The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 07-05~° r ~:.::: -'"'~Y K'~ '' ' ' 4 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING r~~- ~ ~ REGULAR MEETING ~; irar~ria ~~ AGENDA >, 4~ ~,9' City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho =z Thursday, July 5, 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 {r,'~: to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: ~t.~ X Tom O'Brien O Wendy Newton-Huckabay X David Moe X Steve Siddoway `' X Michael Rohm -chairman ' 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended ~~ ^' 3. Consent Agenda: °~ A. Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone for Kelley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East Second Street: Continue Public Hearing to July 19, 2007 a.. 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.56 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Amar '} ` @Wapoot by LandPro Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive: Recommend Approval to City Council 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.67 acres from an R1 zone to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC "r of Franklin and Eagle Roads: Recommend Approval to City Council Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 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. • 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads: Recommend Approval to City Council- 8. Public Hearing: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot multi-tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): Continue Public Hearing to July 19, 2007 9. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: RZ 07-011 Request for a ~~' Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from C-C to an O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: ~:~. Recommend Approval to City Council 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-010 Request for :4 Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acre in a ,'~ proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct 6 town homes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines <v, for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. 4 ~~ Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council ,.;r;I 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-011 Request for ~~ Preliminary Plat approval for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in t;;~„ `s' a C-G zone, for Paramount Commercial Southwest by Ustick ',.>R'~ Marketplace, LLC -Northeast comer of North Linder Road and West °~=~ McMillan Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 13. Public Hearing: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian ~~ Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed for July 19, 2007) ;~ 14. Public Hearing: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional - Use Permit (CUP 05-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse /storage and Y` show room space on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 1875 North Lakes Place: _ Continue Public Hearing to July 19, 2007 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. I C ~~. 'dig€ t l! ~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ :d `~ •~ ~ ,f € 1~ ,~~'~ ] Y 1 L 1 1 ~ X55 a ~~~.5 li,~i a,.=- ~ - ~`~,~i i ,;:~ f~i~ :,r 4 ~ . ~~ . r > ~~ ~~ r. .~,~' a a~ ';it dT ~ t'. ~; ~ i~I~ i ~= i ~ a~F~~ ilk r ` ~~ ~T ~~~ . ~l Ali, ' ~ ~ ~ i -~; {iA ik ~Zr ~ ~ d~~#~ ,' s ~y ~~~ i ` }. - i ~ ~ti i~ d Q 5 i .. ~ I ~ ~ `5 A'~ .. ~' y~~.a ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ I I~` ~ ~ i. ~. . ~~ i I: x ~ y ( ~ ,,~~ t Y~ _i 9y~§p ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ :.: ~ ;ai#~, ~ ~1 ~~1~.. i ~; fi r Y I f xy ~ ~r ' I~ ~ ` ~y , r te ~~I'g~ ~IIi{ ~ r. ~ t .. s,; r, , r ,~ . ,~_ ira~~ z : ,_ ~~ - i~" c ~ . :;~~ 3Y~; ' s: F. . .~~ v~ , ~`, ;t ,.~ ~~ ,, i ,,~ ~; '~ .~Y ` ~~ ~ ~ : . ~, x ~~ ,r.;:. Cn A' w . '~ ~. ~z CITY OF ~F ~ ~ ~ ~ _._ .ate C~~~erl~i~n ~,, r, IDAHO ,}j F~. E~ q ~v MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ~TR~ ~'~~~ City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 5, 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: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: A-~~~yj~ ~~ ~r~~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~~~~ B. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: A~pi,~~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone for Kelley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 Ea t Second Street: ~~ ~~® 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.56 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Amar @ Wapoot by LandPro Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.67 acres from an R1 zone to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ,~- a. ;;, ,:. ,;~ r :.. ~~'~' a ~, ~r „~:~. e • 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC - S of Franklin and Eagle ~ ~~~ ~ ~, ~~~~~ ®~~..~ ~ ~ 8. Public Hearing: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot multi-tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): 9. Continued Public Hearing from June , 2007: RZ 07-011 Request for a Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from C-C to an O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying -1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from Ju a 7, 2007: PP 07-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acre in a proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1 2 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: \~~ 11. Continued Public Hearin from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-010 Request for 9 Conditional Use Permit to construct 6 town homes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in a C-G zone, for Paramount Commercial Southwest by Ustick Marketplace, LLC -Northeast comer of North Linder Road and West McMillan R~~'t~-/~- .~/~6~®I~~ ~ ~s~~f ~~~'a''.C Pub arin CUP 07-013 Re uest for a Conditional Use Permit per 13. g q requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed for July 19, 2007) 14. Public Hearing: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse /storage and show room space on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC -1875 North Lakes Place: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 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,< ~,~' ClT ~~i~'Cerl .. ~ ~~,~ ~'. F~ tr:.;. ~E@ 4 T V n+~Y _ RensuRe ~~1909 City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 5, 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: - Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway ~.,_, - Michael Rohm -chairman ~<-. 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the ~~' ~ O-T zone for Kelley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East Second Street: 5. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.56 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Amar @ Wapoot by LandPro Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive: ~~`z;~ 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-010 Request for °; ~: Annexation and Zoning of 6.67 acres from an R1 zone to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC -~;~ of Franklin and Eagle Roads: ~~'~;'~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 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. ,, . ~ l~ ~: ~s,.,~~~ ~~~~ ~ ..z ~i ~;~ ,~ a ~ ~e ~-'~ ~~ ~~~~';: ~`~ ; r , } J tJ T ~ :., ~ a ~~~ }'Y ".~- x ~+~, _ p Y~: ~ l~d~~ k ~ ,~ ~s 3 ~a~;~ ~ ~;~ ,_ .. , ~ a t,.7~ ~ ti ~ J F q I ~~~sfC ~t iF~ii ~ ~''~. # ~ ~ I~ a '~s v - ~ „~ 'ir ~ F ~ 6 ~ ~ ,~ ~ l a'~'_ a ~ ~I .r ; ~ , ; ~_`~~ - - a ~x~ , ;~~ - ~ r~~ y~ . ' t tk l t rCi- R J? ~' ~~ { ~ l; XY ~ ~ : ~, ~. ~ - c'~ S ~ ' ~ ~i F ~ '',. E, I * r ~,~'ij~9 I {l r ~ ~ I t _T~ ;~ ~ _ r p_.._ ~~~'~~3 ~~,i ~,. ,_ .r' ~~~ R - ~~~ggr ~ ~ _. ~ ~' ~'A; r 5 r `,. t' ...., _ a _' 14 ~`c ~ ~~-~ f _:h , Y °P MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~t~-n ~~~ REGULAR MEETING IDAHO AGENDA ~_ • • 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-012 Request for ' ' Preliminary Plat approval of 6 lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC - ~:' SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads: F.<< '; 8. Public Hearing: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot multi-tenant retail building for J 8~ K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview ~~` ~~ Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): ~:s,. 9. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: RZ 07-011 Request for a Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from C-C to an O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying -1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acre in a proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-010 Request for '~~ = Conditional Use Permit to construct 6 town homes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: ' 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in a C-G zone, for Paramount Commercial Southwest by Ustick :~ Marketplace, LLC -Northeast comer of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: 13. Public Hearing: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cheny Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed for July 19, 2007) " 14. Public Hearing: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional ."- Use Permit (CUP 05-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse /storage and show room space on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision ~~~. No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Block .1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC -1875 North Lakes Place: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - July 5, 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. u: S ~~ ,et: ~ it ~~ ~ ~ ~ i y ~ ~ i 1~ e c E i ; ~~c a era J+ ~11 ~~~~~~ `i ii ~ ~_, r ~ ~~ ~t ,~ l i x:17 ~`I~ ~ ¢ L 'l.; I~ .~~~q I y' ~ ~.FS , , .. k 3. ~ }}} t tea ~du, r '~ i 4 I ~f _._,,4~ _ I ~ f , 7 ~ '- ? i ~ 77 ,: 9 ~ j ~ , a i ' ~..F ~ ' y: - , r' tir ~.~-. R ~ ~~. .5 qt x i`' ;" ~ '~~ii~ 4 < ! n r~«r x ~t ~fl, , , s rF,"~~s ~11~~, h.~ ,_x }1 ,i t .f" ~ a rn ~ ~ M~~ yr - { { e`Yar~ yd ( ~~^~ . c t - ~ ~:: - ~ ' ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ , i o iti ~ y ya ~ ~ ~,. i ~ ~~ ~3 ~F,iY I i I " * ~~ '~ n '." y ~ ~ r c .F~ ti ~ ~ ~4„ '~ .- i si t ~'~o n..,.' '~9~1 i' i l ~`~ i ~ . ~~ ~w r~ - a ~ ~` - '~, ~ - E y7 d-+ k lad 1 ~ f F h i r . Y +~ } £ ~ ~ ~ ~ y xt i t k '~ BPS ~ ~ I~I;1 6 ' } '~ $$ ~ ~ r ~ f Y ~ y~n y j ( Qf . Ai ~ ~ x ! '4`-`k . , a ~f ti.:, Date/Time 07-02-2007 03:56:42 p.m. LocaIID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report Transmit HeaderText City of Merldlan Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " 'F , ~l~. ~o~--fir ~i~~c ~~-~~ ~ 1.,~~Ot91'OP MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING C/ Y{.t~1G11G>~ ~ REGl31AR II~ETiNO ivwroo AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East t+daho Avenue, fNerid~n, idatw Thursday, Juty 5.2007 at 7:00 p.m. °Akhough the City of Merldlan no !w-ger riequtres sworn tesitrnony, a!l pre~ntatians tse~ie the Maya and Cky Coundl are expelled to he tnrthtLl and honest to bast of She ability o/the presenter.'° 4. Roll-calf Attendance: Tom O'6rien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddaway Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of Jutre 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Mewing: B. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planntrtg and Zoning Commission Mewing: 4. CaMtntuxi Public Nearing from June 7, 2007: CUP O7-012 Request for C.anditional iJse Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone far Kelley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy i<eney -403 East Second Street: S. Continued Public Fleartng from June 29, 2007: AZ 07-007 Request for Annexaion and Zoning of 9.58 acres from RUi' to R-8 eons for Amer (~ Wapact by LandPro Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive: 8. Continued Public bearing from June 29, 2007: AZ 07.090 Request for Annexaion and Zanf~ of 6.87 acres from an R9 aone to a GG eons for GardneriAhlqulat Gateway South by Ahkquisf Dwvwfopmwnt, LLC -SEC of Frenklln and Eagle Reads: i~rfeien Plamdrrg ana Zmdng Cwrsmla~on -ng Agemta- .-uty s, zoo? aege ~ ore an maaerfele presented et pubis meetings shag become pr°peA,y arihe ~ °r AAeddten. Any~orte desh9ng eacmnmodaUara €or d{sar~96ae retemd ~ doarmer~ araUcr hearir~, please oordea tho city Clerk's ONice et e88-4433 attssst A8 howa prior to the P~ A r..+..r o.... . e.~....ed • ~ Tnt~l p~noc fnnflrmarl • a~ _.y^. F `. i ~------ No. u---. lob ._.__ Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 611 3810160 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:04:27 Ott 1 G3 HS FA 002 611 8989551 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 611 8848723 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:59 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 611 8886854 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 611 8985501 03:33:25 p.m. 07-02-2007 00:00:59 212 1 EC HS CP14400 006 611 8467366 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:31 212 1 EC HS CP28800 007 611 8950390 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP31200 ,~, J[[ ~I~ P4 S jdc Jh ~.. ] i a ~ i '. b , . -]'. .}a(~, S~~r ~~`bV ~~ICI~iI J, ~'~ ~~ ~ y4 t. Ell .2 :f k 4 ix~? r 4 Y¢'y ~ ~ nn k ~ `~~ ! 1 i ~ ~ :l r ~~i i ~~' ~,i ~ ~~ Y ~ r rU , ~~ t 1 .. ~~' ~y. . {f ~ ~~ i i t o ~~ e:~ • 1 i~ E `yb f ~~ 7 i ~ !{ L - > Wed viii ~ i 5 ~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 - G °; t '. a~ i ~ ~ ~ S ~ a ~{$~~ r s t .~,`~~ v s ~ a ~ ' ~ ' ~ i 4! ~Ii 1 G r~ ~3 ; j ~, 1 ~ 1 . 5 ~ ~ tyi'~ .' ~ ' . ~ R ~ lc~'`r~i f. St4l~ j~ fi,_ .. r 1.- - y ~ ~Zr~` F `` ~ ~' ~ ~'T ~ 3w gyy~ { f ~ ~ i { ~~ L ~ r~ ' ~" Yrk} ' I}5 'i~.. ' ~r ~ 1 FT l 11 ~ ~5 i ' ' i 't. ~}_t { ~ j y i'1~ i~7~ ~~f( A ~ I ~ h ~\ f B~~9y~• rY 4~ ~ ~ l ~ I ~~ ~ ~' ~ < "~'s ~ e . 1 ~ ~M1 ~ `"~~.K ~~ f K ` ~' ~~~ .~ 1 l ~~F ..1 C ~i ' - t 1• i J ~ y ~r ~llllb ~~` ' ` ~ y~~ l .~ -r+. ~ Date/Time 07-02-2007 LocaIID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 ~r ~. ,r~ Broadcast Report 03:56:49 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote5tatlon StartTlme Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 611 2088882682 03:33:25p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP33600 009 611 2083876393 03:33:25p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:59 212 1 EC HS CP14400 010 611 2877909 03:33:25p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 011 611 2088885052 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:30 212 1 EC HS CP31200 012 611 8881983 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00;34 212 T EC HS CP24000 013 611 2083776449 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:09:00 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 611 4679562 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:32 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 OT5 611 8886700 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:00 0!2 T -- HS FA 016 611 8884022 03;33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:01 0/2 1 -- HS FA 017 611 3886924 03:33:25 p.m. 07-02-2007 00:00:37 212 1 EC HS CP24000 098 611 8841159 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:29 212 1 EC HS CP312Q0 019 611 2088840744 03:33:25 p.m.07-02-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP24000 ,~~~ Abbreviations: HS: Host send ~' HR: Host receive {~ WS: Waiting send ,.~ 'j' i.. {~, >:.~~ -,, :f~ PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct ir; h~ :~ ',~U' r~ .': a 66 ' ~ t ~ N ; is ~^ C c' v n ~ _ +r + rani ~~~ III, r~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~, 5~ t _~1 '~ I h t -~~ i~l ~9~1$g~ 1 ~ T 5 .f gr. ~~~y I'.r'T~. ~ y ~ r ~b 1 } ~, ~~4~jE~~~4 } ~i~ ~ ~~;6 iG~ ~ ~ ~!; ~ i t ~ _. ~ 'S MT 7 ~`' ~~~ MI S~~ ' fififiY11~~~ {;1 1,. ~ i ~ e ~ ~ ,k '~ • fT 1 C _ 1 ~ i~lt Cl il.~4 ~ ~ }~ r~ F _ r Gt~~ a r t. 4` ~ - i ~ 1~ ~ .: F ~'. ~ `'., ~ d N 83~ ji'~91 I .' T ~~ a} ~A~a+ y IC qt ~,i Z A~R~yf115€ ~7I I1I ~ 10 - Y ~ L q } (E ~ ~ ~ t p~ d5 ; t 1 ; {'~Yt ~.1S}'A1h tiA Sit ~ _. F ! A Y n r ~ L~ ~.. ''r`~ Broadcast Report 'r`.r+~ Date/Time 07-05-2007 11:08:47 p.m. Transmit Header Text Cltyof Meridian Idaho -~ ~ ~ Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 4, Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 ~;;- This document :Failed r (reduced sample and details below) ~> Document size : 8.5 "x11 s ' ~ ('1-,Q,~`~o1 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ~ `~/YlB1rIR'I~>~ REGUL.ARMEETING a ,. ll, iDAtQ AGENDA '_~ `'' "~~ Ctty Caunctl Chambtrs ~:~~-.~ 'y 33 Eaat Idaho Avenue, MerShcan, Idaho ~S "- 1. 2 < ~ Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ~' ~'. ~;~ ~ "A/tttough the City of Merldfan »o longer requires slaom deatlmony, ell presenteHons before fhe Meyw and City Council era expelled K ` to be truthful and honest to best of the abNlty of the presenter." i ~' ~` ~ 1. Ralt-call Attendance: 9.": .. i' ~~ Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabey s David Moe Steve Sktdovray Ahir3,aei Rohm - chalmtan ~-: ~y::: ~,';: ; _ Z Adoption of the Agenda: ~ p p y~y~ Lf S ~T,e~~ i'~ 3. Coneem Agenda: ' A. Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning and Zonng ~ g '; i Commisston illleeUng: ~. p~pl.~ ; ®. Approve Minutes of Jurre 29, 2007 Planning and Zoning -.. R,', _; Commission PAeeting: A~fyJ''Oih,° `' ` 4. ContMu~ Public Heating from June 7, 2007: CUP 07 U92 Request P'"- for Conditional Use Permit to aitow a 200 squats foot canvas carport in the ~,., O-T zone for ICglley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy Kelley -403 ~'' ` East Second Street: t~pilsyt'nu.e, picbLrc I~~ea,~Pny ~ cTlt.~'y ~4, O?411~ ~ • ' $. Continued Public Hearirr8 irom June 21.2007: AZ 07-007 Request ° ~. for Arlnexatian and Zoning of 1.56 acres from RtJT to R-8 zone for Amar ~ ~ Wapoot tiY LarxlPro Devempmerrt, Inc. - 24Q0 West Wapootpnve: l~corr-me~ .~j~rnva.¢ ~o C.Irt~ '~"/a.+~~k 8. Corrtinu+ed Public Heats from June 21, Zt10 .. A8 07-090 Request for ' 3 Annsxat~n and Zoning o+t 8.87 acres from an R9 mne to a C-0 zone for ' Gardner-Ahtqulst Gateway Soud~ by Ahiquist Devslopmerrt, LLC - SE:C of Franklin and Eagle Roads: ~ ~ ~ n /~ ~ ,, :,; .. ~: A~rldian Plamdrrg a~ 2ongg CommPaefan tdeetingl~ernla- .fraiy 5.2007 Page i oil All mbQer4ab preserded et pubpc meatb~e shaA dame property oP tl~e Cify aPMetldian. '~ t :~ _ Anymore ~¢slring acaommada0on rordi~b6iNes related 1o doaumarr~ andtor hearing. please aorda~ the Cfty CIaAc's Office et 888-4433 at beast 48 tw199 prior tp the puh0c rnae0rrg. v <';i~ Totai Paaes Scanned : 2 Total Paaes Confirmed : 32 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 642 3610160 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00:00 012 1 -- NS FA 002 642 8989551 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00:42 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 642 8848723 10:44:25 p.m.07-OS-2007 00:01:07 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 004 642 8886854 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00:33 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 005 642 8985501 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:01:07 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 006 642 8467366 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00;39 Z/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 642 8950390 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:01:92 212 1 EC HS CP14400 fM N( Vh`4 4 ~I ~t .S ~ ~ t~r 1 p. ~ ~ r S"~ ;k2 ~1 . ~ .S r~gq • :4~#;~ r - t ri 1 ~ r r. r f ~ ~ a Fr y ~' s 1 s ~ i ~ a ~. ~ ~ ~ 4 f• ~ . ~ ~A f~ r, ~~ a 4 : ' ~y R ~ fi ; l~~l K y f 3 C , S S µ ~~ ~ ~ x ~ Ei,;i k f 1 } ,~ ~ ~ 1141 ?..Z ~ ~ 2':hr' '2 ~1~'} ~ F s r.' ~~'i ii'y,~ ~ ~ r- ,~S y 3 ~, i .. i~ ~ '~ s , I '. e ~,a ~ ~~ if~~ L ~ < ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 .GI . .,~ ~~ x 5{~r ~ 4 i y~ { i. ~.°ii° ~ ~ - ~~y y F ~ ~ ~ 4 T ~ ~r c ~( ' ~ ~ i ~ ~' 3 ~ ii ~ ,;~ ~t,r~'ti 3. vuv.~c ~ t L }~ a "'' .2 ~ ~ r-~r t . ri ~Yi' ~~`Z~ i'~ ~ """Sll~~~ii; ,: ~ _ _ Y, < ~' ~ '"' K , E x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ;i ~ ~ ~~~ > , I L~ ~i ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~_r 4 ~4,3 ~ i ~~ 1 e + t ~~ ,~ '. x~2 ~ ~~ rti ~ ~' 1 -.mac, f4 ~ . $ II.~~ :~~ . ay - . „ ..- Broadcast Report ~ .~ Date/Time 07-05-2007 LocaIID 1 2088884218 :._~ LocaIID2 11:08:53 p.m. Transmit Header Text Local Name 1 Local Name 2 City of Meridian Idaho Line 1 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 642 2088882682 10:44:25p.m.07-05-2007 00:00;33 212 1 EC HS CP33600 009 642 208 387 6393 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:09:07 212 1 EC HS CP14400 010 642 287 7909 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00:35 212 1 EC HS CP31200 011 642 2088885052 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00:34 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 01Z 642 8881983 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00:40 212 1 EC HS CP24000 013 642 2083776449 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:01;07 212 1 EC HS CP14400 014 642 4679562 10:44;25 p.m.07-OS-2007 00:00:37 2/2 1 EC HS CP26400 015 642 8886700 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00;00 0/2 1 -- HS FA 016 642 8884022 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00:00 012 9 -- HS FA 017 642 3886924 10:44:25 p.m.07-05-2007 00:00:37 212 1 EC HS CP24000 018 642 8841959 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00:36 212 1 EC HS CP28800 019 642 2088840744 10:44:25 p.m. 07-05-2007 00:00:41 212 1 EC HS CP24000 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: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct ~>' ,.. ~ ~tl~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ x '~ ~ '.ii~~~~~f~~~ ~ ~+y ii±- - f'F ~ { ~ ~. r "f~ ~ ~~ i ~~r '.'