of background beyond that context, this site was previously approved as the Roundtree Subdivision back in 2006 and for various reasons the approvals for that Roundtree Subdivision lapsed this last year and now the applicant is reapplying for, basically, the same project that was previously approved, but due to the fact that the UDC has been adopted since the original approval, staff did do a detailed analysis to make sure that the project meets current code. Once a project lapses it's, basically, gone and they have to start from scratch. One issue that should be made clear is that as part of their previous approval, the applicant's didn't do it -- it's not that they did not do anything on the site, they did install sewer and water and these facilities were tested, from what I understand. Is that correct, Mike? Were tested by Public Works and so the sewer and water has been installed. So, this ground is vacant, except for the utilities, which are installed underneath it. With that context and a little bit of background, we can move on to the specifics of the site. Just to reorient ourselves, this would be north. Here is Pine Avenue. I oriented it this way, just because it fit better on the slide this way. As you can see, the applicant takes primary access off of Pine Avenue across this cross -access driveway, which was previously constructed with the Treymore Apartment complex. The street, then, crosses over the Nine Mile Creek at that location and this is the design as it is currently shown. There is also one other access point connecting right here to the Rock Creek Apartments, so there are two points of access into the site, one up through Rock Creek right there and, then, this one right here. The landscape buffering requirements along Pine were previously installed with the Treymore Subdivision and this -- all this section of that -- of that drive aisle has also been previously improved with the Treymore Subdivision. Approximately 16.3 percent of the site has been set aside for open space and the applicant is providing various amenities, which includes public art, open grassy areas, walking trails and pathways, sand volleyball courts and a half basketball court to serve the residents of this multi -family development. Other than that, the Comprehensive Plan designation is high density residential on this site, which would -- this project complies with. And the applicant has provided some -- some elevations that we can go to. Here is the landscape plan. This shows some of the amenities that can go over. Here is some open grassy area. They propose some public art here, half basketball court, and, then, walking trails and things along -- along the Nine Mile. These are the proposed elevations, which staff also reviewed and found to be -- to meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the UDC. I think other than that overview, there was one specific issue that came out of -- that came out of staffs analysis that's worth a little bit of discussion and that is when this project was previously approved, the parking situation in the UDC has changed a little bit. Under the old code there was no requirement for covered parking within a multi -family development, but under the current UDC it's very clear. In UDC 11 -3C -6A, which requires multi -family dwellings with two or more bedrooms have a two car covered carport or garage for each unit and currently as proposed the applicant has not shown any covered parking for this site. But staff, as described in the report, to conform with current code, recommends and has a condition included in the report stating that the applicant needs to provide a minimum of eight covered spaces for each of these units, which would, then, bring this project into compliance with the UDC when it comes to the parking. Other than that, staff is 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 22 of 49 E recommending approval for this project with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. And I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Very good report. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Dulin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Shawn Dulin, I'm with Rennison & Sodray. We did the engineering on this project. We are at 430 East State Street, Eagle. We concur with the staffs report and we will be providing carports over -- for all the parking and that will be resubmitted prior to the City Council. We are also providing a -- we will be providing fencing -- vinyl fencing to match the adjacent Rock Creek Subdivision, as well as the subdivision to the west and chain link fencing along the creek per the staff -- Rohm: Per the staff report? Dulin: -- per the staff requirement. Rohm: Thank you. Could we put some -- the elevations back up there, please? Lucas: Sure. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd also like to add -- I failed to mention -- it's in the staff report. I do mention that the applicant should verify the type of fencing that they are going to include in this. I did not include that as a condition, so if the Commission deems that the vinyl fencing as proposed by the applicant is necessary, it may be wise to include that as a condition in the report also. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. The reason why I asked him to put the elevation up gives the Commission an opportunity to take a look at it and if, open to discussion, the Commission feels that that's got enough difference in materials and just broken up in a -- Commissioner Moe, do you have any comments on the elevations provided? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just be curious -- are we looking at vinyl siding or is this wood siding or -- Dulin: I believe it's wood siding. Moe: All wood siding? Dulin: With -- yeah. And, then, a couple different color patterns in it. I know there was - - when we first originally brought this to you a couple years ago there was some issue with the way the buildings looked. They were really -- they were really blocks and as part of getting that approval we -- they ended up modifying a lot of the features of the buildings. Added the porches on the front and whatnot, so -- Rohm: Commissioner Borup, do you have any comment on the elevations provided? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 23 of 49 Borup: Well, there is quite a contrast from the previous -- I mean it's apartment, basically, so -- they are better looking ones and there is many many others that are not as good designs. Rohm: I think the big issue was, really, the covered parking, make sure that you understood that you had to have two parking spaces covered for each living unit and then -- and, then, I think addition of the verbiage of the vinyl fencing to the staff report and as along as you're in agreement with everything else, unless you have other comments, I don't have anything else. Dulin: No, sir. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We didn't have anybody signed up to testify to this application, but if there is someone that would like to, this is that time. Okay. Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and we did not get any other testimony from the public, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1st, 2007, with the one modification that the applicant will provide vinyl fencing within the project. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002, to include all staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you coming in. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007 (Re -noticed for Modification): AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 24 of 49 acres from R1 to a C -G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 07-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C -G zone for Gardner - Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision by Ahlquist Development, LLC — SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from February 1st, 2007, a re -noticed for modification, AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007. Both of these items related to the Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant applied for annexation and zoning of 22.30 acres from R-1 in Ada County to C -G, which is our general retail and service commercial district, and preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial lots in the proposed C -G zone. The applicant intends to develop a large office and retail center on this site that would include several office buildings and some smaller commercial structures. The subject property is located on the southeast comer of Franklin Road and Eagle Road in this location as shown on the slide. This site is currently composed of multiple lots within the existing Montvue Park Subdivision and the site contains various homes and associated outbuildings that will be removed as part of this project. Obviously, this site has a very visible location located on the southeast comer of Eagle and Franklin and this development is one that will be seen by various passerbys traveling on Eagle Road. Just a brief context of the surrounding area. To the north, obviously, is Franklin Road and the RC Willey complex. To the east is the Touchmark Living Center, which is the large senior living center and various medical offices and things like that located to the east, which is still under development and construction. To the south is St. Luke's Regional Medical Center and to the west is Eagle Road, a medical office building and, then, some -- some single family homes. We can move on now to the aerial photograph. As you can see, there are numerous existing homes on this -- on this property and this kind of helps show the existing access point to Eagle Road that I will discuss a little bit -- a little bit later. We can now move on to the preliminary plat. As part of this application the applicant is proposing to realign much of the current street system within the Montvue Park Subdivision. That process will create a more direct east -west access through this site connecting to the existing stub street East Louise Drive, which extends from the -- from the Touchmark Living Center to the east and the applicant is also proposing a north -south public street connection to the Franklin Road to the north. As part of this application, there will remain part of that Montvue Drive, which exists currently, will remain as a public street to serve these properties which are not currently a part of this project. So, they will keep their public street frontage and access. The process of doing this and realigning the street requires various things which were described at length in the report, but the applicant is working with the Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Transportation District