. ? i ~~ { y ~k ~ . ~~t~~ ~ t' I~f~~l~~;~ t ~ tyY ` ~ ~ - ~ a(7~~i '" r~ ~, ry~ i v 'hu' r r- 4yai t r~J +~ %~ ~ Sari :,~1 ! 'C F ~ ~k ,~~F~ W ~ Qi ~ Jy y .~~, ~.. Leh ~ ~ I ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ! ~ ~~ I i - !,~ Mks ~23 i. 3i ~ - R,; ~ ~ ~ i ~:~"~,~. 511 I ~~; ~. } f r? i ~ St i ~ - x r41 Y~ k a~ ~ ~ ~ .n Z f ~ Y - i a b .i I~ hz:i1' t ~ s ,z',;i ~ t. 41~ 111 ~~ ~~ ~ ,~,~,.i' _ r ~4 i ~;. 1~ ~ Y~ fZ'1 , ~ I _l ~ ~ h ~'. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 5.2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 5, 2007, was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Tom O'Brien, David Moe, and Steve Siddoway. Members Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call 0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe -Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to open the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is a couple of changes that we will be making tonight and the first change is Item No. 4 will only be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th. And Item 13 won't be opened, but it, too, is to be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th. All other items on the agenda will remain as posted. Could I get a motion to accept the agenda? O'Brien: Motion. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: «~ ~,:: ~.~ r _F, ,.~, ~. ,,y ~"s ~}r~, ~-'':`s ~~ ~`a c5. F Y ~ ~. /4 . ~+ 1 < ~ _..:. ~.' ti.: ~. ,- ;. :~ r~ ~.: ~~ ~; ~., }'` ~;:°; n- ,,. . ~„ ~~~: ~~ ~;~ ,;,, ~ r, x ~ _ ;~s: ~,~;;: ". °~~ ;~ :; , .. :~; _~: ~;~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 2 of 62 B. Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Rohm: The Consent Agenda is the first item and the two items on the Consent Agenda are the approval of the minutes from June 7th, 2007, and June 21st, 2007. Are there any additions or corrections? Moe: I have none. Siddoway: I have none. Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone for Kelley Carport Revised by Larry and Judy Kelley - 403 East Second Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007, of CUP 07-012, for the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 07-012 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. That's the meat of it, so we will start off by talking to you folks out there a little bit about the way this procedure works. When we open up a hearing, the first thing that we do is we ask the staff to give their report. Their report basically tells us how that particular project relates to the Comprehensive Plan and to the Unified Development Code. They will give us their recommendations based upon the adherence to those two E S ~ N ~. .. a 4' 1 ~ + t 1. 1 ~i ~ ~ S ~iH ~.}4:' r JJt ~i~~3~ ~ ,S f'~ ~, ` ~iI TY~ ' ~ ~ + { _. _ . " 1 .CC' 3 ~ i it ~~.~ ~~. ~ M 8", R t i f'~ 4 ~.`t(~ a 4~'+ ' ..k 1 - r: 1~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~,~,. a _: ~ ~ . ~, h ,,rr ~ , ~ _ ~ .~ ~ , L ~ ` ^~ ~ i 7 ~z; ~r~~^^ja.: {' '3'Y a frJ''Ay~ F~'Y1'r4`~^i~ N ;~~` ~ E it'-~~~.'!V ~~~',2i Y ti,. ~'~ '°~ ~ K `.~ ;. f '. t= ~' r l.~e ~`~ ~ a ,ty Q ~ itifz ~l ~~'it~.~Y Y' a t ~-E l i',:~p i ~~~~ J,~~~"S~,kr~'~`L~ ~aLl ~=~'S~'~.%F ~ nab ~,, ,£ _ - n' - '~' ;~ _ f YM7 .~ ~i ~ t~ FN~'i 11~ h~Y~ ~ - r ~ leY 9 ~ F r..1 ~ ~ L q~ ~y, r ! -~: t~# 1 .i r kr t ~ - . . } ~' ~ « ,y o- 4 ~ ! ,-~ i i~ r N ~ k ?, ~ < <~~ s f ~ .~ S ~' ~f RG~;Z~ : '.l r ',' ~ y ilk [r ~. I~' ~ i i~'i r Z`~`''/,4`r i ~ }~~ ~ i ~~4 ~iY sC F ~ ~ . ~ }'~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ il~H ~ ~I ~'~i~c~a ~ ~` ~ ~ ^ P ~ ~ ~~ -,C .~rh{~. ,- - y t ;~ , l~h F ' ' ~ ~ yr +~ ~ ' ~,, ~ tke u a _ i7 y ` ~, < f~ y/ Y ti FC 7..~ ~~ ~ 1. J h'V 1' ~~R - ~ - y ~ 4 . .- _ - } Jar - ~ 3~ * ! . ~ . l 1 ~t Sc 1 l~t;D V 14 3' ~ -•,xt 4.r 7 U S ~,y ~` S^ ;Q 7 ~ ~ "~`~~ i_4Ft'k l~.n s ~. '~ f-~'at s ~t ~S-^ \k t '` ' ° ~ § ~ ~3.'.c. Lc, '~ .,~~~" ~ I# ~ 5 ~ ' : ,~ ,' r.; .: a ,,7" > - A x k. + >.~ ..A ~ is - ~.tt'4'.,sav',i\,.~r-'';~YA'q'4 +~c'nY F~"r?i~-ts1'r~""_r s' a 3. t~ f ~;~ ~r~T~~}?;f ~'~;~'_~:. ~.: _ d. Y ~ elf'. - ~. ~f y J 4 Z ~ Y~ }~ i 2 y R L. IY ~ j S, ,t- Y y Y t 1+c~; ~ i ts; ~;s j r ~k ~. ~~~ r ~(c:, Cry,,, t~ v~ ~, ~ t y - ~ ~, h'~~ .. - ~ 4 J~;l3x ~ 3-r ".~ ~~ ~'TM r '~j -gst r _ ~ h ~ {~ ~ trx 0 C ~. a , Y.ri~ 1 } .~... ~r~i~tj JS I.... ~b ~";f~j} ~~~w+~ ~' _ ' "-1 .Y~~~7/~~.Iy~ ~~i~, 1.~ @I, 1~~ ~~ ._~,h ~.w wr ~ c _ .. ~~' 1 i ~• a>,u` ? ~~hll~,.: ~ R~.} ~ S ~ Y r+ ,h µt dal a ~',,,,,~ ,~. .' " v .,.. ~ -_ (.~i~a t~~, ~1 r' t ~ ~ °' yii"-~, f Lt [ ' Yfa~. . ~ ~`~~:z d ° ~ iL k~`~i 9~t~ x !..' ,~, .rr r % ' ~' ~, a'g :; r ~2 sir ~° .~s ~'-~~ ~ ~ : ! rkt x ,- y ~ ~ i,..t, ~ a . ~$ ~ ,'1~a ~ ~~,'_' - _ y., x '~ "y i., ~'"~' . ~, ~~, ~~, r, .s ~ 'i~ + ~:- ti~ it * t: s ': -- - yt F~>, ,'~'rl E 1 ~ 'v~rn E '~ :: y I ~ ~ ~ '~c. ~ ~ ! 4 ~.id+ ~Jc A t S ~'A'`f~ 1." f '.+§ '~,~ - ~C k;'~ ~ '.::~ r ~ }_:'~ ~i~y- x.13, ~'~ !~~''r"a`ri3 ,y.,e ~*t ~ ~',d ~ s~ p~r;'rti~.,iE4 ~h' i ~ i 1 `+~ k r 7- ~ ~ `j ~ 5 * 1 ~Ey l +tl . s? X41 ~; F a~E ti''JJr~~-r~~r- R r - 'f + ~~r~ ,~,yi ~,.a ~,~ a y~ ! n{;~ Z Y ~~, G a - ~f -.~~ ~ ~~ • ~~ ~;. .~ . '~ .,J~' `:~ }-e^,~ iK~ ~1 ~1-f+:1~ ~ ~ ~t ~ i1CT h^~~~ If'~''-'- i r F 4 I',Y 1 '( f ~, ? i C 7 s ~~ 4''~' ~y ,3 - y; - 1 ' `~ ('~ y~ i~'c ~, ~ 1 .~ +"F wH }L.s°"~t,~~vr ,~-' t;q ~~~ ~,rr ~`ti'R'~!~~' >r t - ~ ' 5. `. / ,r?o= r ~. ~~ ~ ~"_~~` Meridian Planning ~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 3 of 62 '`' documents. Once we hear the staff report, then, the applicant has an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have taken place, then, the floor will be turned over to the public and each of you will have an =~z } opportunity to respond to both the staff report and the applicant's testimony. Once that's completed, then, the applicant has the final word. This isn't a debate, it's just -- ,~ ~. V"k anybody that wants to testify to a particular application has a right to speak to that and, then, the final word is given to the applicant themselves. Once the Public Hearing has ' closed, we will deliberate amongst ourselves and we may ask staff for their input, but '' the hearing generally is not reopened for additional testimony and we will deliberate and if we can come to a conclusion we will provide our recommendations to City Council or ~; ~: as it is for a Conditional Use Permit, we will give the final say so. So, with that being ,y ~~., said -- we do not have a timer tonight, for some reason it's not working and so the time _ limits for each of these presentations is the applicant has -- what is it, Machelle -- 15 ,~ ~ ' ~~`~ ` minutes to make their presentation. Each individual that testifies is given three minutes and if you run over a little bit to conclude your remarks, that's, obviously, acceptable, but it's a three minute interval for testimony and 15 minutes for the applicant and, then, the ,~~s" applicant has an opportunity to respond to all testimony given between the two. So, with that being said, we shall continue with tonight's meeting. it ti' -- __ ' Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-007 Request for 1~ ~.° Annexation and Zoning of 1.56 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Amar @ rvr .~ _ 1,. '"` "~' Wapoot by LandPro Development, Inc. - 2400 West Wapoot Drive: ' ; Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21st, 2007, of AZ 07-007, related to Amar @Wapoot. I don't know. Kevin, I'm going to have to talk to you about that. And begin with the staff report. '~~ r Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before L ::~ you is a request for annexation and zoning of 1.56 acres of land from RUT to R-8, to ~~~'~'' medium density residential. The property is located at 2400 West Wapoot Drive on the ` " north side of McMillan, as you can see right here, approximately a half of a mile west of Linder Road. Residential property zoned R-4 and R-8 within the Lochsa Falls _ development surround the site all sides. The property is currently improved. Flip to the _ ' aerial slide here. It's currently improved with one single family residential home and ;~; ~" accessory outbuildings. The applicant's request for annexation is based upon the fact that the property owner is looking to hook into the city's water and sewer services. The ~,~ applicant is not proposing to develop the property at this time. Access to the site is ~ currently provided from two drives. One driveway at North Goddard Creek way and ' that's this street here and there is the driveway. And one to West Wapoot Drive and ''~` that's this back here. No new access points are proposed or approved for this - application. Staff is recommending approval of the subject annexation and zoning ` request to R-8 as stated in the staff report, given that the request complies with the "''~ Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of medium density residential for V this property. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. _:5, `Y: "~~ . R !~ ~ ~L ~4+ ~~ : }~ ~.,, ; - C ..:' ; ~ t' "~ ,°, ' ~ _ ~~~ ~. '; ; ~~_ \,. ~, , ~~ ~= ; _ ~r,. ~~ .. i^'-.` ~ ~ l~ r - .~ ~ ', ~ ~ ~ `~•' ~` .u. 4 • ~i ti u, f". a x ~ -.. TY ~ ~, '~' ~ - ~: t _ _ k -_ ' ~ Y+i' + ~` ~~ ~ ~~ ~, >::, ~ ;, . f. tW ~, , ~~:~ v ~, - ~ . - ~°'?k,1 ` ~ k J-'. ~ , . 5 7... ~a S S ~ f~ . ~` .. ~,, ~ '~" . .,',~ '}~ 3 ~j ~~ . _. 'R~" - JF _ ,t,tw . s a ~. i Y~, ~r . ~'f ~'." ; ~ 1 ~` ~( / ~ Y}"" ~' i . o, ` 1 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 4 of 62 Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Amar: Good evening and thank you. For the record, Kevin Amar. My address is 2400 West Wapoot. My wife would love to talk to you about that name. We didn't get to choose it. She doesn't like it, but it's too late now, so -- she'd like McMillan a whole lot better. We are just here to request annexation. We are actually already hooked up to city sewer and city water, so -- when the whole subdivision around us annexed, this piece never did. That was prior to use owning the property, so -- Rohm: And you concur with the staff report, Kevin? Amar: I agree with everything. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone that would like to testify to this application? There is nobody other Kevin that has signed up for it, so at this time anyone that would like to speak certainly feel welcome to come forward. Seeing none -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 07-007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing for AZ 07-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Any discussion? O'Brien: I just want to know why it wasn't included to begin with? Is it just because they weren't part of that subdivision? Rohm: I would presume that that's the answer, yes. And -- but, obviously, if it's got city services available and they made application, I think it's best for all. O'Brien: Yeah. I think it's a good idea. Rohm: I don't see any reason why we would not move forward with it. Siddoway: I agree. Rohm: With that being said, could I get a motion, please? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. 4 tF ~ ;~~, s~ r __ ~ ,~~, a°~'~`^~~"7 ,~;" .~s~~~{Y~jvY €',~y~E~F,f'F~'s~ .g~Sr~ ~~rt'F~ r, •: ,~F ,..-y~~ ~ .:- ~:~ 7 J.r''.- ~ ~~~ ty~X ~. :. 4a th ti '~ ,~ ~.if{ la '~~' ~~ ~,a'a. cam"{.+zp 4 ~ ~~•,, ~ ~~ ~~`~ ~r ~ ~ ~ S M ~ ~. __ l~fy F r~ d~,,{~'>>, ~ ai:._4 ^r .,. { A''C~. ~`~ 1a1.`~:+,~,~ s~ S 3 1 r'i`'' F ~~ . -`'~S*t. r?biz-~'~j #t^u'~f'~ x 1.-. ~1 `~'~' _ , .Y 7` YU~z, i.~ ~" ~+~si f uz v r Baas ~ r,~~G ~~ ~trp _~. ,:a: r ,.{~yx ~t ~ n M q+M. °t r;~ ~ .rP aY~ 14. tc• q~"~,,~7~~ra ;a '~~.{~ °~sSC ~'i ~i&m ~~''}},y ~, xx st~~7 T~ a~d~ n ?~~~Y+~'~A ~d~ N ~...- - ~'~a~?-rz~_~. Y _ a ~~-k'1 ~?'~rltY~~~h'/~",. ~'1a46'Sfi da"F~ ~ti~~.''~~d K~f,T`~2 ss,.i-.. z, -. r'~ ~ °~` ~ ~ - - .. ~'~ - e::.-.. ~r 1 s. ., ,= v:: c z i. ~y c 1 ~ 4 .4' I s~ ~{ ' ' ~' `a~ ~ t ~ ~ ~~ c sy ,' ~ w. t ti¢ u ~ r n ~ r ,~ k F t w r~ 6 rxr ~ i r > ` F.t'Y~Kh~. '` 1 [ y~i;~}p ~ S .' { n{ry*~clx T.r ,~,~,N t"'` Yw 1 d~.r'~" ~ ~n ~ '~'~)1 r~~ ~a .t ~'N}a! - ~. ~~. y~ r t , 'YT ~A l ~ ~ ''a ~ N ~ .F .,SX ~y~5 - -4 -~ 1 V~.. ~i t ~ ~ 3 `' t ' ~ ' '` `~ ~ ~ ~ : ; j ~ . : s~ , cAt 3T , ~Y c ,~. irt ,~i,p k'.~ }42 ~ _ ~, r. Z ~-~! ~ t r,~L V ~ ~~~ _ ] ] ~i'\~L \ i ~ e lt _ l Y , i i f`~1 r ~i ;..} ~~ A+i4~q l,~' A: ,-'~j~ .. P,.,.'t ut~ ~y'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~L~.~ yy l I F.~ k zi -~ r' uF` 'PG f # ~'^~ ~ d 1 : ~h~ ~ : 4- +,i% ~ r - . .s ,~ .. y . ,, y`r .-v k r 'v z ~ ~ . i. . S . ,- - .. i 7a1.~ ; - ~fk '~: i : -. ~.. 1 tp ~' ~ 1 ~, w ; k ~ ~ c ~ ~t ~ ~~ F ' ~? ~~ i i - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ E ~ rr j t>n u i 1 ~ d ' ~ ~ . v p sb j +~ _ _ `fit ,~ b~ { $1e ti'^r3 ' d ,•~, - ' Y y ', aia r' ~ ~,~i r toe S ~ .+ `~ }~'~q~y ~ :. ~ r f, fi ~~ 7 s t~~1 ~ si . s - '.s ~ '~ ~ i .xa~~; ~~ki~~Y~'.~y"~ H vr` ~~'"~ 3. . , 'tg a r~'• ~~~ , . ~ ; q ~ r l ~ ~''~if i~"~`. " ~ ~~ µ;-' s ~ J~.~~~ ~N~Y}r~xF~ ~3~ ~~i ~~` ~ ~~ s, ,~i,.`: ' rc,,'~,.. ~ ~ ,,,., _ . -S , , r Y + ye z ~ `' v ~ ~~ I ~ ~ r ~ r . a~ ~ r ~y~ y ~ ~ S T -.~~~~.. ' ~- ati y - ~`l ~` E ~}L} Y:~ ~ ka ?i' ~.7Y~~~,f h~Y' ~ p } . } ~~{:'FS 7 1 x.i'1 1.` S K' ry•},t~~ ". ~ a l~ .~ " „ , .. d~ h-i' ~ ~ ~~ . ~ ~ 4 k'.~. > s ~ ~ `- i ;.:. , . ~ p ~ ~eY ~.. '3 ~~'s~~k ,~,_ ' ~ ,~ 1nt1. ~'r3iFi t};:+~, r1~"'F9~~+f'4 ~ ~. .}'~, ~2f ~:~ '~ .i, x,.. z~ ~'-'~R Ki. } ~ _`f l~."[~ fi Y~i. ~ :~. ~„ ~, ,... -: s~ ~~ ~ , ..: , _ . 1 ~ ,{ .. i ~ "'~ 1 f ~ -a L r ~ a' ~, ~ F ~ ~ c /~ 4~ tl- E ~~ ~? ~` ~ f rn~ ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ ° i4 ~' 23~t1''q`~~i~yS-~"f Y r' M~ y X '~ L ..~y~l jt6?~k 4 .', F r f '~~-? 1 T ' - i~:. ~. ..z Y u _ .~. .~. K._sA _ 1 u. a .. - -:4W G'.:: -~.~, ~f ~.~ - ' ~ 4 '- 4 . ~_ . 1.. ~ _. ~- ~,_~ 1 II Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 5 of 62 O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I'd move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 07-007 as presented in the staff report from the hearing date of June 21st, 2007, that this is -- it was moved -- is that the original date that we use? Rohm: Yeah. That's fine. O'Brien: With the modifications none proposed, but I guess a development agree was there? Moe: It's already in there. O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks, Kevin. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.67 acres from an R1 zone to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC -SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21st, 2007, of AZ 07-010, PP 07-012, and CUP 07-014, and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 6.67 acres from R-1, Ada County, to C-G, as well as preliminary approval of five commercial lots and one private street lot. Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South is generally located at the southeast comer Eagle and Franklin Roads. The site currently contains several residential homes, which are to be removed upon development. To the north there is the existing Willey Subdivision where the R.C. Willey is located. And to the east the Meadow Lake Village Touchmark development. Let's see. Fast forward here a little bit. The UDC does not require open space or site amenities for commercial development, but as Eagle Road is designated an entryway corridor, adjacent to the site a 35 foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to the ~a;: ,~ , ~'C. ..FY ;_.~ r:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 ' ~~ Page 6 of 62 roadway. The submitted landscape plan, as you can see, does, in fact, propose a 35 - ,_ foot wide buffer. At this time staff would like to discuss the issue of access to the site. . And if the Commission could refer to the slide show. Primary access to the subdivision will be through the Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway -- let's see here -- via right-in, right-out :," i< access to Eagle Road. And that's here. Aright-in, right-out, left-in access to Franklin "='~ Road. And that's up here. And East Louise Drive, a stub connection provided to the ~~ property from Meadow Lake Village. And that's not showing -- oh, the map got twisted "' up there. Sorry about that. There is East Louise Drive over here from Meadow Lake. Alternate access is also proposed by a private driveway at the south property line, which connects to an existing street, St. Luke's Street. Go back to the aerial here and - you can see that. Here is St. Luke's Street for the hospital here. As you can see, St. Luke's Street is a private street, owned and maintained by the hospital and, as such, St. :<~ < ,y r. , Luke's controls access to the street. A document has been recorded which allows the , ~~'~ Montvue Park property to utilize this private street here. Now, the Gardner-Ahlquist ,~V development has not been granted direct access by other properties to St. Luke's ~ Street. However, they do have the opportunity to gain access to the street by utilizing a privately owned driveway located on a property at the southeast comer of Montvue Park and that is this piece here. And as you can see right here is a little driveway. This prospective access is only considered a driveway, it is not a private street. However, it does exceed Meridian's private street standards with a 28 foot wide travel lane, curb, . ,~~~t gutter, and sidewalk on one side. Staff made a condition of approval of Gardner- Y k, Ahlquist to obtain a recorded agreement which allows ingress-egress across this private ,r ~ _~ property here to get to St. Luke's Street. At the time of print for the subject staff report staff was unaware of such a document. Since that time, though, planning staff has received the recorded document allowing this access. As the access issue has been ~'~~ resolved, staff has no other concerns with the proposal and recommends approval of the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat application and that is all staff ~" ,. -,~ has, unless the Commission has questions. ~; `~. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? F% Moe: Mr. Chairman, I just have one. Amanda, I guess I'm a little bit confused or maybe P ~;'~., I am just confused, but I don't remember that when we approved, you know, the northern portion originally, did we approve the left-in off of Franklin also into that property? When I read that in the report I was a little surprised. I thought we went right- in, right-out on both. Hess: You know, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I, actually, was not the `~ `"~ planner on that project, so I actually do not remember that. I think it is, actually, an ACHD approved access. ~ ,, a ~ ' Rohm: Well, it might also be that our recommendation to Council that it would be a right-in, right-out and Council moved to allow alert-in. So, that's -- 'Y';`` Nary: Mr. Chairman? v Y: i_S _ ~.~ y :~ 'w ~~ra~F3k .- ~L;i'' +SR' ~1..,.. :~;.: ti r {~ ~ ~ `~ "t; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 7 of 62 .,, ~ Rohm: Mr. Nary. , Y~ »~~ Siddoway: I was just going to ask for clarification, what that approval would have been done with, what previous application? '~ ~- Moe: Their first phase application, they brought in -- ` Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did attend the ~ _~ Council meeting on that discussion. I do believe that was the Council's direction and ' they did grant that left-in access off of Franklin. a w; ~F ' Rohm: I know that there was a lot of debate on that the first time through -- . 3~ Moe: Yes. Rohm: -- and that's probably why Commissioner Moe brought that up. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Amanda. Any other questions? Y ;4~ ~ `~~ Siddoway: I have one. Amanda, the request for private streets, is it for all of the ~, proposed streets within this sub number two? ~:: Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, the request for a private street is only this little tiny square right here. Having a little hard time getting exactly on __~~~ it there, but I -- after talking with the applicant's representative, Iwas under the _ impression that the reason that they want that private street on this little tiny lot here is ~ ~ ~~: ~ because this lot over here wishes to be addressed off of that. They want to sort of . Sae e~„'-,~... maintain the Montvue name and that's what that private street piece is going to be _ called. ;~ Siddoway: Okay. But the extension of Louise and all that is all public? t ~; Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, correct, those are all public streets. Yeah. That's -- -?F~, Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. f Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? - -` :~: Hall: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Pamela Hall, Timberline ~=' ~~ Surveying, 847 Park Center Way, Suite 3 in Nampa, 208-465-5687. I'm here as a representative for Mr. Ahlquist, Ahlquist Development. He's unable to attend this x ~ ~ ~° evening due to a conflict in his schedule. We agree with everything that staff has recorded and we have nothing further to add. So, if you have any questions -- and if ~ ~ you want further clarification on the private street, we do have a representative from the `~' engineering firm here that can address that private street issue even further. 5'~;~' -, _ ~, ~~ ~= ~ r t,~~~~ ~,; , ,W ;.. s~~ „ ~,r ~;:_ ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 6 of 62 Rohm: I think the main issue on that was just to make sure that there was a recorded easement to gain access to and from. Hall: Yes, there is. And that was submitted this morning. Rohm: Right. Thank you very much. Moe: Probably more for staff, but you said you guys are in agreement with the staff report? Hall: Yes, we are. Moe: Okay. Amanda, one other thing in the report. Are we now looking to combine the DA for this to the original as well? Is that the plan? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, not at this time. In the future -- I would imagine fairly shortly they will be submitting an application for a development agreement modification and that is to combine within the two development agreements and sort of update some of the information that was incorrect. Moe: Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I -- a question for -- what is Ada County Highway District -- what kind of issues or concem did they have with the left-in off of Franklin onto that property? What did they anticipate as far as issues go? Hall: Mr. Commissioner, I think I would go ahead and leave that with the engineers. We have a representative that's been dealing with the traffic, so if I can turn that over to him, I'd like to go ahead and do that. O'Brien: That would be fine. Is that -- Rohm: Absolutely. Yeah. Foote: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Bryan Foote with Horrock Engineers. We are the engineer for the development of the project. And you guys are correct, when this went to Council; Council approved the left-in -- the right-in, right-out, left-in, which we kind of call athree-quarter intersection. The issue was -- we put together a traffic model to show how that would work and presented that to Council and that was also done with ACHD's blessing. The concem was when we met with ACHD is that by disallowing the left off of Franklin into the development, you route all those lefts through the intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road, which puts added pressure on an intersection that already has a lot of pressure on it. When we built the traffic model, we saw that there was sufficient breaks going eastbound on Franklin Road to make aleft- in, as long as there was provisions to safely pull into a pocket there on Franklin and turn left into the development, there were -- it could work fine and be safe. The bigger ~~~, _.+, r,~. :<::<~, S 5' uL. 44~; r~ .: -~,pp 4;`.r:d{ s; _-:~3, ~; N ~,y, ~ :- -41 ;. c~=,a;; ~~- ~.{{ _ ~.~ ~~:~; s Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 9 of 62 problem is allowing alert-out. And so what we propose to not allow those left-outs is there will actually be raised medians installed on Franklin Road so that you cannot turn left out, because that would create a safety problem. ACHD was supportive of this. In fact, they attended the City Council hearing on this and voiced their support for this and that's a matter of the record in the Council minutes, but that was the issue there, so -- O'Brien: Do you have an approximate number of people who would be working in those complexes over time? Foote: Yeah. You know, part of the traffic model and the traffic study that we did took all of that into account and I can't remember how -- you know, exactly how many trips were going to go out through there. The majority of the left turns out are going to go over through Touchmark and go out through the signal. I mean that's how they will get out of the development. They won't be able to get out on the other access, so -- O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Amanda, could you go to the landscape plan, please, for the plat? Hess: Sure. Siddoway: So, this phase only has the frontage on Eagle Road. I just wanted to make sure that the -- the 35 foot landscape buffer requirement is only on Eagle Road for this -- for this plat; is that correct? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, the only street frontage -- arterial street frontage that this property -- or this subdivision fronts is Eagle Road. The north subdivision, obviously, you would have Franklin as well and there is also a 35 foot wide landscape buffer on that. Siddoway: And, then, what's the buffer they are providing along St. Luke's Drive? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think a lot of that is already in. If you drive down St. Luke's Drive, there is a landscape buffer in there, so they are proposing to put in some additional landscaping at the bottom there and it's not required. Siddoway: So, these trees that we are seeing, are they to be installed as part of this application or are those the existing trees? Hess: Those are proposing to be installed with this application Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. ~rf~ 5,~~ ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning ;" July 5, 2007 F Page 10 of 62 Rohm: Okay. As with our previous hearing, there is no additional individuals signed up Y- to testify, but at this time the floor is open and anyone that would like to come forward to testify to this application this is the time. ~~ ~ = r~ Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012. '' Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearings on AZ 07- {~`~~ 010 and PP 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. ,~, ~4 ' ~~~' MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~ Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. w7'' :7' `'" ' Moe: After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend L'' approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-010 and PP 07-012, as presented in ~ °.` ~ the staff report for the hearing date July 5th, 2007, with no modifications. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: Okay. The staff report had a provision in there for the obtainment of that easement, which has been obtained. I think we could, actually, strike that from the staff report as a requirement, because it's already there. ~` ''~ "~. Siddoway: Or just acknowledge that it's received. Rohm: Right. ,, ; ".:: Moe: I would say that's been done. ~. Rohm: Okay. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to poll the Commission. ~~ '~~~ All those in favor of the motion, please, say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks very much. 4, MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ` `' Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for t,A, the construction of a 7 750 square foot multi-tenant retail building for J 8< , K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC - 1330 E. Fairview 7~ '~'~ ' Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): ~_ ;~.-. -; ,z ~~~N. _ _ik p. ,f~ ut~~ .,~,.. >s _z _~, ~~~ .fir .:;° r~ rye,,,- - .. ":. ~~~'' ~/ ,t '~ ;- ,f~~:=. µ;.~{ ~ ~h~ k==,: .~t ~~ ,~' a~~, . ~.:: ~; ~.:., • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 11 of 62 Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014 for the J&K Investment Retail and begin with the staff report. Hess: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,500 square foot multi-tenant retail building with adrive-thru window. The subject property is generally located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a 5th of a mile of the Locust Grove - Fairview intersection. It totals 1.06 acres that is currently zoned C-G. A Conditional Use Permit would not typically be required for this project, as retail uses are principally permitted in the C-G district. However, the UDC requires that all drive-thru establishments obtain CUP approval where the drive-thru is located within 300 feet of a residential district. And as you can see up here this is a residential district. As is this. At this time the sole access to the subject site will be from an improved shared driveway to Fairview Avenue at the south and that's what this is. Staff has also encouraged the applicant to realize secondary access via the neighboring property, the Idaho Athletic Club, and that's over here to the east. There are a couple issues to mention here. The first is -- as I have already stated, the lack of the secondary access. Currently, the parking for the Idaho Athletic Club, the property to the east -- go back to the aerial here and you can see it a little better. Here is the Idaho Athletic Club. The parking for the Idaho Athletic Club is located up to the property line shared with the subject site. You can even see some cars parked along there. Despite this, staff is requiring a stub connection at the terminus of the front parking lot to encourage future connectivity. Jump back to the site plan. You can see right there. Staff and the Meridian fire department have urged the applicant to work with the Idaho Athletic Club to obtain access now, otherwise, as I'm sure you noted in the staff report, the fire department has stated that they will require an improved turnaround in the front parking lot for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Commission should note that the applicant has submitted elevations for the structure, which the Commission can see on the Powerpoint presentation. Staff is supportive of the north and south facing elevations. However, the east and west facing portion of the structure will also be highly visible from Fairview Avenue. As proposed these elevations are generally blank wall and you can see this is the east elevation and this is the west elevation. Staff believes the applicant should provide a minimum either one window or awning along the east facade of the building and has a condition in the staff report as such. Staff encourages the Commission to consider the elevations and determine whether they are acceptable as is or whether additional design materials are warranted. Staff is recommending approval of the subject CUP request as conditioned in the staff report and that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much, Amanda. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Just one, Mr. Chairman. Amanda, have you given any thought to a minimum size for that window? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, actually, no, I did not. ~~ :;~:_. i- ~ ' ~~' 3 ~ - f e Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 12 of 62 .~~~ Siddoway: Okay. ` ~~ Hess: That would be entirely at your discretion, too. x Siddoway: I can hold the other question for -- Moe: Do we have a slide that shows the Idaho Athletic Club as far as where their building line is? Okay. Here we go. Not going to see too much on the east side with ' -`~' the other building right there. Okay. -~,.~;; Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a fairly open parking area here. ~ 'S{v And as you can see, it's a fairly older site and, obviously, their parking and their landscaping along Fairview Avenue isn't up to the city current standards. ~,, ~_ `' Rohm: Thanks, Amanda. If there is no other questions of staff, I'd like to have the applicant come forward, please. Slawson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jason Slawson, I'm ~ with Architectural Northwest, the representative for J&K Investments Meridian, LLC. We are in agreement with the staff report as given and we are agreeable to the site specific conditions of approval, along with the addition of that window to the east side. -~ We are in agreement that we can add that window to a larger size in the drive-up , ; .., window on the west side. So, that is not an issue for the applicant to do that. `~' Rohm: Have you completed any discussions with the Athletic Club on that cross- - access? ti ,~~~_: .~ - Slawson: We have not started those negotiations yet. ~: Rohm: Okay. That puts us in kind of a tough spot in terms of this application, inasmuch - as the fire department has recommended that you have a full turn around with not _ ~ -'~` having that access to your -- the property to the east. Do you have any -- have you any ~ , °_ ~' thoughts on that, going -- meeting with Idaho Athletic Club owners to see if you can obtain that kind of across-access? ~ 1'~fi i1 Slawson: The applicant is going to try and talk to them, she just hasn't done that yet. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? ~: Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. I was kind of curious -- are you planning any type of ~'' fencing at all on the north side to screen the neighbors to the north? You got your drive- ;~; thru, you're going to drive up and go through, so I'd see lights that can go through into -": the neighbors to the north and I was just kind of curious if you planned anything there? ~~~- t, ;..r ~p~~ ,~:: , fv ~, K~.i.. ~~~~ 4 ~. ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning • ~, t '~ ~' ~~ July 5, 2007 Page 13 of 62 `y 1, ., Slawson: At this point we have not. The parcel directly to the north is also a C-G :.'"~' vacant land right now. It's just to the northeast that would be residential. One of the conditions of approval was evergreen trees that would screen that. 3 ~` :" .r Moe: That works. , '~_'~ Rohm: Before you sit down -- was there anybody from the fire department that was available to come tonight? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I did talk to Joe Silva this afternoon, it was about a quarter to 5:00 today, and, as you can imagine, he has had a busy week, and just said '.~s~ he couldn't make it tonight, he's had three night meetings and they were on patrol last = night until after midnight, so he just wasn't up to coming this evening, but I did invite him, but there is no representative from the fire department here tonight. ~ y, Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Are you familiar with the logic trail behind the fire department's recommendation that you have the full turn around available, if, in fact, there is not cross-access? J ~~ Slawson: Yes, I do. 5,: Y~ Rohm: Okay. We are not generally in a position to tell you how to make adjustments, _ but, basically, as I understand it, this project has 155 foot of frontage across there and if, in fact, it was less than 150 -- 150 or less, then, the -- the fire department's recommendation would not any longer be in question. Maybe it would be easier to have staff give you that assessment than myself. Amanda, would you like to speak to that? -`°~` Hess: Sure, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The fire department's requirement is, basically, that any roadway, driveways, or parking lots that exceed 150 ~'~r=~ ~ y feet in length that are not provided with an access or an outlet, be required to have an approved turnaround. It's a standard requirement. It's, basically, for their emergency vehicles. That way they don't -- that's the limit for them to back up and out of a dead end and they don't like to back up any further than that, so -- ~. Rohm: So, are you saying that if they were to put some sort of a barrier or something to reduce that total width across there, is that something that's -- s ~~ ~-~~"~' Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what they would be looking at is ~ placing a barrier or like wheel stops or something to keep anyone from going any further . - until access is granted. You would be looking at from -- face of curb here you would _ have to count -- or measure from here all the way to 150 feet and at that point is where { they would have to site that barrier, so -- ~ "~~ .,; j,. Rohm: Thank you. Do you understand what staff is saying about that -- reducing the total width across there, so that you don't have that in excess situation and, I don't ~ ~~~ ~z; know, from my perspective I think that the cross-access is the best answer, but short of R: ,_; ~~ , ~~: ,; ,. ~a;: ~,,, ~;y9 n5;, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 14 of 62 that, having some interim solution either or you're going to have to be able to meet the fire department's turnaround and your site would have to be redesigned to meet that. Do you have any -- or are you in a position to comment on that or -- as to acceptable -- Slawson: It was my understanding, based on the condition of approval that we have to have -- with this plan to work we would have to have that cross-access agreement recorded prior to our certificate of zoning compliance. So, we were working toward getting that for the next step. But we are trying -- or going to try to get that cross-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club in place. Rohm: With this just being a Conditional Use Permit, the citing body is this body and we would -- we would be making the motion to accept or to deny and I suppose a motion could be made that would -- and I'm not speaking for any of the members of the Commission, but a motion could be made that would state that this Conditional Use Permit is only granted pending the acceptance and access to the adjacent property as it's currently designed or it would have to come back something -- something to that nature. Is that what you're thinking would be -- Slawson: That was my understanding. Rohm: Okay. Before we -- Moe: Mr. Chairman. Amanda, do you know how many parking stalls are required for this building? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it looks like they have proposed 38 parking stalls and only 16 are required by ordinance. Moe: Okay. So, even if they are losing -- they are going to lose -- to me it looks like they'd lose about six to eight parking stalls if they had to put a barrier across, so they are still well within the requirement of the building itself, if they moved it back. If you have got 150 feet from center line in; right? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's actually from front of sidewalk. So, it's measured from here all the way to here. So, that's just -- that's just a little bit more -- roughly 155, 160 feet. So, if they were to put a barrier here of some sort, they'd just be taking out two stalls and they would probably still meet the 150 foot requirement. And this would, of course, be a temporary solution that would be removed at the time that access was granted to Idaho Athletic Club. Rohm: Yeah. I think we could either move forward, either by reducing the total width in the short run or making it pass, you know, with a condition that you obtain across- access agreement and, quite honestly, you know, I think that everybody feels that a cross-access is the preferred solution, but I would be curious what your position is. a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 15 of 62 Slawson: I believe the applicant would prefer to keep all the parking spots across the front and work to get the cross-access agreement. Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, that -- yeah, I think everybody would prefer that solution. So, with that being said, does any of the balance of the Commission have any questions of the applicant? Siddoway: I'll hold mine until after the public testimony. Rohm: Okay. Slawson: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Would Jennifer McRoberts like to testify? Okay. From the audience she's indicated that she's not interested in testifying. Dan Woodall. Come forward, state your name and address for the record. Woodall: Dan Woodall. 1950 West Carol Street, Meridian, Idaho. Just at West Carol from this development. This is the first that we have seen of this, so I'm kind of going off the cuff, but forgive me. I just -- the comments I'd like to make is that I'm not too happy about the drive-thru window thing. Just to the other side of the Idaho Athletic Club is Walgreen drug. We testified on that when they wanted to put in their drive-thru window. We told them it's going to be loud. They put up a huge wall, they put up a big green screen and, guess what, you still hear the drive-thru speaker. So, that is going to -- you know, we are going to be hearing their speaker, I'm certain of that. No matter what the engineers tell you about their calculations, sound travels. The other thing I'd like to say is that -- that the neighborhood consensus is that we really don't want any extra traffic on Carol Street. In this particular plan there is no -- that's not really a concern. They aren't proposing any additional accesses to Carol Street, but that's -- that was the other thing I wanted to put out is that we'd like to limit additional vehicle traffic on Carol Street. We don't want any additional cars. We have little kids on bicycles running around and we don't need the extra cars. Rohm: It doesn't appear as if this application will -- yeah. I'm curious, do you think that the drive-thru at Walgreens is closer to Carol Street than what the drive-thru will be for this proposed development? It is. And it's pointed directly at the neighborhood, so -- Yeah. So, there is a significant difference between the two applications. Woodall: Yeah. There is, though, if you look at this one, the Settler Village over here, there are people on that side that the sound will be directed towards. So, that's also something to consider. I don't think -- I don't think they got any notification for this and I don't think they are here, but I'd like to tell you that when they say that the -- when they say that the speakers don't -- aren't going to carry to the neighbors, they do. Rohm: I suspect when that lot between this proposal and Settlers develops, that will break some of that travel up. '?f :. ~~v.a~.,. .. ;~ _ :r ~- . ,, , ~,:; .: . ~; ;=: 3,,f ; .. : ~ ~~~ _ ~,- ,~ :;; ,~. ~. t ~~ ~ ~ ,~r k, h}. G~~ ~ ~; kf,, .