to work out all the details on the vacation necessary to realign the street and to create this -- create this proposal. One of the most important issues that should be 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 25 of 49 CJ brought up is staffs recommendation that the access as proposed to Eagle Road by the applicant not be allowed. The staff report explains it in detail as to why, but we do have an ordinance within the city that controls access to the state highway that specifically prohibits -- even though it's an existing access, that specifically prohibits this access to remain when the subject land is increased in its intensity, and as part of this application we are talking about over 200,000 square feet of office space, which would be considered an intensification of the area. Also due to the proximity of this site to Franklin -- to the Franklin -- or to this -- of this intersection here, to the Franklin and Eagle intersection, the fire department and police department and staff are recommending that this -- this be a right -in, right -out only access, because due to concerns about this left-hand movement coming out of this subdivision and trying to get to this -- to this intersection. Much of this is described also in the ACHD report, which I believe the Commissioners received. The comments were not in my staff report, but I did receive draft comments just these last -- in the last couple of days I did forward them, so they should have been something they included in the packet. Or at least not in the packets, necessarily, but included here tonight. I believe I have a copy of it. I'm trying to see here. If not, I can -- if there is questions specifically about that, I can access that. Let's move on. The one other issue regarding access that staff recognized -- it's a little bit hard to see on this drawing, but there is an area along Eagle Road that due to the creation of this frontage road there was -- as we can see here. When this frontage road was created, there was some right of way that was taken by ITD to create this frontage road here. So, the right of way in this area kind of extends much farther than the general -- general right of way take along Eagle Road. Usually it's -- along this section of Eagle Road it's 70 feet from the center line. In this area it's about 140 feet from the center line. And as proposed by the applicant on their preliminary plat, they recognize this and they propose a new property line approximately 110 feet from center line from -- from Eagle Road and staff is concerned that if, indeed, 70 is what the transportation district is looking for here, staff would like to see that 70 remain consistent along this entire section -- 70 feet from center line remain consistent along this section of Eagle Road to avoid creating kind of a no man's land of right of way that would be maintained by the transportation district, which isn't really what they do. So, we are a little bit concerned about this area. To go into too much detail at this point it's a little bit hard to do. The staff report did describe it I hope pretty well. And I think the applicant will be able to respond to this tonight a little bit also, because they have been made aware of this situation and I believe they have come with -- come ready to discuss it, let's just put it that way. Other than those -- than those issues, the applicant -- let's see here. I have also included in the staff report numerous development agreement provisions that refer to -- the bulk of them refer to the site plan, the conceptual site plan that's been submitted by the applicant for this project. Just a quick run through of some of the ones that are a little bit different than usual. Would be tying applicant to this site plan as proposed. Also specifically calling out the pedestrian crossings that they are proposing across the street. Staff viewed that as a positive element of their -- of their conceptual site plan that we would like to see continued. Also, specifically addressing the orientation of the buildings as they are oriented -- at least these four buildings, oriented towards the street with the parking behind them. That's one thing that staff also mentions in the development agreement. And, then, just some general -- general • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 26 of 49 discussion about the type of square footage we are looking for here. Staff -- as proposed by the applicant, most of this is proposed as office space, with two large office buildings proposed for this area, and staff is supportive of that and has included a provision in the development agreement saying, basically, that this area be -- the bulk of it be used for office space, rather than a retail center. And I think that's always been the applicant's intent, it's just something that staff included in the staff report to make that clear. Other than those issues, the applicant has also submitted some conceptual elevations as to the type of buildings that will be constructed on the site. These are conceptual and are mentioned as such in the development agreement. So, when it does come time to build, staff would be looking for something generally consistent with this, as close to it as possible. Here is another -- another office building example. And, then, here is an example of some of the type of smaller scale retail that would be provided on the site. I think that's everything I will go over now. If there is any specific questions regarding the staff report, I'll stand for those. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff? Moe: Not at this time. Borup: The only thing I had was -- and maybe the applicant you said would address that -- and that was on that right of way, ITD. Has ITD given any statement on what they expect? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, I have been in contact with both ACHD and ITD regarding this whole idea of a right of way no man's land and what I have been told specifically by ACHD and also from ITD, ITD said, in general, in this area, they look at 70 feet as being their ultimate right of way. But when I prodded them about, well, who -- now would that work, I mean what's the vacation process, why they kind of sent me the way of, well, ACHD is the one who maintains this right of way and so you have to vacate it through them. But, then, when I called ACHD, they said this is ITD right of way and we are not the ones who -- it's one of those situations where there is a little bit of discrepancy, let's just put it that way, between the transportation authorities and it happens every now and then and ACHD is -- is trying to work this out. And I think the applicant, to be fair to them, I don't think they are looking to, you know, slide by any regulations here or anything like that, they are just dealing with the thing that staff would be in the sense of just tell us where line work is and we will work from there. But tying down that line right now has been a little bit difficult, at least prior to this hearing. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Riley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Penelope Riley, I'm with Treasure Valley Engineers. Our address is 1204 6th Street North, Nampa, Idaho. I am here to represent Ahlquist and Gardner for their annexation and zoning and the preliminary plat application. I would like to put on the record that I want to thank Justin. He has been 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 27 of 49 great to work with and has gone the distance with us and has been very helpful. And it's much appreciated. I'm not going to go over a lot. There is -- the staff report is pretty substantial, but I'm going to try and hit the highlights. If you have any questions about anything, please, feel free to ask me. First of all, I'd like to address the question of the no man's land on the western boundary of the site. And it's real hard to see that, isn't it. What I have here is the -- a schematic that we put together that shows right of way vacation for the two phases and before I go any farther I do want to let you know that the phase two annexation and zoning and preliminary plat is -- will be submitted very soon. We are finalizing those details. So, the question of the no man's land, as Justin brought up, is this area right in here. What I have put in with highlighted -- with the highlighted area is where the existing access road is now. We have two potential western boundaries to work with at this location, one of them -- it would be on the right- hand side of the yellow strip, the other would be on the left-hand side. We are hopeful that when we go to the vacation and swap process with ACHD, that we will be able to move our western boundary there from the inside to the outside. The remainder area would be landscaped and provided with all the visual amenities that Meridian wants to see on corridors such as this. We are going to ask ACHD to vacate that area and release it, so we can move our property line out. We are not certain at this time if that's what will happen. Regardless of who owns it and who has jurisdictions over it, it will be done nicely, it will be landscaped per your ordinance. Right now we are kind of at the whim of ACHD and ITD. Whoever it is, we will work with them and make it right. That's all we can do at this time and I wanted to assure you of that. Thank you. Just to back up again. Our site plan shows two-thirds of the site being annexed and zoned and platted. For the record, the remainder parcel is not very far away. It should be next in the two or three weeks I will have that submitted. One of Justin's comments was about the treatment of the homes that would remain as this site is being annexed and zoned and platted. Again, that won't be an issue. Those homes will be gone before we are really under construction on this phase. The develop agreement, I did call the city attorney's office today and the woman I spoke with politely informed me that I was way too soon and I needed to call back later. Okay. All righty then. So, anyhow -- she was very nice, but I felt like I was stupid. But that's all right. Just a couple of quick highlights. The exterior boundary of the site will be landscaped per the City of Meridian code. There are some comments in the staff report regarding interior road landscape buffers. We will be doing all of those things exactly as you like them. We have some consultants here this evening to speak to the issues of Eagle Road access and the Franklin Road right -in, right -out, and I will defer to them in just a minute. A couple other items I wanted to address with you. There are some existing trees on the site. There are two items under your conditions of approval, I guess, for lack of a better term, that discuss saving them or mitigating for them, keeping them on site. I think the landscaping for this development will be so nice that it will more than make up for those trees that will be removed. We are still finalizing our site plan and, hopefully, if we can keep some of them, we will, but we'd like to maybe have that condition removed, if possible. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Oh. And I did want to mention -- the applicant will address the number of buildings and the square foot configuration as it relates to the site plan that you see now and some other changes that may be occurring. • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 28 of 49 Moe: That was what I wanted to know. Rohm: Well, I think maybe at this time let's hear the rest of your testimony and, then, we will -- might come back to you for questions. Riley: Okay. The next post up on the staff here is the transportation person. Rohm: Thank you. Mortimer: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ron Mortimer with Horace Engineers, One West Main, American Fork, Utah. Have been working on this site. We did a complete traffic analysis. We have been through with the highway district and the state and there are some real issues related to access that are imperative to the way this project is developed. We have also had discussions with the hospital down here about this access here in relationship to how that ties into the system. This particular project with these land uses, it really is imperative that they do have the appropriate access connection in and out of there. As we have proposed is we have this connection here down to St. Luke's. We also have -- we are proposing a right -in over here -- right - in, right -out and, then, over here we have proposed a full access. We have had some discussions with that and the highway district had said, well, you know, we would consider that, but we really want that to -- we would rather consider a three-quarter access there. They'd like to prevent left turns from turning out here. With the median out here, constructing it in such a way that you can tum left into the site, you could go right in and right out, but not tum left. We looked at that and said, well, if we have a right -in and right -out over here, we can live with that, because any traffic that's wants to tum left here could down here, turn right, and go north or take a left tum here that you'd still have the ability to move around the site as necessary. We do have the connection over here that takes us on over to Touchmark, but if this connection -- if this right -in, right -out was not here, a lot of the traffic would go down here to the signal that we have down here. Now, this is all already in an area that has limited capacity, is signalized intersection. When you look at the thoroughfare on Eagle Road, a right -in and right -out here will not impede traffic and that's why the highway district and the state also concurred with that and said, yeah, we will allow that. They did ask us to increase -- reconstruct the radiuses here to get a little bit better flow. We also proposed to put a deceleration area right here in addition to the lane. We also want to set back, so even though right now the state has no plans to cant' a third lane through there, we think that that will eventually need to be done and so we are also recommending that they put a setback in addition, so there is an additional right turn lane. So, this right turn lane that kind of runs parallel here, that if that is continued on there is enough room to build a right lane and still provide that. So, we are recommending that that setback takes place, so that there is enough land set aside. The same is true over here, that along here we set this back so we can get the full improvement along Franklin, in addition, that we have a right turn pocket that allows traffic to move out of the through movement and decelerate and turn into the site. Those movements are really critical. Otherwise, we are going to overload this intersection down here and the cues will have an impact 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 29 of 49 11 on the hospital's ability to move their traffic currently as it is right now and into the future. The friction created by this right -in and right -out, because of the spacing, is going to be minimal to the site. They won't be able to cross because of the raised median out here and it will be signed accordingly, so that the traffic can flow easily in and out of the system. And the same with this one here, because there is not a driveway to the north across the street, there is not going to be a need for any kind of left turn in here, so this full area around here will be allowed for the left tum pocket on Franklin and we will use this area back here. We are set back far enough to where we don't think this will ever be a problem today or in the future for this left tum. It will be a little bit difficult for vehicles to make a left tum out of here, but we are prepared to build such an intersection so that movement is not permitted. But it really is imperative with these types of land uses and the adjacent property, that this access system be set up and connected in such a way that it flows cohesively and the way it's laid out, too, is we are hoping with the land uses that we benefit through here through this cross -access that they can coexist without having to get in their car and drive down the road, that it's going to be convenient, those that do have to drive, can use this access connection, but for the most part those that have connections back and forth business -wise will be able to do it by -- be able to walk back and forth as support services to one another. We also have recommended that they do set back an additional ten feet along here, so that if a future expansion is needed, that that can be accommodated. Right now there is two left tum lanes and, then, a shared through right combination and we say, well, it's -- if development continues to go along through here and the hospital, they may want to come in and expand that, through it in there, and so we are recommending that they set that property aside with the hospital, so that can be accommodated at some future point that there is not a land dispute creating a problem congestion there. I think that summarizes kind of the recommendations of the traffic. We did identify that as we do these improvements that none of these are going to cause a degradation in the traffic system. It's a highly congested area there. There was the comment that some of our analysis does not replicate exactly what's happening out there, partially because of that because the cues are so long north and south of there, that they regulate how much traffic can actually come through our analysis area on an hourly basis, you know, that the system can't put enough traffic through, so when we do our count and our analysis, those volumes are being metered by what's happening at the interchange and what's happening on the roadway. So, yeah, that is something that they made a comment to and that is true, that as we look at this intersection here, the congestion that's occurring there as the ends of the pipe on those ends been opened up, the traffic would get there a lot faster, but because of the way they come off the freeway or the way they are to the north, they can't do that. But we are recommending that we completely set things back along here, so that all future expansion can be accommodated, even to the point where Franklin Road, if it's widened to seven lanes, would be able to be accommodated, too, if that's needed into the future. We want to see that setback provided. That's kind of a summary. Did I miss any points there? Okay. Oh. Over here. This connection here gives the impression that you're looking at a public street. This will be a public street. This will be a public street. And this is a connection that goes through a parking lot. We are going to redesign this. This is a conceptual. And you will see it as just one of these parking ways here. There will be a connection there, but it won't be a 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 30 of 49 thoroughfare as a public street. The highway district does not want to see a public street come down and tie into a private street right there, so the public street -- this will be private. These are the public streets up here. Rohm: I think that should have been a public street when it was constructed in the first place. Mortimer: I'm sorry. I missed that. Rohm: I said I think that that should have been a public street when it was constructed. Mortimer: Oh. Yeah. Yeah. I don't disagree with that. Rohm: Did you say you wanted full access on -- Mortimer: We had that request, but we would be -- we would be satisfied with three- quarter access. Rohm: I think a full access would be real tough. That intersection is always congested. I mean not just at 5:00 o'clock, it's congested every time I have ever been there. Moe: I'm kind of curious what's the distance between there to that entrance? Mortimer: I think it was like 350 feet, something on that order, if I remember. It might have been pushing to 400, but it was on that magnitude. Rohm: That isn't much. Mortimer: Well, if you have room for a double left here, I mean that gives you -- because you can stack from here, that gives you about 700 feet of stacking area for left turns in here. But we would be happy not to allow left turns out of there. The left turns coming in, because of the way the signal cycles here, there will be opportunities and most people will probably come back on Touchmark coming through this way, but we wanted to allow this, so they are not having to come all the way around, come down to this signal down here, and kind of backtrack in, we are very conscious of trying not to overload this system here with anymore problems with the signal than we have, if we can work around that. So, a three-quarter access would be fine. Rohm: It's certainly more palatable than full access for sure. Mortimer: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions? v Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 31 of 49 0 Moe: I just want to make sure the -- that I understood you on your -- the other comment on the -- on the road going to the south right now tying in with the northern one, you're saying that that will go away or is that -- it will go away -- Mortimer: It will be a connection, but it's not a road. It's a -- it's a -- kind of drive aisle connection through. This portion down here will stay like it's constructed right now and as it comes into it, it will just be absorbed into this. It will be -- you will be able to drive from this point straight to this point here, but it will look like you're driving through this development here cohesively, rather than a public street. Rohm: What would it take to convert that private -- Borup: St. Luke's. Rohm: St. Luke's to -- would the construction have to change or just the designation? Borup: It probably -- it looks to me like it's got the right of way it needs. Rohm: Yeah. It's --well -- Borup: I mean it's at the side. Rohm: Would the applicant like to speak to that? Mortimer: We don't have -- I don't have the information on -- I think there is some representatives from the hospital, but I don't know if that roadway is built to the standards of what the highway district is a public street, since it was built as a private street. We haven't investigated that. When we met with the district, through, they told us they did not want this private -- or this public street coming down tying into it and so - - and I agree with you. If it went the other way, if that was a public street, then, it would be easy to make this tie in. Without that we are kind of in a Catch 22. Rohm: Certainly. Mortimer: But we will have a connection there. So, there is a cross -access to the keep people off of Eagle Road. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Borup, do you have other questions of the applicant? Borup: I don't think for the applicant. Well, maybe while you're here -- I may have misunderstood a little bit on Eagle Road access. I understand the staffs comment, but how I read ACHD is saying they are allowing that. I thought you had mentioned they did not. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 32 of 49 Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, ACHD actually doesn't control access or permit access to Eagle Road, so it doesn't matter what they say in a sense regarding that specific access point. It's ITD that controls that access. Borup: I understand. And ITD hasn't done a report yet. Mortimer: Yeah. We have a letter from ITD -- Borup: Okay. Mortimer: -- saying that that's granted on Eagle Road as a right -in and right -- they will permit that as a right -in and right -out. I think there is something in the staff report that mentions that. Lucas: Just a point of clarification. There is a letter from ITD in the staff report saying that -- that they would view that as an option. I mean I don't know if it's -- they are directly giving the permit, because they haven't applied for the permit yet, as far as I understand. So, I think they did get confirmation from ITD's traffic engineers that they viewed this as a -- as a viable access point to Eagle Road and there is -- and I think that's -- that has been ITD's position as far as this is concerned as far as I know as staff as I have talked with them. Borup: But I think you said, then, they would need to apply to City Council for a variance? Lucas: Commissioners, that is correct. The staff report -- I didn't condition them to apply for a variance, because -- Borup: You said you didn't want one. Lucas: I'm not going to put a condition requesting someone to have a variance. We looked at the code. The code clearly says that they can't do it. If they want to do it, they have to apply for a variance. The staff report doesn't say that, but the applicant -- this isn't new to the applicant, so they are in the process, from what I understand, of submitting for that variance. Borup: Well, I certainly agree with the ordinance, but I don't see any -- another viable way for this property to be developed without it either. As long as it's a right -in, right - out. Rohm: Yeah. The fact of the matter is that private drive into St. Luke's property, if, in fact, everything had to come in to either that location and funnel through the parking lot to the north or off of the Franklin Road access, it's going to create more problems than it solves by appearance. And that doesn't seem to be the right answer either. So, in my Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 33 of 49 mind making an application for a variance for a right -in, right -out onto Eagle Road is the most expedient answer that will minimize additional congestion down the road. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would agree entirely. I guess the thing that -- the point I'm concerned about, then, is -- or the question is if, in fact, it was in this -- for this application, in fact, it is noted that -- that that is not to be there, how do we, then, go forth as opposed to -- in an approval mode, we would be denying them that access point and, then, they'd have to tum around and go after a variance at that point, would they not? Rohm: Well, I think that it would be -- we could recommend approval conditional to the City Council granting a variance for that right -in, right -out, and only with that provision. Moe: Well, there are other issues that we need to kind of walk through on this, so we can -- we will go onto that after that, but -- yeah. Rohm: Okay. Riley: Mr. Chairman, if I might address wanted to hear the discussion this evening So, it will go in tomorrow. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. the question of the variance application. I before I submitted the variance application. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think that there -- was there someone that was going to speak about the buildings themselves in regards to the site and that's -- Ahlquist: Mr. Chairman, Tom Ahlquist, with Gardner-Ahlqiust Development, 1263 West Woodshire Court in Eagle, Idaho. On behalf of my partners, who are out of Salt Lake City, Cam Gardner and Christian Gardner, we appreciate the opportunity to work with you. My partners have been developing for 30 years down in Salt Lake, have done much of the development in Salt Lake, including the Gateway complex and about 300 different projects there. They are excited to be in the valley and this is our first project with them together, so I think we bring a lot of quality here and we are very very excited about this corridor, working with the City of Meridian, and what kind of quality we are going to bring to this project. I also want to start by thanking Justin. He has been amazing through this process and, certainly, I'm the rookie on the Ahlquist -Gardner development team and he has been more than helpful to me while maintaining strict professionalism and we greatly appreciate that. Land acquisition on this comer has been -- if I started telling you stories, then, we would be here all night. It's been crazy. But I'm happy to let you know that just as of last week we were able to acquire that last L-shaped piece of this and purchased it last week. So, that application will be coming. And that will clarify a lot of the -- the south end of this development. It will allow us to vacate those roads and maintain an access point with St. Luke's that is acceptable to them and we are very sensitive to that road and to that light and actually have a • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 34 of 49 • representative from St. Luke's here tonight, if you would like to talk to them about -- about that. They have been very generous to work with us and on this project, because it certainly impacts both of us. As to the buildings and the quality of the buildings, we are -- if -- looking at the elevations, a lot of the elements that were used in the Gateway, which is the three block development down in the middle of Salt Lake City, a lot of those elements will use in this -- this Meridian Gateway project here, including a lot of the same stones and different features, architecturally. We are excited to attract Class A tenants. We have a team of folks that are out nationally attracting tenants right now to come to the Treasure Valley to take some of our Class A space. In addition to the office buildings that we will be building there, we will attract some restaurants and outside retailers to support the hospital and this area and some of the other uses that we have in there and we have also talked with a couple of hotel users and we are looking forward to a very high end hotel, perhaps the highest end hotel in the valley in our project. We are very excited to have the whole project. As of a couple weeks ago I was nervous what was going to happen with that southern border, which is very important in negotiation with St. Luke's, with roadways, with the light, but we look forward to developing the entire comer and making this really be one of the hallmarks of the City of Meridian and are pleased to be working with you. If you have any questions for me in specifics about the buildings, I would be happy to answer them. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, are you satisfied with that presentation? Moe: The only thing I'm a little bit concerned about -- Justin, you -- in regards to the -- can you go back to the site plan showing the buildings. When you spoke earlier about wanting to make sure that the building frontage was based on, you know, Franklin, as well as Eagle, are you concerned at all about this building right here possibly moving up so the parking is behind it or are you -- are you satisfied with the way that is? Lucas: Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, after looking at the site plan, we responded to what the applicant -- applicant gave us and they did create this -- we see it as an entryway, if I can get my pointer to work a into the subdivision off of Eagle Road. You can notice that they did place those two buildings up in those comers, so when you drive in you drive with those buildings on either side, which I think creates a nice entryway into the project. This building up here, from what I understand, is proposed to be quite tall, up to five stories in height, and locating a building of that size right on the intersection of Eagle and Franklin definitely is something that can be thought about, but when it comes to the height and bulk of such a building, locating it in that location, staffs not really one way or the other, but we didn't see it necessary to require that, I can just put it that way. Ahlquist: Mr. Chairman, I may comment on that. It will make it really straight forward. We can't put it on the comer. We would love to put it on the comer. There is ACHD property that was -- somehow went through the hands of ITD to ACHD and our only option is to have a licensing agreement for landscaping and parking on the far comer and so we have worked through that issue with them. So, that pushes our building back to where it has to be and we can use that for parking. We still think it will give us, 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 35 of 49 0 because of the height of the building, give us a grand entryway and kind of a center piece building here that we think will be very nice. I might speak a little bit -- you know, it's been a Catch 22, this little no man's land, and we will get that worked out. We have had multiple meetings with both ITD and ACHD and, basically, we -- it was -- it was obvious that we needed to start the process with you all here tonight to, then, be able to go back to the table and get that worked. We are hoping that as part of our vacation of these roads up here that that land washes out and this -- to everyone else, we go through our final platting, it will just appear as is shown here, with a landscape buffer that all looks uniform and we are confident that we can work through those issues. Rohm: Thank you. Very nice project. Nice project. Ahlquist: Thank you very much. Thank you for letting us present tonight. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application at this time? Bell: Good evening, Commissioner Rohm and Commissioners. My name is Matt Bell, I'm representing St. Luke's, address 190 East Bannock Street, Boise, Idaho. 83712. 1 would just like to reiterate what Mr. Ahlquist and his team has said. We have worked party hard and pretty closely with their group and are very supportive of this when he came to us and said this is what he'd like to do. We were pleased it wasn't a big box store, just because of the compatibility of the uses and what we had kind of always feared would go on that comer. Very pleased with the development and the way he plans to develop it. As for the access to our private road, I can plead a little ignorance. I wasn't around when that happened. It was a decision of ACRD, the City of Meridian, ITD at the time, you know, I think unless there is some compelling reason to make it public, I don't think St. Luke's is at this point willing to do so. That roadway is designed to handle the traffic that we generate. We have a little bit excess capacity on that roadway. This development probably will consume pretty much all of that excess capacity. And we have -- as you all well know, we have got a settlement agreement with the Montvue Subdivision. We will be working with Dr. Ahlquist on updating that coming to a resolution, because it does include all of the parcels, but we certainly want to work with him and make sure that we can have a cohesive and collaborative intersection, traffic through put, all of those types of things. But, you know, as to the public-private roadway, I just don't know if I'm in a position to speak to it, other than to say, you know, that -- our site -- our campus was planned for medical uses. Reasons for private roadways were discussed and established way back when and unless there is compelling reason to do so, I don't think there is much we can do about it at this point. Rohm: No. I agree with that. Thank you. Bell: One thing I would like to say regarding the right -in, right -out along Eagle Road, if this project is denied that right -in, right -out, I think it does make our intersection fail and I'm coming from a perspective of patient safety, ambulance safety, things like that. If that intersection fails, you know, I think we have significant concerns from a patient safety perspective about access to our hospital and emergency services. So, we would • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 36 of 49 strongly encourage that right -in, right -out. Any questions for me about, you know, our involvement? Rohm: And thank you and there are some us that were on the Commission back when that was -- that private drive was developed and there was a lot of stuff that went on back then. Thank you. Bell: There sure was. Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application before we close the Public Hearing? Okay. Seeing none, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-065 and PP 06-007. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Do we have comments — Borup: It seems to me like the only issue is the Eagle Road access, is what I wrote down. Rohm: Well, the Eagle Road access, making it a requirement that they get a variance from City Council for that, but, then, we also need to address the three-quarter access on Franklin, if, in fact, the Commission feels that that's viable as well and those are the only two things that -- Moe: Well, I, myself, I guess I would tell you that the right -in, right -out onto Eagle Road I think is -- in my opinion is almost imperative to be done. I happen to agree with the St. Luke's representative. I think you're going to really put a real strain on that intersection down there if, in fact, you don't do something up there. So, I don't have a problem on Eagle Road at all. In regard to Franklin, I'm just the opposite. I'm very concerned about the traffic going west and so allowing a three-quarter entrance on that I'm very concerned on how that will be. I would rather see it be a right -in, right -out only up there as well. Access into this is tough all the way around and, quite frankly, you don't have -- you're going to have to have both of them to be even fairly viable. The project's very nice. I think it's going to be definitely great for the city and I guess I would wish we could do better on the access, but I think as far as my opinion, I think both of them in right -in, right -out is that best I can think to do, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 37 of 49 Borup: Well, I think it could work if it was restricted from midnight to 5:00 a.m. Other than that, I agree. Rohm: And it's not as if there is not access through the property to the -- to the east. And they could gain a left tum in through the Touchmark properties and get that access off of Franklin Road and I agree with the two of you that probably nine times out of ten the best access turning into the left off of Franklin would be okay, but if it got congested, it could back it up a half a mile and take the rest of the evening to break that congestion up. So, I'm pretty sure that right -in, right -out, is probably the right answer for the Franklin access as well. Okay. With that being said, could I get a motion? Moe: Go right ahead, Keith. Borup: Well, how did we decide to handle the Eagle Road access? As the staff report - - staff report says to abandon it. Rohm: Maybe we could get some directions from staff. If, in fact, we were to make a motion moving this onto City Council recommending approval, but with changes to that access off of Eagle, do you have some verbiage that you would suggest? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, indeed, you can make a recommendation to allow that access to exist there. And I think in your motion you can just state that very thing, that, you know, from the Commission's perspective the access to Eagle Road is imperative. That's what I'm hearing, at least. And, you know, you can recommend that the applicant go through all the necessary procedures to make that access happen and part of that procedure would be to get a variance application approved through City Council. The City Council is the only body that can actually grant that access and so they would be the final decision making body, but you can definitely recommend that the Commission believes that that access is a positive and good for this project. I hope that helps. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary, do you have a particular place where that should be inserted or can we just make that as a statement as an addition to the staff report? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's probably the most appropriate. You could certainly make it part of your motion as a recommendation, but - - I mean that's about all you can, since that's, really, the Council's decision. Borup: The staff report is 1.2.4 is where it's mentioned. Moe: Well, in the development agreement it talks about it, that on -- I think it's the 11 th bullet point where it talks about it being abandoned. Borup: And, then, they put it in their required conditions also. That was the 1.2.4 was but I guess that doesn't matter if we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 38 of 49 Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I think maybe a clarification to those conditions would be something to the effect of -- I believe the conditions read, you know, abandon all access. You could say: Unless approved through a variance by the City Council, abandon all access. That may be something if you wanted to modify that language that you could add that I would include in the staff report that goes to the City Council. And, if not, you really don't have to modify it, because staffs recommendation would remain the same if you chose not to modify those conditions. The City Council, really, would be the one making that decision. But will modify those if you so choose. Nary: Mr. Chairman? And the only other thing -- I guess maybe it's, obvious, to the applicant, I mean there are standards for the variance that they have to meet for the City Council to grant it. So, a recommendation from this body is certainly a positive, but it doesn't necessarily mean that meets the standards. So, I think if you want your opinion known, I think Mr. Lucas' suggestion is probably the best way to do that. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-065 and PP 07-007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, with the following modifications: On condition 1.2.4, to add: Unless variance is granted at City Council. I don't know if we need to go into anymore detail than that. And, then, at the end of our recommendation, that this Commission recommends -- highly recommends a right -in, right -out access on Eagle Road. We feel it's necessary for traffic flow and safety and viability of the project. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-056 and PP 07-007, to include staff report and the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carnes. Thank you all and you have got a great looking project. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: At this time we are going to take about a ten minute break before we continue and -- but before we -- before we do that, I'd like to tum the mike over to Caleb and he's got a presentation here for just a moment. Hood: Of some sorts. It's one of our long-time Commissioner's last Public Hearing tonight. Keith Borup has served with the city longer than I have been here. Somewhere in the neighborhood of ten years, I understand. I personally have appreciated you being on the Commission helping me along in my four years that I have been here working for the city. I think you have done a lot of great work sifting up there as part of that body 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 39 of 49 and we are sure going to miss you and do appreciate the -- all the many hours you have spent up there making the tough decisions. You're going to be missed and thanks again for your hard work. Borup: Thank you. I have enjoyed it. Rohm: And as one of the fellow Commissioners, when I first came on the Commission, Commissioner Borup was the chairman and I have to say that I learned a great deal from him and I will miss him greatly and I value his input throughout the length of time that I have been on the Commission myself. Moe: It would be my tum now. Actually, I have had the pleasure of serving with Keith on a couple different boards and it seems like he'd leave and, then, I'd end up following him into the next one and whatnot and I, too -- I have learned quite a lot through -- through watching Keith and I do appreciate all his help in getting me to understand just what this position was all about. So, you will be very much missed, no doubt about it. Borup: I will be thinking of you guys late Thursday nights. Rohm: Anyway, thank you. We are going to take about a ten minute break. Hood: And we are -- just because you are our snack guy, we did -- we do have a little treat for you as well in the break room there, so -- it's nowhere near the amount of -- the hunger pains that I have had throughout the hearings and your little black bag coming to the rescue, but there is a little treat back there. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Will be back in ten minutes. (Recess.) Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2007: 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: At this time I'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. And, let's see, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. Both items related to the Hartz Music Shop and begin with the staff report. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 40 of 49 Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation and zoning and rezone request for the properties located at 1970 and 1990 North Meridian Road on the east side of north Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile north of East Fairview Avenue. The zoning map. Here is the aerial of the property. Residential apartments, zoned R-15, abut the site on the north and the east, along with single family residences to the east, zoned R-8. To the south is vacant, undeveloped land, that the owner is currently in the process of annexing into the city with a C -C zone. To the west are offices. My pointer's not working here. Zoned L -O and rural residential property in Ada County zoned RUT. The property at 1970 North Meridian Road consists of .42 of an acre and it's currently zoned R-1 in Ada County. That's the portion right there. The property at 1990 North Meridian Road consists of .38 of an acre and it's currently zoned L -O. The applicant is requesting that both of these properties be zoned to the C -G zone, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of commercial. The applicant intends to expand Hartz Music Shop currently operating on the parcel to the north and continue the current music instruction and music retail sales operation. In the future the applicant would like to have an indoor or outdoor stage between the two existing buildings for small shows and recitals. Here is a copy of the site plan. The existing Hartz Music Shop is right here on the north. The existing residence is here on the south. The area in between is where they are talking about eventually having a stage. Staff is recommending that the subject property be zoned C -C, instead of C -G, for consistency with the C -C zoned property to the south and for a less intense commercial zone adjacent to the existing residential uses abutting the site. The C -C zone will allow the applicant to use and develop the property as they have proposed, the same as the C -G zone. The applicant is in agreement with staffs recommendation of the C -C zone for the subject properties. Access to the site will be provided from one access point to North Meridian Road and cross -access is required with the Hoyd property to the south for access to Carmel Drive. Well, I'm really having problems with this pointer. The drive you can see on the northwest comer of the property up there is the drive that they will be using. Off-street parking is shown on the conceptual development plan. These are existing photos of the site. The structures. This is Hartz Music Shop on the top and this is the existing residence here on the bottom. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but will be required upon development of the property. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure that future cross -access is provided to the property to the south. To limit hours of operation for future businesses to between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., because the property is adjacent to residential uses, to insure that the development of the property substantially complies with the conceptual site plan submitted with this application and other standard development agreement provisions. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation and zoning and rezone application, with a C -C zone, instead of C -G, as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 41 of 49 Hartz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and especially Commissioner Borup. How fortuitous that I would be here for his last Planning and Zoning hearing. He was here the first time when I -- in '99 when I got the 1990 parcel zoned to L -O and he's always -- he's been one of my long-time clients, as his son is a guitarist -- was a guitar student of mine, and I'm glad that I'm here, Keith, to be here for your sayonara party. I concur with everything that staff has, especially I -- when we initially were submitting the application, the C -G zone, you know, and I think everything was -- I don't know why we chose that, but being as though that would be contiguous with the Hoyd property that's going into the south of me and I have got a cross -access agreement with him, then, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Rohm: Sounds good. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Just one. As far as your -- the stage you're looking to put in, what kind of time of the day would you be — Hartz: It's all going to be before 10:00 o'clock and -- because that's the staff report also indicates the hours of business had to be in between 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. It's not going to be -- it's going to be for small shows. What -- initially, we were thinking a tent, but, then, as the project goes along and funds allow -- if we do the tent we have to go through a Conditional Use Permit application anyway. If the funds are there, we might go ahead and put a permanent structure there and we would join -- talk with staff about joining the two parcels and doing that deal that way. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Emily, did you want to speak? From the audience she said no. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Okay. Thank you. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing AZ 07-002 and RZ 07- 003. Moe: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings of AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003, to zone the properties to C -C, as presented in the staff report, hearing date of March 15th, 2007. End of motion. Moe: Second. • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 42 of 49 • Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you, folks. I hope you enjoy participating in our process. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 07-004 Request for a Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2nd Street for LDS Church by Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects — 1615 W. 2nd Street: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-004, the LDS Church, and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O, for the LDS church located at 1615 West 2nd Street, on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately a quarter mile west of North Meridian Road. Office is zoned L -O and abut the site to the west and north across Cherry Lane. To the east, west, and south are single family residences, zoned R-4. Here is an aerial of the property. And the applicant is proposing to rezone the church property from R-4, medium low density residential, to L -O, limited office, because churches are a prohibited use in the R-4 zone, making the current use a nonconforming use in the zone. Rezoning the property to the L -O zone in which churches are permitted uses, will allow for future expansion of the existing use and will allow the applicant to obtain a sign permit. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but may be required upon future expansion of the existing use on the site. Access to the site is currently provided from West Cherry Lane and West 2nd Street. No new access points are proposed or approved with this application. West 4th Street, which abuts the site on the west, has not been fully constructed or improved. Currently West 4th Street is improved with a single traffic lane, 18 feet of pavement with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk abutting the site. Staff is requesting that the applicant dedicate right of way and construct West 4th Street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the entire west boundary of the site. Further, staff is requesting that a development agreement be entered into to insure that these improvement are complete prior occupancy of any future expansion or change in use on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezone to L -O, with a development agreement per the conditions of the staff report. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Niblett: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Niblett, I'm with Niblett & Associates Architects out of Boise, Idaho, 3629 North Cole. I, myself, have for • Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 43 of 49 �I the passed 14 years done church work through a number of states in the Pacific Northwest. It's occupied approximately 70 percent of my workload for the past 14 years. The church builds good buildings, high quality, good standards. They have a good neighbor policy. They take good care of their buildings. They take good care of their lawns, shrubs, and are quiet neighbors. Could we get the aerial put back on, Planner Watters? We have recognized that this property is currently nonconforming, even under a conditional use process. We would -- we are proposing later to put an addition on it. In fact, we are in the planning stages. There would be an addition of about -- the current building is about 15,000 square feet. We'd add approximately 2,500 square feet in that comer of the property -- or the building right there. It's currently fenced, six foot chain link fence. There is no access anywhere along this side. There are currently four entrances into the property. One there, one there, one there and one there. We are not being required -- we have plenty of good access. We are not required to have anymore access. We -- I have been asked by the church to come before you today to talk about the development agreement requirement of developing 4th Street. We do not see a relationship between the impacts of an addition at this location and the improvements that would be required along 4th Street. We currently do not use this for access and we feel that there is no relationship. Any impact by the addition or project that we proposed here is contained over here and has no relationship to this. In fact, we do not see a rational nexus between what we are doing as a project and the need for the construction of the public road. We have vacant land over here that may at some day be developed. It would appear that at the time of this development there could be, then, a relationship between that development and the need to construct this public road. But currently we don't -- we do not see any relationship between what our project is doing and the need for that construction. There are -- there is a single home here and a single home here and -- let's see if I had any other comments. Well, ACHD has recognized in their report, as well as the staff has recognized in their report that there is no need for additional access. So, what we have is plenty for the property and we don't anticipate there would be any access over here at all. So, I come before you today to ask that that be stricken from the staff report and not be a part of what we are being required to do for this project. Rohm: Well, I guess what my question of you would be is why are you requesting the whole parcel to be rezoned if you're only dealing with this portion right here? Why don't you just request this portion be rezoned and leave the rest, so that once this portion of it is redeveloped, that there would be development to tie into the request of the city to have the roadway improved? Niblett: Chairman Rohm and staff, you might correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this is one parcel now and if we come in with a division of that, we'd have to go through a preliminary plat and plat process and at that time they would also attach or try to attach the development of that. At least that's what I have been told from staff as a part of that process, because that was a question that I had as well as is if we separated this -- but it was my understanding that there is no longer one time splits and so we would have to go through a plat process and I was told that if we did, we would still be required by the city to see those developments come in. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 44 of 49 Rohm: Interesting. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Well, just to comment on your -- on your comment. I don't know if that applies here, but we have -- we have annexed other properties that's had dual zoning, so I'm not -- I mean this is not an annexation, but I don't know why that's any different. We have a lot of property with several different zones. Rohm: Does the zoning designation have anything to do with the requirement for the road development? If it was zoned R-8, would the road not need to be developed, then? It still would, would it not? Borup: If it was going to be developed it would. Rohm: Are you suggesting that they would have made application for a rezone for this portion to the R-4 and the balance of it -- Borup: Well, I'm just saying that would answer your question and it would be done without doing a lot split. I'm not sure if the applicant is interested in that, but staff may have a thought. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you do a split zoning on one property - - I can't think of any that has a split zoning. Now, you get developments that come in with multiple zones, but those are following property lines. Here you would be having the same parcel that has the same parcel number, but two zoning designations on it. Sure makes it confusing. If you don't -- if you don't like the way the development agreement provision is worded, take it out. That does not help to make anything any cleaner by trying to split zone this property to try to go around the -- Rohm: Yeah. I really wasn't trying to get around it. Basically, what I was just saying to the applicant is -- is as part of this application it -- that property does affect it and from the city's perspective there is no better time than the time of a rezone to get those things in motion and if we were to approve this without making that 4th Street improvement, it would be more difficult for us to do it at a later time, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean I think part of the problem here -- and I understand the applicant's concern, but I guess to follow up on your comment, if you don't do it at this point with a development agreement, what other trigger are we going to have. And part of the reason is in this application there is no plat, there is no -- there is no development that's being brought forth, it's simply the zone. The applicant's indicated they are working on a plan for expanding the building, but, again, you don't have the benefit of that tonight to know that there isn't a nexus, all you have is the applicant's statement that there may not -- there is no need for access and no nexus and that's the problem. That's why many times on -- either rezones are fairly narrow or they are for specific purposes that no other alternative, like the Hartz Music site that was before you tonight, there isn't a lot of alternatives for that site, • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 45 of 49 because of the size and the location and those types of considerations. This one you have a fairly large site and, again, no other -- no other plat or application in front of you for what developments may occur. So, it's not unreasonable for this Commission to want to place either some restrictions on that or have the applicant wait until they can bring the entire project back. Rohm: I think that's the -- well, from my perspective that's the answer that I would see as well is the -- short of your application includes your expansion to the church facilities, so that we can see exactly what the total project is going to look like, this is the best time to address the issue of 4th Street and that -- that would be my position as well. Commissioner Moe, do you have comments or -- Moe: I concur, quite frankly. Niblett: Chairman Rohm, may I make a comment? Rohm: Pardon? Niblett: May I make a comment? Rohm: Absolutely. Niblett: As part of our application we submitted both a site plan showing the addition and a floor plan showing the addition as part of this rezone. So, that was submitted as a part of this application, so that we showed exactly what the intent was. In fact, we were caught off guard that it was zoned R-4. We had -- you can't even have a church in an R-4. And so we thought -- we were under the understanding it was L -O. That's my mistake. When we went to submit for our CZC, that's when I found out that we were zoned incorrectly and that's what prompted this. So, we -- we have the package ready and, in fact, I submitted both that site plan and floor plan with this application to show what our intent was. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions of this applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Borton: My name is Al Borton. I live at 1612 West 2nd, right across from the church. This gentleman is right, they are very good neighbors and it's been a pleasure to have them there. However, they have expanded the amount of people going to that church in the last ten years enormously. So, second carries a lot more traffic and I and most of my neighbors there would like to see 4th Street expanded, but a lot of them people in that subdivision in your lower left of your comer come across and up 2nd, as well as the church people. So, if you had 4th Street open, it would take a lot of traffic off of 2nd. Rohm: Okay. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 46 of 49 Borton: We walk a lot down over in that area for exercise and we noticed there is a lot of people in that one street right down there on your left that comes across below where the church is, has a pretty good dip in it, and a lot of them people come right through that dip and down to 2nd and head out, because they can get out that way. And it would be awful nice, since their church has expanded so much and there is so many -- so much traffic there, it would be awful nice to have 4th Street so we could eliminate some of it at least. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that that was the thoughts of the city as well. Borton: Thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you. Ma'am, did you want to testify as well? And from the audience she said, no, thank you. Does the applicant have any final comments before we close this Public Hearing? Niblett: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, is it my understanding, then -- the only question I have is that perhaps the route we are taking right now you see as a problem. Is it my understanding that if we was to subdivide -- or divide the lots into two lots -- the parcel into two lots that we would have a better approach from your view? Rohm: Probably have to defer to our legal counsel and if they were to split this into two parcels, could they make an application for a rezone on just a portion of it and leave the rest of it as undeveloped property? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if it completely solves your problem. I guess one of the things I was understanding from staff is right now they want to rezone this entire parcel. There is expansion on that northern eastern portion of the property, but there is not a way, other than through the development agreement, to trigger some other improvement along the 4th Street section of the property. You know, there is not a way in the development agreement for us to put in, you know, once you decide to develop something that accesses this area -- I mean it's problematic to try to create that. If you create two parcels, I don't know that you're still not going to have a problem -- I mean I don't know the Commission's view on the testimony on where the access is going to be and how large the expansion is going to be, how many more people that's going to serve. Is 2nd Street adequate. Are they going to still need access through the other part? I don't know. I mean staff may have a different perspective. I guess I don't know that that's a fix for everything. I mean it splits the zoning and that may -- that may solve one problem, it may not solve the issue of the access point. I think that's still problematic and I don't know -- if the parcel they split it off from, if they go through the platting process, and they are only asking to do the other one, I guess maybe Mr. Hood might have a different perspective. I still think -- I don't know that it solves the problem completely. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I just may add, I don't think it's solves any question. What it will do is force the Ada County Highway District and the city to require that a street be built Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 47 of 49 with the subdivision and not through a development agreement. So, you really -- ACHD's comments were only comments, because you weren't proposing any development. Once you do a subdivision, they will make them conditions. Same with the city. A standard condition of approval for doing a subdivision or creating separate parcels is the construction of roads, so -- now if that's something that the Commission wanted to waive through the process, but that would be something that we would be looking at as putting into a conditional approval for the split. So, you really -- it really doesn't help to do a subdivision, a short plat, a split, create two parcels, doesn't do you any good, to be quite frank. Niblett: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: So moved. Borup: I have got a question for staff and it can either come before or after the closing. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead and ask staff before I -- I guess that's appropriate, because the answer may -- Borup: Okay. Probably for maybe Mr. Cole. If this road is developed, I think the applicant testified that there could possibly be some development of the property, but along with that, then, there would need to be -- how do you determine where these driveway -- accesses would be and do we have sewer or water lines down East 4th. Fortunately, now, we just approved a subdivision adjoining this -- this property right here was -- was -- at least -- I guess it made it through City Council. I don't know. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I don't believe Deklin has gone to Council yet, but -- Borup: Okay. Cole: There is sewer and water mains where 4th Street would be constructed already. That cost would not be bome by this applicant. The main's already in. Any sewer and expense would go through his property to whichever number of lots he created. As far as the access goes, it would just be determined with the plat when the plat came in, looking at the uses. Borup: But the street's going to already be developed and so without sewer stubs and without -- I guess it depends on what type of curbing is there, but -- Cole: Yes. If they went through and built the road ahead of the subdivision, without any stub outs, they would have to go back through and apply to ACHD through their no cut board to cut the road and it would be a larger patch back at that point. E Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 48 of 49 Borup: I just point that out. I mean that's one problem I can see with developing the road right now, when there is no -- I mean building the road right now when there is no development design for that area. And it sounds like sewer and water would be the only real problem. If they had rolled curb, that would take care of the access points, as long as they allow cuts in the road for sewer and water, Even though it's not five years. Cole: They do allow -- they call it a no cut, the five year no cut. There is an allowance - - you have to go in front of ACHD's board and ask for that to be waived and, essentially, is just means there is a larger patch back at that point. So, a no cut is not a no cut -- well, eventually, it's just a larger patch back. Borup: Okay. I guess I brought that out. We hadn't -- that part of it hadn't really been discussed earlier. Were you waiting for a second to your motion? Moe: Yes, I was. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Any other discussion by you? Frankly, I don't have a problem with the way it's been noted in the staff report. Rohm: I think that the staff has tried to take the future of our city into consideration and this is the best way and the only way we are going to be able to move forward and get that developed as it should be. So, I'm in support of staffs report myself. That being said, could I get a motion? Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 07-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, 2007. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-004 to include the staff report as written. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 07-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I -L zone for Joint School District No 2. Jabil Subdivision by Joint School District No 2 —1303 E. Central Drive: 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 49 of 49 Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing CUP 07-003, for the sole purpose of continuing it to the April 19th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: And second. All those in favor of continuing CUP 07-003 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007, say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:46 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPRO MICHAEL E. ROHM — CHAIRMAN ATTESTED; DATE APPROVED LLIAM G. BERG JR., C Y C ERIV��14111ua r.Nb�'v ,'1; r l w {+k�a .` 'iY "fit '+k ;,3..i3:t 2p t +.5 `' T .,.,' ,v y.'S r•Y.}'+, Fi,, .{'ds v$e.. S t �: t'1,& .+5� S ' i w.. t '.J' March 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO: 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 1, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: s CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ",. .r hr e f ue9' mixr� r, �s} � 3u 5: k h 'F,�^�„}�. �1 �€ .4. .;�fi !.� � �•"F 3 of 3� `a aE'' r S `i }F.p , c*�$. _ xy �0 March 12, 2007 AZ 06-063 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Waltman, LLC ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1/18/07 -Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zone to C -G zone for Waltman Property - 505, 521, 615 & 675 Waltman Lane AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo for Continuance CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • March 12, 2007 11 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Moose Creek Construction ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single-family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Attached Request for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • March 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING APPLICANT Darren Blaser 11 CUP 07-001 March 15, 2007 ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/01/07- 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 - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 12, 2007 AZ 07-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Stanley Consultants ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from R1 to L -O and R-8 zones for Grau Subdivision - 4135 W. Cherry Ln AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY'HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting / Attached Letter from Margie Lane Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 March 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Stanley Consultants ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L -O zone,. and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, by Grau Subdivision - 4135 West Cherry Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See AZ Packet COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 March 12, 2007 0 PP 07-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Rob Babneau ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/1/07 - 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 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Comments See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C� March 12, 2007 CUP 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Rob Babneau ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/1/07- Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi -family development consisting of 64 multi -family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L -O zone for Doubletree Subdivision - 1105 W. Pine 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See PP Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 March 12, 2007 E AZ 06-065 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Ahlquist Development, LLC ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 2/1/07- Annexation and Zoning of 22.30 acres from R-1 to a C -G zone for Ahlquist Annexation - SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. C March 12,2W7 PP 07-007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Ahlquist Development, LLC ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots on 19.30 acres in the proposed C -G zone for Gardner -Ahlquist Gateway Subdivision - SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See Az Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • March 12, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 C AZ 07-002 APPLICANT Hartz Music Shop ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/11/07 - Annexation and Zoning 0.42 of an acre from R-1 to"a C -G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes OTHER: See attached Response to Staff Report from Matt Hartz Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Matedals presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 12, 2007 R7 07-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Hartz Music Shop ITEM NO. 14 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 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: COMMENTS OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • March 12, 2007 RZ 07-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L -O zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2nd Street for LDS Church - 1615 W. 2nd Street AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report Pio Comment See Attached Comments No Comment OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Ll March 12, 2007 CUP 07-003 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 15, 2007 APPLICANT Joint School District No. 2 ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I -L zone for Joint School District No 2, Jabil Subdivision - 1303 E. Central Drive AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT. CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Request for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Site Plan Map Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.