~ ~.. ~ 1~ ~~ _ . Ty • H ~~ .a ~ ;. ~: z~. R r ~, ,,, ;,~, r~ ~. . ~~,, ,' ~~F H~ ~< ~ ~ . t . ,. k ~ ~~.- ~ ~ h ~. r.' ~} .. ~~~ . zYa • rM,~ t '" ~1 ~~ :;,~::.~ T l`' t ~: ~'L CT be .{ p~1 I ~- . T E ~t'a' _ .a~kt, '{(c4 ~ ~. t. ~Y y Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 16 of 62 Woodall: Actually not. They are already building on it. I don't think they have notified for it, but they are already building on it and it's going to be some kind of a Jiffy Lube type of thing and it's not going to block sound or -- from what I can see. There is nothing in between. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Woodall: Thank you. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could add a comment about that? Rohm: Please. Hess: Staff recently received a certificate of zoning compliance and it's for a retail building on this property just to the west and I would imagine that that will definitely help with -- being asound -- functioning as a sound barrier for this drive-thru establishment. That's -- the residential property is just kitty-comer to this. So, I think that will definitely help a lot. Rohm: Okay. Hess: If that helps with this gentleman's concerns. Rohm: Thank you, Amanda. Okay. There is not anybody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I -- can we close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Okay. So, you'd like to make a motion to close it? O'Brien: Yes. Siddoway: I'd actually like to ask a question of the applicant first, if I could. Rohm: Absolutely. Siddoway: My questions are regarding the drive-thru. If I remember right from the elevations, the window for the drive-thru sits somewhere in this location; is that right? Slawson: That's correct. Siddoway: So, basically, you have the one vehicle that's at the window and stacking for one. I'm just trying to think through -- I know the specific tenant is not before us tonight, %. ." Y ' 1 ^1 ~ 4~ ~'~`u S w ~'~~~;'}u~~rmM ~ex~Sr"yi~ _ ~~':~?~1F{~i=,.at ~'1'~~.~r, 7 '?f ~ ~~V^wcq ~~C~ ~~~~`~~ { N ~ `ik'S~vi~.Y'rzh~.~F!,~ ~ ~:~~Si°~~W.;WA..ri~~i,~.P~~~`e~!k"~,~1~,~~~~'~.~~~i%v~t; ,. - -•{; 3 >~ ~ ~ S. ~~ i ~~ ,4~ ." . - . 1S ~ , 'r. A , r-°yyr ~ k .tt ,Y x 5 ~ytiCti i ~'v c,7s?i~+? P +4,ry~"tFi;~~~ i ~~yr~~ a ~'t x ~ ~~`u ' '~rC ~~,~ y :~ Y y~ ~ x _ ,~~ ~'St .~~'.~:Nae a~' - . E q ~~j ~.~~rrrt~",5~.~~~., .~ ';(~s~49`'a~ t~ v, 45 ~"S '%c 1~r L ' .. ti ,i,ir.. rya-.. +~ v... ~ ~ ~ ~ a r ~ ~ ~ a 7 '.~tg,r~.] ~ _ ~~:~ i ..!'~~~~`~~a .( ~ "S~+`=}m-a ~e £~h'{F' ~ ,':~~ , s~,C~~ry ~' 4 °,f ~~> ( s• ~ ~» ~{~~~~3k1~.~; .j'G .+3x x.31'-~ w~ ~~~.~ Yy',''~^^~~. ~~u 3~rFf Z~~lt ~+ '~'.r,~Yf~~i ~~3 _ i _t ~ 11 i t4~`' "iii .~. l ~h~5 i ro ~+ y v ~~~`yE a` ~. '.+ '`~ [ y ~, ~ fir, 2 h _ h t p., - -' Pq 5 ~ ,;; r r,~ ' 'C"~' 9 s~ ~ Ar ~~ ~~ ,c ;s ~, y Fl : ~ 1 'km'+~..~ i ' ~ s Sr f ° Y !" rt f ,.~PV,r d^~ ' s ~a.r't~ a _,~td s ~ ~ ., uf~ K ~ Tc f -, .y., i '~`~ ' 'J+ x ;tom z ~; tt ~ ~ .rf., 1.,.~---i ~ -;.) Fh1~~~'ro ..1;r:3~,,~~'~ ~ ~h~r'S` o` "~"~,`' ti'~'kf ,+,'~r`C ~ ~ ~ ...~ - ~.f _ .~y .. ~. ~. Y'k , ~.. ~:~~1.Fb~4i+i~~'~':!I~ ;lv~/IT..~'.~r.s t~~7ti•'EF'1~..'~'~~t ~~~i.~k~MT~MIri~~j~ '~4 °r; .+, 4: ~a y 7 b .. y~~~ ~~wy t Y t'~ ~~7 R kt .z~~ ~ - ' ~t~~} ~. t~. l ~:'~AFTir', ~..ti~ r li5~d Z, .~t _ _ _. ~#3 , r + w ~ F ~ t, j y ~~~ a ~ k~ v s, ry, c.. c' S ~ ~ a i~~i -, ~.5~l,y'' ';1~,. ~k ~'.. ~ - Jy~i`.,~~f.R ~ s ~ i ~` rib }>• '~',.t «S~r y y ay r 3 raF Z~,, r ~ ~~ t~ fi '}t ~ e1,a`..~+r. j~~fy.'~'. •'f 5~"S~a{ t X1L'~ t~r~~ i ~ i~8 '~ ~H .~i33Iry.~~~}y1 -t ~ y ~~+ ~~ ~,,yy.~~.,??:5 r' ff~..,~...~ y ~ ~ti3 ty l+ F~~ l p ~ y` {`~ h (1 # N •.~ ~h..: Y~.iti 3 .:`t.~ ~~ 'Yn~Y ~'V ~ ~ T~G +-. ~i ll.~ t if~ ~~ *Af;~' ~ - E • vet ~ f ari d r r _ 31 ~'•, '~`~ - - ` av 'Faak~ >`m~-~~+3 .., a~?ut,~{1~'r~ ~f~ y _. ors w. _i F < ... i, i. .. -. ~. .., r ~ .,._._~~~ 3 ..y... r,r A.l:.e6c ~.n £. . .,.iami ry7• ..., t. - _ .j~ e ~ ' - Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ July 5, 2007 " ' Page 17 of 62 but I can't think of many tenants that would function with such little stacking area. Any -r k J comments about that? ~; Slawson: The application, the owner of this building, is actually going to own that first ~ , retail lease space and she has -- she was working with us on that stacking lane and she's approved that for -- for the number that she needs and there actually won't be an outside speaker for that, it will be phone in and pickup only. So, there won't be a speaker and menu board at the outside of that -- that building. ~~-'~ ... ,_: ~.<,_ Siddoway: So, there is no outdoor speaker, only a phone? Slawson: That's correct. i+W`- ~'i Siddoway: Okay. So, the circulation -- you come in through the shared driveway and, "'u then, wrap around and come through this way and, then, exit out; is that correct? Out of the drive-thrta? .2 ~ - Slawson: That's correct. ~. '~~,~~ Siddoway: One of the things that I'm trying to think through is that, you know, this building will have to function over time with different tenants, assuming that the current ~ tenant doesn't -- you know, may not stay there forever -- or the proposed tenant. So, ~ just trying to make sure it functions over time. Now, if the drive-thru speaker is limited to a phone-in only, it will be less attractive to some type of fast food or something that '~. would generate larger stacking distances. So, I think the -- if we tie, you know, the CUP f,fi }rs to a phone-in only, you know, speaker system for the drive-thru, that that would help ~` alleviate some of my concerns there. But I just raise that for some discussion. That's ~~~ `~~ really my only question at this point. Thanks. Rohm: Thank you. At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014. Moe: Second. ~~ ~; - '~ '^~ ~'' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ;; "~ -;~ Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, do you have some final thoughts on this? ~~ :y ~ O'Brien: My thought is somewhat confusion relative to the -- if the fire department's , okay with this. I'm not so sure that maybe we should continue this to the point where _ we get approval from the fire department. That said, if any changes are required of the layout of the building, that would change a lot of things, including the noise factors that ~: ~. ~ ~. ~~~~ ~u; ~r „~, ~:a N Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 18 of 62 were brought up. So, I'm kind of concerned about those things, whether or not we approve or deny it tonight or just continue it on to a later time until they get that -- that approval. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess I want to ask staff another question. Based upon your staff report and whatnot -- we have discussed that the fire department wants a tumaround, but, yet, we are proposing to limit it to the 150 feet, therefore, we just put a barrier in. Is the fire department aware that that thought might happen as well or are they, in fact, going to be looking for a tumaround regardless? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the fire department is not aware of that solution. Staff and -- staff had recently discussed that being an option for the applicant, in lieu of providing that tumaround, because it would substantially change the layout of this project. I can imagine that the -- if there were, in fact, a bamer there, that they would still be requiring a tumaround, but I mean I can't speak for fire department staff, I guess. Moe: Sure. Okay. Well, where I'm at with this issue -- I mean the easiest thing to do is to go ahead and, hopefully, that they will get their agreement with the Idaho Athlete Club and they get the cross-access, but that's not something that's definite yet. I'm not really keen on the idea of putting up a barrier at the 150 foot mark and, then, we get to see a big old open space or whatever they are going to do in there, just however long. So, I just don't think I'd like to see that. So, I, for one, wouldn't mind probably seeing if we could continue this until we got some word one way or the other on the cross-access agreement with the Idaho Athletic Club before we acted on this. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I see three issues. The first, where we started with the window and the discussion of the east and west. We heard the applicant testify that he was favorable and that meets any concerns that I would have, but I would want to make sure we clarified that. There would be an additional window added to the east side, as large or larger. I think the applicant said larger than the one that they were providing on the west side. The second item would be -- regarding the turnaround, Icould --Icould support a continuation. I do see that there would be three -- if we wanted to approve -- if we felt comfortable approving it and having the applicant work this out prior to occupancy, I believe there is a scenario that would narrow -- or shorten the length of that parking lot. I wouldn't want to see it asphalted with just a jersey barrier across it, it would need to become part of the landscaping. But I could envision a scenario where they either come in with a -- you know, this as part of the landscape buffer or they get the cross-access. I think the cross-access is preferable. But there is a scenario that does not conflict with their parking requirement. So, I could see --Icould see forwarding it on with the requirements that at certificate of zoning compliance they must either have this scenario with across-access or they must decrease the length of the ~- ~, ~~~. ~~'::- t ~ r; Li ~;. -, :~' e r Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 19 of 62 .; parking with this area, give the landscaping, or they must provide the tumaround for the fire department. I don't know that that's very realistic, but one of those three. The third ~~ item is the speaker and I wanted to make sure -- I think I would want to tie to the ~~` ~ ` Conditional Use Permit that that had drive-thru speakers, aphone-in only, and that's - tied to the CUP and runs with the land, regardless of what the tenant is given as short stacking depth there. That's all. Rohm: Okay. I'll try and encapsulate some of thoughts here. It seems to me the consensus is that we'd really like to know the answer to the cross-access before we act ¢' on it and I think that that's definitely within our province and so with that being said, ~, ;~~ ~. - think maybe the correct motion that I'd like to hear from one of the Commissioners is a `~ ~ "4 continuance to the next meeting and with giving direction to the applicant to either ' provide an alternate parking layout to the front that would reduce that to 150 or less or ~~ ~ ~` bring across-access agreement for presentation and we will vote on it at that time. But _ the thing that I think that we need to do is limit the discussion at the next hearing to only that associated with the cross-access agreement. We don't need to rehash the balance '°~`` of what's been discussed tonight, because that seems to be the -- really, the only issue that remains uncertain. Any concurrence on that? ~. > ~t~ ,~ Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would probably -- you know, just reviewing the elevations at the present time, I'm a little bit concerned that just one window on the east side is not going - r to do a whole bunch to really make a big difference. I think the applicant needs to be a little bit more imaginative than just one window or one awning, you know, on both the ~~ east and west sides. I think probably -- especially because the window on the west side `' ~ right now is basically on the north side, so you're still going to have a pretty blank wall towards the front, so I probably would like to see, if anything, possibly even where their grid lines are on those elevations possibly at least maybe three per side, as opposed to ` one per side to break it up enough. Either by window or some type of awning or F_ =~ something. But I think that would be something that the applicant could bring to us if, in fact, we do continue this. So, basically, it would be the elevation changes, as well as - the cross-access agreement that we want to speak to at that other hearing. ~~ Hood: Mr. Chairman, before you make a motion, I do just want to chime in real quick. ~,~ .~ There is some potential problem with requiring the applicant go to some third party that ~~~~ -'~~ probably doesn't have any interest in granting across-access at this time. If they come `' - back or they hold them hostage and say I want a hundred thousand dollars for the ~~ cross-access, because you need this to move your project forward, those are my concerns. What the staff report says is stub the drive aisle, work with them on trying to get that extended now or else you have to do a tumaround and provide them with cross- r ~~ access. We will get them to provide you with cross-access when they redevelop. So, having a two weeks negotiating with Idaho Athletic Club and getting an agreement ~ = ~ signed and recorded that all the attorneys agree to, I just don't see that happening, first of all, even if they were able to sit down tomorrow and say they agree in principle, I just don't see it happening in a couple of weeks. So, to be clear on what you're looking for ~'F" in the two weeks, I think the elevation changes I think are pretty clear. And the ,:. applicant went on record to say, you know, we are going to make this happen and if we ,: ~; ~;,~ ,' ::~~ µ yP+.. phi. .. _: _. .. - ~ '.. ~ . ~~~.. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 20 of 62 1 ~ don't, yeah, it's a new project, we have got to come back through with a significant , redesign and try it again. But I'm a little bit hesitant to condition that or continue it for the sole purpose of discussing across-access easement that you're looking like you're t' s~ going to want to see. So, those are just my concerns. ~`, ~: - Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. ' Moe: Just to answer that, I agree a hundred percent with what you have said. I guess r ~~ ~; what I'm looking for is not so much just across-access agreement happening, if not, ~ ~ " then, I want to -- I would like to see what they do want to do in regards to either the tumaround or to cut it back to 150 and do some landscaping in there that -- I don't -- would love to see the cross-access, but I understand that it might be a little bit difficult to get at a minimal price. So, therefore, they may have to come before us with something .. ~ ~ else. That's -- I just want to see what they want to bring forward before we just move it "~ ~; .~'K` on. Especially with this being a CUP, I want to see it before I approve it. And that's where I'm at. ~~-; a ~ . ~. ~~._ z~ Rohm: So, to encapsulate that, just a solution, whether it be cross-access or a ,, , modification to the parking lot configuration, so -- Hood: So, Mr. Chairman, can task afollow-up question just for some classification for ~, staff. So, I mean it's easiest for the applicant to just go, yeah, we weren't able to get '= 3 ~ cross-access, we pull our asphalt back shorter than 150. As far as staff, we want to see -~ ~~ ~ that connection happen. So, that may be a solution as far as the applicant, but is that ~ `~~ something that's going fly -- again, I guess staff I think is the main requirement for the cross-access is so we can get some interconnectivity. Just pulling it up short, because now you need a fire department tumaround I don't think is the right answer. It may be a z -? solution, but I don't think it's the right one. So, that is an option, though, I guess for the ' Commission that if they just came back with any site plan that showed not the stub '` h ty happening there and they maybe lost a parking stall on either side of that drive aisle , that is something you think you could -- I know Commissioner Siddoway mentioned that, '~, that that would be an option, but, you know, we are trying to limit access points on ~ -;`F~ arterials and share those driveways, so people don't have to get out on Fairview. But y `~''t~ that's just -- I'm trying to understand what the applicant comes back with to us with this f next week how we are supposed to evaluate it for you or just so we understand what , you're looking for in working with them this next week. Moe: Well, let me follow another question up. In regards to the fact they just go ahead and put a barrier up at the 150 mark now and nothing happens at the Idaho Athletic ~~ ~~ L_ L.i t ~F 1~ Club and whatnot that, then, what are you anticipating seeing between that bamer and . , their property line at that point? Just a vacant piece of ground? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, what I would personally think works to have them construct it like this and have either a couple of bollards or a chain or something = ~= t.~~, ,,, t++ ~xPk~'~: • ,~~: . 7 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 21 of 62 so fire trucks don't drive any further to where they can't tum around and, then, cross- access is reciprocated from Idaho Power, those bollards or chains or whatever goes down, there is no other asphalt that needs to be laid, it's clear that it's, you know, put right up to the property line, maybe even a sign that says this driveway to be extended in the future, like we do with roads. So, it's really improved with asphalt just not being used to drive across until such time as I Idaho Athletic comes back in. Moe: Okay. Rohm: I think that's the right answer, because that way we don't end up with a parcel of ground there that is either developed to the point that they can't provide across-access or it's just undeveloped period. So, that that seems to be a viable solution and something that is doable. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, just so that I'm clear, the way this staff report's currently written is the applicant able to get a certificate of zoning compliance without the cross- access from Idaho Athletic Club? Moe: If he provides a tumaround. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the staff report is written actually so that they can get a certificate of zoning compliance without getting return access from Idaho Athletic Club. The way it's written is that they have to give cross-access to all adjacent properties themselves, but not necessarily obtain access from these properties. Siddoway: Okay. Nary: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this will be of any help, Mr. Chairman or Members of the Commission, but it seems like what you have -- all you're asking is -- a problem has been raised tonight and it's a couple of things that are really unsettled and one of them is the fire department may need to comment on additional information that was provided tonight. So, it seems like I guess if -- what I was hearing the Commissioners saying is you want to come back in two weeks and to get more information, since they haven't begun negotiations with the Idaho Athletic Club to at least start that, to see where that is, to have a variety of solutions for you. You have a tremendous amount of latitude in a Conditional Use Permit to weigh those options, including the asphalt, the barricade, the -- whether or not they want to continue to have the drive-thru in that location, whether the building would have to change if there is a drive -- if there was a tumaround necessary. I mean I guess I think all you're asking for the applicant's sake and for the staff is just a little bit more information to all of those options that have been raised tonight that probably can't be answered in the next ten minutes. So, I guess I don't think that's probably too much for two weeks. I agree with Mr. Hood that we are not going to get across-access agreement in two weeks, but I think we have raised a number of issues that probably you would just like more information, so that you can either grant a Conditional Use Permit with whatever restrictions you think are Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 22 of 62 appropriate or not grant it with whatever direction you think is necessary for them to accomplish that. Did I read you correctly? Rohm: I think you encapsulated it very well. Thank you. Moe: That's why he is the attorney. Rohm: Yeah. Thanks. All right. Boy, with that being said, could we get a motion to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning and Commission? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the Public Hearing for CUP 07-014, for the sole purpose of taking additional testimony on the elevations and the site plan as related to the cross-access agreement and continue this application to our next regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. CUP 07-014 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: RZ 07-011 Request for a Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from C-C to an O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying -1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6 single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acre in a proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: CUP 07-010 Request for Conditional Use Permit to construct 6 town homes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Shaylee Estates by Tealey's Land Surveying - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 7th, 2007, of project RZ 07-011, PP 07-010, and CUP 07-010 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are a Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit request for Shaylee Estates. The property is .77 of an acre in size and is currently zoned C-C ~~r. y'r ~ ~. :, :,. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 23 of 62 ~S: business district. The subject property is located at 1402 and 1414 North Meridian ~: F ~ Road on the east side of North Meridian Road, approximately a quarter mile south of , , , =' ~ Fairview. The property is bordered on the north by commercial property, zoned C-C. ; To the east by commercial property and a residential mobile home park, zoned C-C. To : ~~ t,z.~ - the south by residential property, zoned C-C. And to the west by residential property, a -~: zoned R-4. The property currently has two existing homes that will be retained for office buildings. The rest of the site is vacant land. The applicant is requesting that this property be rezoned to the OT, Old Town zoning district, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of Old Town for this property. A ~~ preliminary plat is proposed for two office building lots here in the front, six single family ,, 3 -' ' residential building lots for townhomes, and one common lot. The proposed ,., ~ . , development complies with the maximum building height and minimum number of * ° -'x~. stories required in the OT district. Additionally, all new construction and exterior modifications in the Old Town zone are subject to design review standards per the downtown Meridian design guidelines. Because no new construction or exterior modifications are proposed to the existing structures proposed for office use, design `'~ standards are applicable to this portion of the development. The applicant is requesting ~~ :'~ Conditional Use Permit approval to construct six townhouse units that do not meet the criteria of the design guidelines as required by the UDC. That applicant has submitted a .~ ~'~ ,~ - landscape plan for this site that complies with the UDC standards. The 25 foot wide _ landscape buffer is required adjacent to Meridian Road. A buffer between land uses is not required in the Old Town zone. Staff has requested that the landscape plan be revised to reflect no new trees be planted within the common lot here at the east end of the property, as there is an existing sewer line within this lot. However, the existing trees may remain. Access to the site will be provided via North Meridian Road. The ,nx~ plat depicts a 20 foot wide ingress-egress and public utilities easement for access to the parking area for the commercial uses and the townhomes. A driveway is proposed right rr~~ r~ here between the two existing structures. Staff is requesting that this driveway be constructed as a private street for addressing purposes. ACHD and staff are supportive ~. ,.:: ,= of the proposed location of the driveway between the two existing structures. The driveways are also stubbed to the property to the north and south here for future connectivity. Off-street parking is provided for the commercial uses and the townhouse <_;~ units in compliance with UDC standards. Staff would like to note that the applicant Mark r~=°' Johnson of Talon Construction is currently operating a business at this location without ~ approval from the city. A certificate of zoning compliance approval is required for ' ~~ ~l'~ ~ changing use of the property from residential to commercial. Staff is requesting that the applicant obtain certificate of zoning compliance approval for Talon Construction currently in operation on the southern property proposed as Lot 9 prior to issuance of ' '' any future CZCs on this site. I did talk to the applicant earlier today about this and he is aware of this requirement. He is in the process of getting this application together, so it -_ ~~ should be in soon. Staff is recommending approval of the subject application with that conditions stated in Exhibit B based on the findings in Exhibit B of the staff report. w k~, .~~x That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. ,. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? .;~;. ~ ~'~ ~~~: ~~ ~;~,: ,~;: ;,,,:,~ i s Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 24 of 62 ,~s> ~.~r 0 Davis: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Andrew Davis BRS Architects, 1010 South Allante Place in Boise, representing the applicant Mark Johnson. We are in agreement with the staff report, with the exception of just a couple of issues. The issue of the trees on the rear common lot -- this plan was put together at a time when we were going off of surveyed information on the location of the sewer line as it's been physically located. It is only a couple feet from the property line and, therefore, the easement for that does not cover that entire lot. So, I would ask that you revise condition of approval 1.2.2 to say that no new trees will be located within the sewer easement that they may actually remain on that lot in an area outside of the easement. Another concern is condition 1.2.10 for the 25 foot wide street buffer along North Meridian Road. We are asking to rezone this to OT and it is the applicant's intention to develop the front two buildings in the future as an OT district project and the 25 foot wide street buffer is in conflict with the downtown Meridian design guidelines front setback requirements to build the building to the property line. So, a 25 foot landscape buffer there seems to be in conflict with the future development per the city zone design guidelines, so we'd like a clarification on that as well. Rohm: We will have to get staff to comment on that. Thank you. Davis: Okay. Thank you. And I can stand for any further questions, otherwise, we are in agreement with staff report. Siddoway: One question, Mr. Chairman. So, the road -- this is going to be a private road coming in, not just a driveway; is that correct? Davis: That is one of the requirements of the staff report, yes. Siddoway: Okay. And will that include a sidewalk? Davis: There is intended to be sidewalk on both sides. Currently, because the buildings are existing, a 24 foot wide drive, which we are currently showing 20 -- the private street would be required to be 24. The sidewalks will have to be narrowed in width and will not be five wide, but will be approximately four feet wide, because we don't have room between the existing structures. Siddoway: Okay. Davis: That will also affect the landscape planters on either end of the parking area as well. Siddoway: Follow up to staff. With the private street standards, does it only require sidewalks on one side for -- for a street this size? Because we may want to do full size sidewalks on one side and, then, you can meet the requirements of the private street, because the sidewalks are not detached; right? They are attached? r:, - ~ • - r~"•~? Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 • Page 25 of 62 '~" `'' Davis: Yes. They are attached. In fact, they will go from face of structure to the street, _ because we don't have adequate room for -- we do not have 34 feet between existing } structures, so -- : Siddoway: Okay. That's all I had. } ~, t ;~ Rohm: Could you change to one of the other sites that shows the roadway itself a little 4 r `,=~ bit more clearly? It seems to me that -- is there differing products for the roadway itself T ~ being proposed, concrete on a portion of it and asphalt on -- on the balance? Davis: The private street will terminate at the south -- or the -- I'm sorry, the east portion of Lots 1 and 9 and that part will be paved. The townhomes will have a concrete ~; ~`~ driveway that connects them. That will be considered a driveway, not part of the private street. ~ , ~ ~.` Rohm: Okay. So, all of the roadway coming in off of Meridian Road is all asphalt? Davis: Correct. Rohm: Okay. ;,~' }° Siddoway: And the existing concrete here would be removed; is that right? M'r} ~ ~ ~ Davis: That is correct. Rohm: Oh. Okay. That's where I was having a problem with the concrete that is shown there currently and that will come out and -- }~~'` Davis: Yes. This is actually a survey showing existing improvements and the plan _ - showing the future improvements has been eliminated. ~- ~' ~:. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Davis: Thank you. Do you want to speak Mark? Mark Johnson is signed up Rohm: Okay ~.~{ , . . Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mark Johnson, ~• 12389 West Bowmont Street in Boise, Idaho. I'm also the owner of 1402 and 1414, the _ two properties that are in the application. We'd just like to say that this survey here was originally done for my zoning compliance certificate and one thing led to another and we acquired the neighboring property and I, actually, have my zoning compliance -- Certificate of Zoning Compliance filled out last August. Sorry. Thank you. <«= `~ Rohm: Okay. Thank you. All right. Bond and Shelley Campbell. Bond, would you like to speak, please? }~:y µ~ - ~~ 7; ,_~. 't ~~~ . Meridian Plannin & Zonin ~ • 9 9 July 5, 2007 Page 26 of 62 Campbell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Bond Campbell at 9536 West Hillsgate Drive in Star. I'm the owner of the property immediately south of these two parcels and I just wanted to state that I was in agreement with the -- the favorable OT zoning and I, too, plan to develop this parcel in a similar fashion. Mark and I worked together on these three parcels and so I know what he's proposing. My project won't be exactly like his project, but I do want to mention that OT zone that allows us to build up to the property line in the front, would fit well with my project and I'm in favor of that. And I'm in favor of Mark's proposal as well. So, I think at some point I'd like to hear staffs rebuttal to that comment on that OT zone and that -- being able to build to that front property line. Rohm: I think that's an excellent idea. Davis: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Shelley, you're signed up as well. Did you want to speak? From the audience she said, no, thank you. Okay. Would staff like to comment on the applicant's desire to have additional build-out available out to the roadway? Wafters: Yes, Chairman Rohm. The applicant is correct; a 25 foot wide buffer is not required in the Old Town zone. That is an error in the staff report. The Old Town district does require that new construction -- new buildings be built on the property line in front, so -- Rohm: It's hard for me to imagine Meridian Road being built out as such, based upon its current configuration, but I'm sure that that was taken into consideration when the ordinance was drafted. So, thank you very much. There is no nobody else that is signed up to testify to this application, but the floor is still open, so if you'd like to come forward, please, do so and state your name and address for the record. Hadley: Hi. I'm Susan Hadley. My address is 11938 West Silver King Drive in Boise and this is in reference to the apartments at 1423 North Main, which is the adjacent trailer home park and, basically, my mother owns that apartment complex and a power pole was placed on her property without her permission and, then, after the fact they tried to get her to sign an easement, which she refused to do and we were just wondering is the power pole going to be removed and what is the agreement going to be for power access to the new development. Rohm: We don't have the answer to that -- Hadley: Okay. Rohm: -- and, you know, the bottom line is that is between the applicant and the utility company, but we don't get involved in easements for power pole placed or removed. ,:~, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 27 of 62 Hadley: Okay. Thanks. Rohm: All right. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-011, PP 07-010 and CUP 07-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any final comments on this application? Moe: I don't have any problem with this property at all. Nice little addition to put that in there. I am a little bit -- confused a little bit as far as the trees in the back. I realize they may be outside of the easement, but when trees start growing -- how wide is that easement? Rohm: Typically, utility easements are like five foot on either side of center line. Siddoway: A sewer main is usually 20. Rohm: Is it 20? Siddoway: I don't know which one it is. We can ask staff. Steckline: Commissioners. At this time there isn't an easement over the proposed sewer -- or the existing sewer line. When we go through a final plat we will require a 20 feet, ten foot on each side of the sewer line. Personally, I think if the trees are planted outside that easement that we should be okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. And, typically, utilities used to install their services with the assumption that it's serving the property and there would not necessarily be an easement required, but -- and I think they call it proscriptive path or something to that effect. But, in any case, when this project is done I believe an easement would be in order to follow the utility lines as they currently lie. Moe: I guess just one other thing I'd just like to point out. It's refreshing to see that the applicant wants to put in trees, as opposed to removing trees, so I do appreciate that as well. ~`~ ~~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 28 of 62 ~~ - Rohm: Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final comments? > --<#~, ~' =4' O'Brien: No, I don't have anything to add or to ask about. The OT or Old Town ~' ~` ~~~ scenario is still new to me, so I'm not familiar enough with the -- all of the processes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: I really like the compromise there in 1.2.2 to keep the trees out of the easement, but they could still be located on that common lot, as long as they are ~~µ~" outside of the easement. Regarding the street buffer out front, I do agree with the idea ;~ ~1 of pulling the buildings up toward the street. I would, however, like to go on the record 9 ~ that I would like to see them and try work around those existing trees. It appears that ' ~'~ ~ there is some fairly mature existing trees right at the front property line and I'm not sure, ' ~ you know, how those can be worked with, but it's going to be quite a lot of mitigation if they have to be removed, so, I don't know, those are in conflict with one another. We ` got some -- we have got requirements that the existing trees remain on site unless they t~ are prohibited, which I don't know if they are. I doubt that they are. And the Old Town requirement of building up to the wider sidewalks. You know, when they come in with ~ ~_ future additional buildings -- and that's not part of this application tonight, but, you know, ~ we are going to have to look at those sidewalks and street trees that would be built as part of that, so just as much as possible those existing -- the existing trees that are out ~`{` there, especially if they are mature, ought to be worked with. So, that's all I have. I like the proposed conditions on the development agreement that staff has suggested, so -- y I don't know if there is any clarification needed on the private street sidewalk, as whether a -- I assume that can just be handled at the staff level when it comes through _ '° " with the requirements that are currently in place; is that true? ~ ~; Wafters: Yes. Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway. There is actually no .- ; `- sidewalk requirement in Old Town District, but the applicant has expressed to me that , ~ he would like to construct a sidewalk on both sides of the private street extending from Meridian Road, so -- ..y ~.. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. ~'' Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have anything to -- Moe: I was first, remember? Rohm: Oh. Okay. I just thought I'd give you one more chance -- ~_, r ~~t Moe: No more to add. s "' Rohm: No more to add. Okay. With that being said, could we get a motion to move ::> this project forward? ~. ~; ~:~, ~.., ,z h w~ ~ ~T ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ S July 5, 2007 Page 29 of 62 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-011, CUP 07- 010, and PP 07-010, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 5th, 2007, with the following modifications: Modify 1.2.2 to state that no new trees may be located within the easement. However, the trees may be located on the common lot if they are outside the easement. And -- was it 1.2.10, modify that one to comply with the Old Town requirements for street buffers, which there is no specific width. Why don't we just strike 1.2.10. Also to include all proposed development agreement requirements. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-011, PP 07-010 and CUP 07-010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: At this time we are going to take a short break for about ten minutes. (Recess.) Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in a C-G zone, for Paramount Commercial Southwest by Ustick Marketplace, LLC -Northeast comer of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the continued Public Hearing from June 21st, 2007, of project PP 07-011 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a preliminary plat request for the proposed Paramount Commercial Southwest Subdivision. The property is 18.5 acres in size and is currently zoned C-G. The applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a development agreement modification to remove the conditional use requirement and, instead, require design review approval of all commercial uses in a C-G and L-O zone. The Commission is not required to make a recommendation on the DA modification, only the preliminary plat. The subject property is located on the northeast comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road. The property is bordered on the north by rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County and a high school currently under construction, zoned R-8. To the east of the property, approved for single family residences, is Paramount South 60 Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south by rural residential property, zoned RUT in Ada County, and to the west by single family residences, zoned R-8 and future commercial uses zoned C- G. The site consists of vacant, undeveloped land, with a residential home at the ~~:- ,,,~, ,.; ~_ • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 30 of 62 northwest comer of the site here. This property is currently zoned C-G, which complies with the Comp Plan map designation of commercial. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 18 commercial building lots 18.5 acres of land. The proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the C-G zone. The proposed lot sizes range from 27,800 to 72,000 square feet or .63 of an acre to 1.65 acres. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for this development as shown on the overhead. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along North Linder Road and West McMillan Road. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to the existing and proposed residential uses to the north and to the east as shown on the landscape plan. The applicant has provided a conceptual development plan that shows future uses proposed to the site. Multi-family on the north adjacent to the existing residential property and future high school. Retail on the west and southwest. And office on the east adjacent to the future single family residences. Conceptual driveway locations are shown connecting to the stub street at the east boundary from Paramount South 60 Subdivision and extending to two full access points on Linder here and one full access point on McMillan. Two additional right-in, right-out access points are proposed on Linder and one right-in, right-out access is proposed on McMillan. Two additional -- excuse me. Staff is supportive of the proposed access points, except for the northern right-in, right-out on Linder, which is right here in between the two other full access t points. Staff is recommending that this right-in, right-out not be approved in accordance with the Comp Plan's desire to limit access on arterial roadways. Further, staff is recommending that one of the driveways connecting to Linder from the stub street at the east boundary be constructed as a public street, which is one of these two here, and connect -- align with either Deer Crest or Apgar Creek Street here to the west. Additionally, staff is recommending that the other driveway shown on the concept plan be constructed as a private street for addressing purposes. Staff has not yet received comments from ACHD on this project. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for this development. This elevation is for a potential building at the northwest comer of the site where the existing home is. This elevation is for a proposed Walgreens on Lot 1 at the comer of Linder and McMillan. These elevations are examples of existing buildings in Paramount that may be used in this commercial development. And these are architectural details that are proposed to be included in future buildings on this site. Earth tone colors, timber, cultured stone, and roof pitches are examples of some of the architectural elements that will be used. Staff is supportive of the conceptual elevations submitted and building materials listed as they are consistent with the existing Paramount development. Staff recommends approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in the staff report. That's all staff has. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: No questions of staff. Mr. Chairman, I need to disclose a potential conflict of interest. I have -- the company I work for, Parametrics, has been retained by Brighton to work on the road project. We have not worked on this specific project, the commercial project, but the adjacent roadway project for Linder Road, including the 3b~ , ;;.. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 31 of 62 access points, has been worked on by Parametrics, so I think it's probably best if I recuse myself on this one. Rohm: Your recusal has been accepted. Boy, I have never even said that before. Wow. All right. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Marcheschi: Commissions, my name is Michael Marcheschi, I'm project manager of Brighton Corporation at 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200, in Boise. And at this time I'd like to -- we appreciate, first of all, the efforts of the Planning and Zoning staff and their assistance in developing the plans at this point. We are in support of their recommendations as they have been stated, with the exception of the access points -- the northernmost access points of right-in, right-out, which staff described, which they'd like to exclude and, in addition, I'd like to make the point that each of those access points that have been put into the site plan and into the preliminary plat have already been approved by ACHD as part of the Linder -McMillan intersection and widening project. They have been designed, they are in the bid documents, stamped and approved by ACHD. Rohm: Each of your proposed access points to Linder have been documented on -- in the ACRD stuff? Marcheschi: Correct. Moe: Has that been given to staff? Marcheschi: I don't know if staff has received that, but we do have copies that we can provide from ACHD. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Marcheschi: As you see here, we had provided a conceptual layout and our intention, obviously, with this commercial piece of property is to have it be integrated with the rest of the overall Paramount project. We wanted to have -- and incorporate a feeling, thus providing services for the residents in that neighborhood. Almost everyday our sales staff at the Paramount residential area get questions about services, when are we going to provide services or when are we going to build out these commercial comers, and we see a lot of interest already from people who are wanting to set up sandwich shops, coffee shops, you know, Walgreens, obviously, we have under contract for the comer, but even with them we have had to really push back and insist on some pretty strict design standards for this entire commercial comer. If you could go to the Walgreens elevation just so we can describe some of those for you. We are familiar with the typical Walgreens elevations. This is, actually, an elevation that came out of a store that we have seen in Arvada, Colorado, and the entryway and the use of stucco versus brick,', the use of the cultured stone on the entrances, the base, the inclusion of timber -- wood' timber onto columns under a canopy, gooseneck fixtures, all of these kind of elements' are way beyond and beyond what they would normally do in a typical Walgreens here in' ~,: ~:.,:. ,~~ .,,.. ,: .r. :,.: ++AS .- ~F Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 32 of 62 the valley and we have been told that this is probably the nicest one that we are going' to see here in the valley, so -- so, they understand and we have been able to push them that far in terms of their design. In addition, you know, we have some other preliminary'. designs of the buildings there, but we do intend to follow the same themes that have' been used at the Paramount Professional Center just north of Cayuse Creek at the entrance to Paramount that you saw, again, the natural stone, the timber, and we feel strongly that the viability and the ease of use and circulation into the property is aided by the number of access points that we have requested. The two full access points -- if we can go back to the -- I think the conceptual shows it. Our -- you will see our office sits -- Apgar and Deer Creston the west side of the street. So, those are entrances that' would be directly opposite existing access points. The access point to the south and'. the first right -- right-in, right-out and the right-in, right-out on Linder are both ', surrounding the Walgreens parcel and, then, the triangular piece there we intend to ', probably put retail, some small shops and possible public, you know, sitting or eating '~ areas and we feel that that right-in, right-out there is an appropriate location. Linder is being widened to five lanes at that point. It's an arterial, 40 mile per hour, and according to the ACHD requirements for offsets and for distances between right-in and right-outs, we are well within the necessary distances for those access points. So, while we can', appreciate the interest in limiting access points on Linder, for the Comp Plan we feel !, that these are well within the Comp Plan and also ACHD requirements. We should also', point out that in the residential property to the -- if you can go to the preliminary plat, ', Sonya. It's residential property right now and there are two residential access points that we would be not using, essentially, and giving up. So, in essence, we would be'~, trading those access points for aright-in, right-out further down the road. ', Moe: But you would have a lot more traffic going in and out on yours, as opposed to the house. Marcheschi: That's correct. That's correct. I stand for any questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Can you go back to the other slide as far as the site itself? On the commercial office portion -- back one. What are you envisioning as far as office buildings? Are those going to be single level, what were you anticipating? Marcheschi: If you could go back to the elevations, the pictures. The one on the left ~', upper left would be the largest that we anticipate using there. It's a single level with an', upstairs loft, kind of meeting area. And that is a -- about a 5,800 square foot building. The one down below on the left -- right is a 2,800 square foot building. Moe: Okay. Marcheschi: So, both single levels as a buffer along that edge, residential transitional I', use. Moe: Go back to the site again. Under the multi-family what are you anticipating that I, would kind of go along with the houses thereon the east side of it? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 33 of 62 Marcheschi: So, at this point -- Moe: I'm just curious. I realize it's -- _i Marcheschi: Sure. At this point, you know, we really have not taken to level, we have looked at some layouts and when we say multi-family, we are not anticipating apartments, we are anticipating more like townhomes and three or four-plex units and even that, again, is all kind of market driven. This is a commercial property and so any residential use there would need to go through a separate CUP procedure to get that approved. Moe: That's kind of where I was going with it. My biggest concern is I'd hate to see elevation going up next to those other homes on the east side. Marcheschi: Right. Moe: Thank you. ~' Marcheschi: Thank you. O'Brien: I'd like to have one question, Mr. Chairman. So, your access point here going into the residential areas, do you have any idea of approximate usage of that at full ', capacity of what that might be for -- and what impact it might have on these people and was there ameeting -- a town meeting with the people there? Marcheschi: The property that's platted on the right there is under review right now. It's not actually constructed -- O'Brien: Oh. Marcheschi: -- it's a preliminary plat as well and what we are hoping to provide there is a neighborhood kind of center, essentially, with access from the residential ', neighborhoods, both vehicular and pedestrian, to services and that's been one of our '~, primary motivations for this comer. You will also see at the top right there -- just to the north is the high school, so there is a small parcel there, a thin parcel, where there is i existing sewer -- or sewer coming through, but that's also going to be a pedestrian walkway for students to not have to drive, essentially, on the road to utilize or come and use the services that are provided there. O'Brien: So, I -- the question I have is it seems like this is going to be almost -- I wouldn't consider it a bottleneck, but very heavily used and you put a residential home on either side of that, I would like to think that a buffer there might be well looked into, '. just so there is some kind of a -- either a barrier, shrubs, and things of this nature. Marcheschi: Right. ::~,; ~,~,. ;`k, •; ~, ~;:;= z~ ~4~ ~~ ;,;=.: :>{ -,_ ~~. Y ,~, ,_,,. ,~ n~: c7 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 34 of 62 O'Brien: Especially with the high school near by, I can anticipate a lot of people living in that area that utilize that that aren't going to be using the businesses that are in that area. Marcheschi: We will have the required 25 foot landscape buffer along that edge. So, everything will be offset at least 25 feet from the neighborhood fence along that side and will have detached sidewalk. One of the points staff made was that this -- we would look to and try and include a public road, either, you know, coming down to Apgar or Deer Crest and so we intend to use a lot of landscaping, a lot of, you know, heavy landscaping along those edges and the reason for curves and, again, that T into the residential neighborhood is to decrease the possibility of just straight through, you know, high speed crossing to the site. There are no direct lines of sight in any of the proposed roadways for cross-through traffic. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Marcheschi: Thank you. Rohm: I guess from my perspective, to take a look at this conceptual site plan and, then, put the preliminary plat adjacent to it, there is not a great deal of similarity between the two and albeit that this is conceptual, it would be nice to have some feel that that's -- even though it is conceptual, that we could count on that a little bit. It's agreat -- it's a nice looking layout, I appreciate the conceptual feel for that, but what assurances do we have that a conceptual and at such point of build out that the two are going to be -- Marcheschi: Sure. I mean the -- we are approaching this, obviously, that this is a commercial corner, it's zoned C-G, and so the range of uses there are fairly wide and allowed within the C-G zone and in addition the size of this and if you were to look at the preliminary plat the way it's been presented in the application, all the lot lines that are there, with the exception of the ones that would form that kind of triangular piece in the center, are actually in line with the roadways and, for example, along the right side there, those would be kind of individual office pads along that right side. The Walgreens piece up in the left bottom comer is defined as is. Each of the -- each of the lines basically are centered on a road. So, in terms of the preliminary plat, you know, the conceptual plan is, obviously, just that at this point, it's a conceptual, but the roadways and the access points coming into the project would be consistent. The only things that would change might be that triangular configuration in the center, depending on the use that we can get. Rohm: How do you feel about the roadway coming out of the -- Marcheschi: The neighborhood? Rohm: -- the neighborhood and going through the commercial being a public roadway that is tied into either the north or south road that is across to the west. ~: ~~;< ~:- ~;~~ e Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 35 of 62 • Marcheschi: You know, we are very open to that and we feel that it would be an amenity and that it would allow for a wider cross-section and requirements that would continue that road out of the neighborhood, it wouldn't just be a stub anymore, but it would be a consistent look and a feel to it all the way through the street. The one concern that we have, though, is that when you introduce a public road -- if we could go to the conceptual plan. When you go to the -- let's say, for example, that the top road there was the public road. At the point where it intersects Linder Road, you have got a public neighborhood road meeting an arterial and the access point on that public road would have to be pushed way back to back behind the parcel, because of the necessary distance from an intersection. Do you understand? And that was another reason why we felt like to cross that right-in, right-out off of Linder was a -- a necessary type thing in order for us to put in a public road in that location. Rohm: You're saying that the access onto Linder on the furthermost on this conceptual plan is being proposed to be right-in, right-out, not -- Moe: Is there a pointer there? Marcheschi: This one right here, if this were a public road, then, because of this intersection of two public roads, the access point into this parcel would need to be pushed back the requisite distance from the intersection. So, unlike this one here, which would be a private road, the access could be much closer to the intersection. Rohm: Okay. And do you take exception with that? Marcheschi: It's a trade off, really. Right? I mean if you introduce a public road and make amenity a possibility, then, there needs to be something along here which compensates for that being pushed all the way back to the back of the property, essentially. Rohm: Do you see that entire commercial retail section as having access of maybe like a roadway all the way across the -- parallel to Linder Road, cross-access from south to north, north to south? Marcheschi: We do. All of these would be, you know, drive aisles all the way down along the bottom and across here, with cross-access easements in place for all -- all motion to the property. Rohm: Well, with that, then, there is quite a bit of ingress-egress available, even with that north line public road access being pushed back to -- I guess back to the east, do you think? Marcheschi: This one there all the way back to the back side? Rohm: Yes. Uh-huh. :._ i+i?~4 y :,{t, i ~.; ~_z ~. ;:~~~. ;~ :; ~` ~~;.~ ~:- ` .:~~~ ~; _,; ~. ,,~: °~P~ '~ ~ ~-t' v tP - ; ~r. . ® • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 36 of 62 Marcheschi: Again, it's a trade off, you know, coming through other developments to get to a store, having to go through a parking lot to get there is one thing, coming along a five lane road and just coming off that into aright-in, right-out is a completely different thing and if that right-in, right-out were centered, for example, on the buildings, then, it no longer is an access, but is also an architectural feature when you enter that property and you see buildings or you see acorridor -- a view corridor or whatever it is as you come in. Rohm: Well, quite honestly, I like the conceptual plan a lot better than the preliminary plat. It's just -- I mean it looks doable. Marcheschi: Right. Rohm: Whereas the preliminary plat, you just come back, you know, something that doesn't even resemble this and I'm much more comfortable with this concept than just -- just moving forward with just the preliminary plat that has no definition. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Not for you, but, Sonya, can you speak to ACHD as far as them already granting that right-in, right-out? Have you seen anything from them at all? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, I have not received a staff report from ACHD yet. I did speak with Mindy at ACHD this morning, she was not convinced that ACHD had approved those access points, but she did need to speak with her supervisors to investigate that further. They are out of town, I guess, for the holiday, so I can't confirm or deny that. Rohm: Okay. Marcheschi: We do have the designer of the roadway widening project who has worked extensively with the City of Meridian and ACHD here tonight to confirm that as well. Moe: Well, I'm not so much concerned with that as I am -- I want to know what ACHD's going to do. That's -- the city doesn't want to grant it and you're saying that they will, I would like to know one way or the other before I act on anything, so -- Marcheschi: Okay. If I may ask a question? Moe: Sure. ^ i Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 37 of 62 Marcheschi: What I'd like to understand better, I think, from planning staff is how they make that determination and what is the appropriate amount of limiting access points and by what criteria they make that judgment. Rohm: I think we'd have to ask staff that. Caleb, would you like to respond to that? Hood: Sure. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, you know, it is case by case and I didn't measure out the distances of these driveways, it does look like they probably meet ACHD policy and we don't have a specific policy for offsets of driveways -- between driveways or public streets to driveways or -- in light of ACHD's jurisdiction, but the development occurs within the City of Meridian, so you need to have both approvals to move forward and so we just thought it was an appropriate staff level, based on the Comp Plan policy, to limit access. This seemed like if you lost that right-in, right-out access -- the northernmost right-in, right-out access, the vehicular traffic would still function internally adequately, as well as not hinder through traffic along Linder Road, you know, people have to slow down to turn right in or slow traffic if they cut someone off turning right out, so we do try to limit those access points and we don't always agree with ACRD staff or ITD staff for that matter on where access points should be. So, it's kind of case by case and we just kind of play with it and, again, we don't have any established code that says a driveway shall be this far from the next or a line or anything like that, but it is just kind of case by case. I hope that helps. It's more of an art than a science, that's for sure, when it comes to driveway locations, it's just kind of preference. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. So, if I understand this -- these are access points on either side here? Marcheschi: That's correct. That's aright-in, right-out access point. O'Brien: Right there? Okay. So, if I was coming on Linder Road here and I wanted to use Walgreens, which I'm assuming is going in this area? Marcheschi: Correct. In the bottom right-hand comer. O'Brien: How would I get back to point of origin? Marcheschi: If you were turning this direction, you could come across here and either come down this and come back out or you could come across here and come back out or go that direction. O'Brien: Okay. I just wanted to understand how this thing was working. Marcheschi: If you come up to here, I think the -- you know, one of the points is more about coming south on Linder and allowing for the opportunity to, you know, come off of here on these two full accesses and for people coming north not to have to utilize the same one pulling in. Having two right-ins, right-outs coming up and having two left-ins Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 38 of 62 coming down provide for opportunity for cars to move into the center at essentially the same time. O'Brien: Okay. Marcheschi: Does that make sense? O'Brien: Yes. Thank you. Marcheschi: Uh-huh. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you have something that you wanted to ask of this applicant? Moe: Yes. So, basically, we have this one and you're anticipating you're going to have both of those; correct? Marcheschi: Correct. Moe: And you also want this one to be full access as well? Marcheschi: Right-in, right-out. Moe: Right-in, right-out. Marcheschi: Correct. Moe: Okay. O'Brien: No left-hand turns going in there? Marcheschi: Correct. O'Brien: Okay. Marcheschi: So, you have two full and two right-in, right-out. Moe: Full here, full there, right-in, right-out. Marcheschi: Yeah. Exactly. Moe: You're sure which one you're planning to marry up to the street here yet? Marcheschi: Again, these would both be installed, it's just a matter of which one would be the public road. Our intention at this point is probably to do this one up here the ~:; „~M _ , ,. - .; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 39 of 62 j;~ - public, again, because of the necessary setback for that first access point from the ; intersection. ~4~ :~~,.;~. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. So, from what you know from the Ada County Highway District, =~ -z :. t be si nals there at all or an kind of a -- here oin o is t 9 9 9 Y Marcheschi: There is a signal -- .-~. }.~, ,, °" O'Brien: -- traffic lights or -- Marcheschi: There is a signal here. O'Brien: Okay. Marcheschi: Anew signal will be coming in at the end of this year. Again, this is going `~`' to five lanes with a center tum lane. And this is going to three lanes with a center tum lane. :~-s ' ~ O'Brien: Okay. Towards the high school. Marcheschi: I'd like to defer it to Jay Walker on that one, he's the actual designer of the " widening project, if that's okay? ~': -: - ~ Moe: Mr. Chair. Staff, again, I just want to make sure I'm clear. On the one you guys ' ~' ~ are opposed to, is it -- where am I at. Here I am over here. This one or -- this one or ~` '~ ` this one? Wafters: This one right here. Moe: That one right there. You'd just as soon see that one go away, so that, then, they ~~ '~ r, , r~ have to come in from that point right there. ~. ti Wafters: Correct. ~;,4 O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Moe: And I'm not so sure I have a problem with that either, especially if you're going to make this your public road right through there, because you're going both ways there ~~ ~~ anyway. But I understand you're looking at putting in some type of amenity there to, ~' you know, esthetically pleasing point to that -- ti ~ Marcheschi: Correct. I mean one of the possibilities you have looked at is having a couple of buildings here with something in between and, then, green space or something back in the center of the development as an amenity for the entire ,~ development and what happened when you push this all the way back here is you're basically entering behind the building and, then, having to come back around to the ti'w9~ r"y.', >'~ "r` ,j ~~4::' .. r1f'"' Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 40 of 62 front, whereas commercially that doesn't make as much sense. You want to have access, you know, in front of the building and, again, this becomes an architectural element, not just a vehicular access point at that point. It's all about approach, view corridors, and such. I mean if you come in through here you could very easily come into the dumpster area of the building. Moe: Okay. I have no more questions right now. Rohm: Thank you. Marcheschi: Thank you. Rohm: Would Brad Moulton like to come up? Moulton: My name is Brad Moulton. I live at 5940 North Linder Road, which is off this conceptual plan north of the high school. It is on Paramount's north boundary, just passed Cayuse Creek. Okay. First, let me say that Paramount builds a very nice project and they do a lot of nice things out there, they have managed to take 640 acres and put it all under concrete. Outstanding. But in this concept right here, they are building a bottleneck that is going to last for 50 years on Linder Road right there. Right now traffic is so tough on Linder Road that I can't get out of my driveway some days. It's bumper to bumper from McMillan to Chinden. When that high school opens up this fall there will be a thousand cars on Linder Road at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon and at 7:30 in the morning and every one of them is going to be cutting through that commercial space to get back into their subdivision or they are going to be going down these other two subdivisions, come out of Lochsa Falls or they are going to be coming out of Cayuse Creek where the next light is going to be. Five lanes of traffic is going to turn Linder Road into the next Eagle Road. Now, that five lanes stops at my south boundary, so you're going to take five lanes and cram it down into two lanes right in front of my house and they are going to be landing in my orchard when they are all trying to squeeze into two lanes. ACHD does not have any plans to finish that widening up to Chinden until after the year 2012. I have talked to them. This widening right here is being done ahead of schedule at Paramount's request and funding. Okay? The access points on Linder Road -- there is nothing on McMillan Road. From that driveway on McMillan Road clear back to the entrance to their subdivision there is not another driveway on McMillan Road. This comer -- the southeast comer of McMillan is bare ground right now. It will be commercial development at some time. The southwest comer of McMillan & Linder is going to be the apartment complex that everybody is raising heck about right now. The ten acres on the northwest comer of McMillan and Linder is going to be developed and I see just way too much traffic happening to have that many access points on Linder Road, in 1,300 feet. Right there. It's an accident waiting to happen. There are a couple of options. The access road on McMillan could be moved over closer to the houses and that could be the main access point to that entire development right there and you could put a couple of driveways in there. You could make them move some of their housing a little bit and make that section a little bit larger to make access. You wouldn't have the excess traffic on Linder at that corner i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 41 of 62 right there. You could make them all entrances and no exits onto Linder and not have any left-hand turns across Linder coming in there. They could all be right-in, right-outs only. With that center turn lane in there it's -- you're not going to get across Linder. You will sit there for hours. Okay. I also had a question concerning their residential and family -- multi-family units up there as to how many are going to be in there. I heard them say that they don't know right now. But that's going to add congestion to that facility. Everybody's going to be trying to come out and get onto Linder and either go up to Chinden or get back down into Meridian. Right now Linder is the -- is the crossing point across the river. Idaho Transportation is talking about putting another crossing point out at McDermott, but that's years away. Right now the crossing point across the river is Linder Road. When they do the corridor on Chinden they are talking about having access points every two miles with frontage road. Make them put in frontage roads. You need to be -- as planning we need to be thinking about what -- how this is going to happen for the next 50 years. There is a lot of homes out there right now, there is a lot of people right there and there is just going to be more. If I wanted to live in southern Califomia I would have stayed in southern Califomia, but I grew up in Meridian and around here and I don't want to see this valley paved from Mountain Home to Ontario and that's what's happening right now. It's the golden rule. He who has the gold rules right now. Okay. I'm also concerned about the water. In their plan here it says that they are going to use existing wells. The only well that I know of on this piece of property right there is the -- at the house that's on the property right now. Mr. Walker has told me that they are going to be bringing the water from the well that's over off Fox Run Road through their system, through their pressurized system. That well was initially put in based upon a permit to be down on Meridian Road through the Department of Natural -- or Water Resources. There was a mistake made when they were doing it and it got put up on Fox Run Road and there has been some discussion about the water right on it. Right now the water right on that well is from March 1st to November 15th and it was to be used for irrigation purposes only, to keep their -- and it's being pumped -- was being pumped during the wintertime this year -- I can't say year around, but it was being pumped and I'm concemed that it's going to lower my well. We have already had wells run dry in that area when farmers over on Black Cat and McDermott and Ten Mile put in wells and started sprinkler irrigating their 40 acres of sod farm out there it dried up two wells, my neighbor's and mine. So, new wells have been put in. I'm concemed about the consumption of water out there. Okay. And that's all I got right now. Thank you. Oh, I had one other thing. Excuse me. On the -- they want to change the development agreement from Conditional Use Permit to design review. I don't have a problem with that, as long as there is something in that design review that says what's going to be in those buildings after they are built, but if you give up the authorization power of what's going to be in those buildings in this design review process, then, I would have a problem with conditional use going away. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Scott Stanfield. Okay. Yeah. That would be fine. Walker: Jay Walker. I work with Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. 83713. Back in July of 2006 we entered into a cooperative agreement with ACHD. They had scheduled to build the intersection improvements, did not include ~~y M,~.; ,,,:.. ~~r e • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 42 of 62 the extent of the widening -- roadway widening that we have currently in the plan, but that was scheduled in the CIP for 2008. With the Heritage Middle School and the Paramount Elementary School and the high school being built, there was a definite need for ACRD -- and we recognized that as well with our development -- to expedite that project in advance of the 2008 CIP plan project. So, we entered, at the request of Gary Inselman, into a cooperative agreement with them to do the design of that intersection, the 500 by 500 intersection. When we saw that there was a great opportunity to do some further extent and tie in some -- tie into widening both on South Linder, as well as North Linder and, then, as far as the 500 feet on the West McMillan leg of the intersection and, then, we were required as a part of our DA to make some improvements on our Fox Run Way entrance for the Paramount development on McMillan. So, we -- we entered into this agreement and had ongoing discussions with ACHD and the adjacent property owners to complete this work prior to these schools coming online and opening this next fall or the fall after that. And I do have a copy of those plans. They were finalized and it's ACHD project number 307009, if you would like reference to that project, and, again, coordinated efforts with Christie Richardson and Gary Inselman and their team, Daren Terrell did do design review and approval of that and stamped that and they are ready to go out to bid. With the Heritage Middle School we quickly saw the need to improve Meridian-McMillan, which you're seeing done right now. I'm also in a cooperative development agreement with ACRD on that intersection. That was not even in the CIP plan until I think 2012 or something of that nature. So, for a need of the Heritage Middle School, we quickly advanced -- we discontinued the bidding process on Linder-McMillan and jumped over to the Meridian- McMillan, which you're seeing closures currently being done and those legs of the intersection widened. Now, the intersection of Linder-McMillan will be widened to a six- by-four intersection, meaning that Linder will have an exclusive left tum lane and an exclusive right tum lane, as well as two through lanes. So, it is per our completed traffic study, traffic analysis completed as a part of this -- of this development, as well as Frank Varriale's Bridgetower development and some of the adjacent developments of Jim Durst and Tom Bevins. So, it's a coordinated effort with ACHD and all those adjacent property owners, with obvious accommodations for the upcoming traffic and the development on those adjacent comers. And I -- again, I can show you how we have coordinated accesses on the adjacent properties, both sides of Linder and both sides of McMillan and, then, we have utilized full access points at Apgar and Deer Crest, which are currently in in existing state full access points as well. We are not changing from what exists currently on Linder Road. And I think Michael brought up a good point, we are eliminating a couple of residential access points, but adding some different use access points as part of our development. Now, all these access points will be servicing this same 20 acre commercial property, whether you throw all those exiting or entering vehicles in three access points or four access points, you will still have the same number of trips entering and exiting the development site. It will not change that. So, in my studies, in my analysis as a traffic engineer, spreading out sometimes assists in that. I can -- I can understand the city -- the staffs report on desiring to minimize access points on an arterial street and -- but I can tell you that I have worked with ACHD and their team and as far as I'm understanding they have approved the plans and put their stamp on them and have signed off on the access points, but I will, as they ~R , .;~~,., , t. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 43 of 62 ~4 t~ are, continue to work with Mindy and when Gary Inselman returns back, meet with them at the first of next week and find out exactly what they would desire to bring closure to ~~ ~ ,~'~Y so that P&Z can feel comfortable and rest assured that that's done. So, I do have that , a couple of -- you know, you can see the -- this is the McMillan intersection. I wish t would have brought a bigger set of plans and you can see the exclusive right turn lane and left turn lane for Linder. That's southbound and this is northbound. And, then, the McMillan would have exclusive right turn lanes, with the center turn lane being utilized "~, for the exclusive left turn lane and just one through lane. This will be more than two and a half times the capacity of that Linder Road. I will also bring up a point. In the staff ~~,~ report there was made mention of the need to extend or install water mains to and " ~ ,-~ " through this development. I have worked with Kyle Radek as a part of this plan. He approached us when -- knowing that we were tearing up the road, he quickly seized the opportunity to bring in the water main concurrently, so we aren't replacing a roadway or "" cutting into new pavement over the moratorium that ACHD requires. So, the city has already entered into a cooperative agreement with myself and I can give you a copy of ' * that if you would like, but it includes both an agreement to pay for the water stubs that are located, I may add, in some of these access points and there is an elimination of an '~.~~ access point. We may need to go back and revisit the plans and what Kyle Radek and had designed with Parametrics as far as water main stub outs and blow off. So, it does play into the overall picture and we carefully laid out this -- this design -- roadway - widening design and intersection design concurrently with the developers on all four sides. So, there has been quite a cooperative effort in coming to this point of having bid « ~ documents ready upon completion of Meridian-McMillan, to, then, move into a closure ~ ~:~,~~ of Linder-McMillan and complete the improvements there in preparation for the high school coming online and some of these other developments. But I wanted to make ,~, f' mention to the staff and to P&Z that the water main has been designed. The city has paid for -- well, I paid for the design and will be reimbursed by the city for the water main ,.~~ extension and we have worked concurrently with all adjacent developers in locating the stubs into the necessary locations and obtaining the necessary easements, temporary and permanent easements, to work within those properties and rights of way. And, =' a then, each individual property owner will pay for those blow offs, water main stub outs, ~` ~ and appurtenance associated with that, so -- there was also a comment made in the ~' staff report from the police department regarding cut-through traffic and calming -- traffic ~ ~' calming measures. In considering this development, we carefully laid out and provided curvature in our access roads, so that there wasn't a direct visual corridor for drivers and we keyed in to several locations, as you see to this preliminary plat of the Paramount South 60 property, there is no direct cut-through location for them get onto Fox Run Way at the quarter mile and approach McMillan from the north through the .~~ development. It would be very difficult and I don't think that there wouldn't be any , s ~'~'' reason for drivers, students, or commuter traffic to make that cut through, it's just not a _~~ __ direct -- and we are more than willing to provide more of a traffic calming measure to ' `~ `~-`` prevent -- prohibit those cut-throughs if they were ever to became a problem, because just don't see it as a problem as far as that discussion with the police department. Now, - Mr. Moulton, Brad, he mentioned several things. First of all, we will be connecting to city water as designed concurrently with this project and we will be utilizing the Bisbee and Harrow water rights -- surface gravity irrigation water rights that are associated with t~ ,w- ti` ;:;; `':'~~, t 5rir~ .~, ~_, ~~; - . ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 44 of 62 this property and this 20 acre piece. None of that will come from wells. We have designed and installed a 150 horsepower pump in our current pump station on Cayuse Creek that will provide a pressurized irrigation system for this 20 acre piece. So, shouldn't be any -- any difficulties with wells or, you know, impact to neighboring property well draw down, so -- the other thing that Brad Moulton mentioned was the desire to make access to this property off of Linder right-in only. When you approach limiting access one way through a particular development, I found in my studies that what it does is it -- it increases almost two times the circulation traffic on your external infrastructure, only worsening most of the time traffic conditions in those adjacent roadways, causing greater cuing, more of the delay that drivers don't want to expect when commuting. One great thing that we have here is the misalignment of -- of operating times between the high school and any commuter traffic. The high school will release at around 2:30, 3:00 o'clock, whereas commuter traffic comes from the four to six hour of the day range, thus staggering the peak commute time. With that I will stand for any questions. I believe I have answered or addressed briefly most of the questions and I apologize for taking more than the three minutes. Rohm: That's fine. Thank you. Questions? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Mr. Walker, what does the Ada County Highway District's traffic study speculate -- what is the current traffic flow on Linder and what's expected in 20, 30 years from now? Walker: I would need to revisit the study. It was done by a gentleman, Pat Dolby, quite some time ago, back when the -- these projects came online. O'Brien: Yeah. You had mentioned that the plans were made before the high school was envisioned to come into being there; is that true? Didn't you mention that? You made some plans -- Walker: Possibly. I'm not sure that that included -- it did include this commercial area, but the high school may have been excluded from that original traffic study. Further work has been done, though, to -- to design a facility that would accommodate that traffic by putting in a signal here at Cayuse -- or here at Linder and McMillan and, then, there will also be a signal at Cayuse. O'Brien: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Walker: All right. Moe: Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit curious as far as at the north end when we do go off the widening of Linder Road down back into a two lane and whatnot -- I'm kind of curious as far as to terminate that down into two lane and whatnot, how far are we traveling before we get back into the two. You know, Brad's concerned about cars landing in his property and whatnot, I'm just trying to get a clear indication of what kind of room we are going to have to be able to drop back down into a two lane. e • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 45 of 62 ~~~:.' Y: '::-. 1 Walker: Well, I know that ACHD is attempting to obtain the right of way necessary to widen this five lane structure clear through to Chinden. One of the impediments is actually Brad Moulton. We haven't been able to acquire the right of way necessary to continue that widening through his properly, so prior to his property line we will be -- we will widen right up to his southerly boundary, but the striping will narrow down to a two lane just prior to his property, that's currently for sale and I think upon his selling of his property ACHD will -- you know, at the re-platting of his property will insure that the additional right of way is acquired, so that the continuance of the five lane facility will be clear to Chinden. Moe: Got you. Walker: But that's the reason why it's not -- we haven't proceeded any further north. Moe: Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Rohm: Thank you very much. Let's try and keep this brief. Stanfield: Real short. Scott Stanfield, project engineer, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. How do we tie the preliminary plat, which looks rather blocky, in with this conceptual plan. That was a dilemma we did face when we prepared the preliminary plat, but we knew that that would be of some significant concem. So, if you look at the notes on the preliminary plat on the right-hand side, we have some items that include all lots shall have shared ingress-egress, that will insure the internal traffic pattern movements. We even have a note in there that describes verbally that there will be a public street connection from east to west, lining up with one of the two existing roadways across Linder. That does conform with what the staff report does condition us to, so there are elements of the preliminary plat text format that will help insure in that this is followed and the staff condition on their own about ingress-egress and about a public east-west street connection. So, with that I'll close and stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. That was -- I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Okay. There is not anybody else signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward, now is that time. Durst: My name is James Durst, Black Hawk Development, 12400 Menaul Boulevard, Suite 150, Albuquerque, New Mexico and I'm the owner of the five acres across the street and to the west of this project and I concede to the -- all the efforts that we have made to do the joint development with all the property owners and ACHD, it's taken about a year and a half to do, but all these access points we worked out with ACHD in the meetings and were what were bid and proposed and I'm in favor of the access points as submitted by the developer. ~~~; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 46 of 62 Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Let me ask our attorney. Mr. Nary, previous individual that testified would like to provide just a little bit more testimony. Is there provision for that or -- Nary: Mr. Chairman, it's within your discretion. The applicant will still get the last word and so if it's something really brief and Iguess -- it's not a debate. Rohm: Yeah. That's a good point. Nary: If it's a brief clarification, something that he feels is pertinent, that's certainly within your discretion. Rohm: Please come forward and emphasis on brief. Moulton: Briefly. Brad Moulton again. I just wanted to say that I have not been approached by anybody to purchase the right of way or have any right of way in front of my house by either ACRD, Paramount, or anybody. I just wanted that to be perfectly clear that I'm not holding up anything, I just hadn't been asked yet. Rohm: Thank you. All right. Because we have taken additional testimony from the audience, would the applicant like to have one final word? Marcheschi: I will be brief. Just again reiterate that we do have in our possession, through ACRD, signed, approved plans for the access points as described. ACHD has studied them, has worked with Jay Walker and other developers in the area regarding those access points to make sure they were aligned with other proposed access points across the street and we feel strongly that that right-in, right-out, again, will not only aid the commercial property there, but also ease and help mitigate any traffic that might occur on Linder Road. So, with that I will stand as well. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Moe: Is that it? Rohm: I believe that's it. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 07-011. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~' , 2kr` e +r Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 47 of 62 Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, would you -- do you have some final thoughts on this application? O'Brien: Well, I have some questions and they weren't totally answered, so my concerns are with the traffic, what they are today, if the current proposal for the intersection changes or improvements will satisfy the traffic flow today and 20, 30 years from now. I think it's inevitable that we are going to have traffic problems on that main corridor. I don't know if this commercial venture will change that, I doubt it seriously. I think there is still going to be problems with traffic regardless of what we do, because they built the homes there and the corridor is in direct connection to Chinden and over the river, so I think there is just always going to be traffic and with the high school coming in there, it's inevitable. I think the best thing we can do right now is to minimize that impact of this venture that would not increase, but leave it the same or minimize the impact the commercial property will have on the traffic flow. So, I think that the current proposal by staff is correct. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, traffic's going to be a problem around this entire city, it's not just happening in that comer right there, and it's inevitable that we are going to be fighting that for years to come. The Comprehensive Plan is noting that this development is okay to be built, you know, I mean it's noted in the Comp Plan such that that's what it's zoned for. I think that -- you know, that the Paramount development as it is, I think they have gone -- they have done a lot of forethought into how they were developing the whole thing, especially showing the commercial lots in and around the development as it is. As far as -- so, number one, I'm in favor of the project. Based upon the explanation I got from the applicant in regards to the northern right-in, right-out, I'm of the opinion to approve that right-in, right-out in that point, especially if they are looking to put some type of amenity and whatnot within that area and have the parking in there, it makes a little bit more sense there, so that the -- you know, their trash and whatever else that's on the back, that you're not driving into that property as such, but I guess we will see that once that area is developed out. I guess if it doesn't happen that way, we can make changes at that point on that. So, as the development sits today, I'm in favor of the project. Rohm: Me, too. That's about it. I would like to say, though, that I don't know that from my perspective I'm ready to relinquish the -- the right to review and go straight to a design review process only. That's just my personal opinion. I -- you know, we hear a lot of projects and sometimes it's almost a moot point to bring them back to the Commission once the preliminary plat's been established and I guess just -- I'm afraid to let go of things that are unknown and that's my only last comments on that. So, other than that, I like the project as it has been proposed and, again, I do concur that the right-in, right-out is -- actually, I believe would aid in the movement of traffic, rather than hinder. End of comments. Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 07-011, as presented in ~:: . ~z Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 48 of 62 the staff report for the hearing date of July 5th, 2007, with the one modification that the northern right-in, right-out access point be granted. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-011, to include the staff report with the so noted modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: The motion is completed but go ahead, we can discuss it. Marcheschi: Sorry. Thank you, Commissioners. The one issue that we -- one or two issues was the water line that was in the staff report from Public Works saying that the developer was responsible for the extension, was, in fact, a misstatement in the staff report and so that portion would also need to be amended or substituted for Jay Walker's testimony and I believe comments from Public Works, so -- Steckline: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, those statements were put in place - - we -- I have talked with Kyle Radek about this and, basically, they were put in in case that if your project went ahead before the Eagle -- or, excuse me, before the McMillan and Linder project. So, it's a precautionary measure and I would support those statements. Marcheschi: So, maybe we could just word it so that it's just to that effect, so that if we did go before the widening, then, we would be responsible for the extension, but if we come after, then, that's not our responsibility. Steckline: I would support that. Moe: I think that's the intent already, so I don't know that there is any rewording necessary, is there? Steckline: That's pretty much the intent. Marcheschi: Okay. Thank you. Moe: For the record, now that we know that. Marcheschi: Thank you. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian e 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 49 of 62 Church by Steve Pardew -175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re-Noticed for July 19, 2007) Item 14: Public Hearing: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse /storage and show room space on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC -1875 North Lakes Place: Rohm: Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on MCU 07- 002 and begin with the staff report. Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit modification to allow for flex space, warehouse storage, and showroom space on certain lots in Devon Park. The property is currently zoned R-40 and was previously approved through the Devon Park planned development for office uses. The property is located right here in the R-40 zone at 1875 North Lakes Place on the north side of Fairview Avenue, midway between Meridian and Locust Grove Roads. Directly north of this site is assisted living and an Alzheimer's facility, zoned R-15. To the east and south is vacant property, approved for office uses, zoned R-40. To the west are residential homes in Fairview Terrace Mobile Home Park, zoned R-8. Access to this site will be provided from Fairview Avenue via North Lakes Place. No new access points are proposed or approved with this application. The flex space use is proposed on Lots 26 through 29 of the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 and is proposed to contain an overhead door on the front elevation for loading purposes. The affected lots are outlined here. There is two here along the north boundary, like I said before, the assisted living, residential, Alzheimer's facility is here. These units abut the west property line where the mobile home park is. And these lots are zoned R-40 and were previously approved through the Devon Park planned development for office uses. Staff believes that if these lots were zoned to reflect the approved land use, they would have an L-O zoning designation. This belief is based on a close proximity of residences to the property and office uses that were allowed through the PD. Professional services, which include offices, are permitted uses in all the four commercial zoning districts. Flex space is prohibited in the L-O and C-N zones and is a permitted use only in the C-C and C-G districts, with specific use standards as follows: Retail uses shall not exceed 25 percent of leasable area in any tenant space. As you can see from the floor plan here, this whole area here is designated for warehouse showroom use. The showroom area is considered retail space, because items displayed are available for retail sales. This area exceeds the 25 percent space requirement for retail. The Comp Plan future land use map designates this property for mixed use community. The uses in this category provide for day-to-day service oriented businesses that serve the community. Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with desired uses for the MUC land use category or the adjacent residential land uses. Building elevations were submitted that show an overhead door on the front facade, which is not consistent the approved office use of the property or the proposed flex space use. Per the UDC, flex space is defined as the use of a site for warehousing, y~ L ~ ' ~ ® • `~' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 50 of 62 offices, and/or retail showroom. Flexibility and use of interior spaces and low scale .~,tF attractive exterior appearance characterize flex buildings. Staff believes that the proposed overhead doors will not result in a low scale attractive exterior appearance of `^.~ the buildings and will not be compatible in appearance with adjacent future office ~' "' ~ y buildings. In conclusion staff does believe that the proposed flex space use is ` ~': compatible with office uses approved for this site or the adjacent residential uses and is `~ ` - recommending denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit modification, as stated in the staff report. That's all staff has. ~~:.. ,,. ~ Rohm: Thank you very much, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Okay. `~k Tamura: My name is Doug Tamura. My office is at 1124 Santa Maria in Boise, Idaho, `~~' and I'm the developer of Fairview Lakes. What we did was we submitted a CZC approval to construct a 3,500 square foot office building in Fairview Lakes, which is for ~' , this building right here. We combined Lots 28 and 29 with an overhead door. We have C just completed constructing all except for this one building in phase one of Devon Park y ~~ No. 2 and in that Flaherty Construction purchased this lot and built one building on two , lots, but it contained an overhead door with this little star with that, so assuming that that went through, it received CZC approval, received a building permit, received an '~ ~ ~ _ occupancy permit, the building has been there for a year and so the size and scale of this building, you will see through those pictures, is real similar to what Flaherty did. So, t just assuming that we had a buyer that wanted to go ahead and have a similar type building, we went ahead and did the building permit, then, submitted it and, then, was notified by staff that the overhead door wasn't approved in the original conditional use. °~~ ~,. z; r ; We had apre-con with staff and discussed the options. One of the options would be to rezone -- rezone the R-40 into commercial. The reason this is R-40 is that if you guys ~, recall on the original submittal of Fairview Lakes, this whole area up here was originally ' ~ ~'' ~' designed as a large 200 unit apartment complex. Then, we decided that, you know, the market was very difficult on apartments. We scaled back the apartments down to a hundred units, but instead of rezoning it as R-40, they suggested that we just do a conditional use, leave the R-40 zone in place and, then, just ask for the office complex. We down zoned the retirement center, because, again, in the City of Meridian zoning ordinance they don't allow Alzheimer's in an R-40 zone, so we down zoned that to R-15. V~ The other thing that I want to show in the zoning is currently our C-G zone incorporates ~~ the south half of that office complex. So, if we moved this building and put it right here, "`~ we are an allowed use. So, these five buildings right now are allowed to have flex '°"` space, overhead doors, the things that Sonya talked about. The reason that we are here tonight is that two of our tenants are owners in our first phase, Flaherty ' ` ~ : Construction here and, then, Acu-Graph, which occupies this building here, would like to ~: -- you know, one is -- Flaherty would like to take his building and build the same r rs,;"; building, a mirror image of it over on this side of the project, so he's got an option on these two lots. Acu-Graph, which, you know, does business -- what he's planning on ~. ";~ ~, doing here, but he's planning on expanding -- is he wants to relocate from here to here. The reason that we are asking for this exception is that in our project, again, the s overhead door, the reason that Flaherty put it here is we thought well, gee, one is you don't see it. You know, the other reason that we thought Acu-Graph would work well ~{ $' .~~c: ,,-,;.._ ,.~~.: ~x ~` ,. 1 ~~"~`~~' ~~ , r :} ~~~:z:~; ,_,- ~, ;.: Y... ~;r :-f ~a ;~; ,. ~ ; ~~,,y Y T; ~~ ~-~; 8.', ~ :, .~~. ~.,, , Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 51 of 62 here is that, again, it's in the very back portion of our property. So, again, esthetically, when I review those pictures with you, it's not something that you see for the North Lakes, because it's stuck in the far back comer of our project. Staff is recommending denial. The reason that she recommended denial, in the Comprehensive Plan policies one is it says plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the impact area. Staff doesn't believe that the proposed use property contributes to the mix of commercial use in this area. Number two is encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize land use. Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with future office uses approved on adjacent lots for noise related reasons and appearances of the building facade. Three is require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential use with transitional zoning. Staff does not believe that an adequate buffer is provided between existing residential uses on the north and west property boundaries and the proposed flex space buildings. The Comp Plan for our piece of property calls this out for an MU -- or mixed use community. Under mixed use community it allows for 25 acres of non-residential use, 200,000 square feet of nonresidential use. Under the goals and objectives of the Comp Plan it calls out for Objective C, plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the impact area. In number one it says consider development applications that apply to neighborhood center concept. Item action five is locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors. Number seven is identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow uses as office and low intensity uses. Then listed in the neighborhood center mixed use it also states the purpose of these centers is to create a centralized pedestrian oriented identifiable and day-to-day service- oriented focal point for neighborhood districts. The center should offer an internal circulation that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways. What I'd like to do is kind of describe, you know, our project. We think that our project is -- matches identical the use of the Comp Plan. We have got a mixed use project. It's 26 acres. We have got -- we have got a ten acre commercial use that's got 90,000 square feet of retail approved for it. This zone in here is kind of an office commercial area that's one and a half acres, 11,000 feet, it's got neighborhood commercial over here on this side that's got another 9,000 square feet. We have got 40,000 square feet of office space right here and, then, five acres of residential that we built a retirement center on. So, I think -- you know, the other thing that we did was we were very instrumental in creating a pedestrian path that crosses at Fairview at the light, runs up, you know, through the center of our project, runs behind these office buildings, runs over here. We worked out a deal with the -- with Fairview Lakes Terrace and, then, connected that into the pedestrian pathway that goes in the residential north of us. So, all this, the things listed as goals of what the city would like to see in the Comp Plan, we have completed in our project. On those pictures what I have got is -- oh, yeah. Do you have alittle -- oh, here. Put that -- put the zoning map back up. One of the things that we have is looking at our neighbor and Sonya was talking about the concern of buffering a transition zone. The way we look at mobile home parks -- we feel like a mobile home park is potentially one of those transitional uses. It's not single detached housing, you know, and so -- and, potentially, the other thing with mobile home parks is we are starting to see a lot of that in our valley now is that because of the transitional situation of the use is that they are getting bought out and the use is turning into something ~~" Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 ,~ ~ ~` Page 52 of 62 higher in -- higher and better use than a mobile home park. But if you look at this in that _ first row of pictures that I have given you that is all the uses along Fairview. So, the neighboring transitional pieces that abut the whole south side of Fairview Lakes Terrace is Burger King -- there is actually a Minute Lube right here. That little diner right there. '"~ ~~ ~. This is all the convenience store and, then, this is the Guadalajara restaurant. So, right here this line right here matches up to our project. So, again, you know, the Hastings ' ~ = ~' r~ store is right here and, then, this is the first -- or the south half of our neighborhood ~ commercial that we potentially could put that little flex space in. As far as the buffering is concerned, that second row of pictures -- well, the other thing is the second row of `'~ pictures area the office buildings of what we have developed. So, one is it shows the entry coming into the office buildings, it shows the office buildings that we have built in the neighborhood commercial and, then, it's got a view that looks back at Flaherty's ~~'' office building. So, you can see that the design of his office building and, then, the ~.~qV overhead door, which is the last picture, is all compatible within what we have ~L ` "- developed as far as our first phase. Our intent is that our building that we are proposing rIt t ~y. for Acu-Graph and for Flaherty are almost the same design, heightwise and scalewise, '' they are all single level -- you know, it's got a mechanical storage up in the attic, but it's ti '~'~ all designed into the building. The buffering that Sonya talked about in the report is -- the way we look at our buffering is that -- she made a comment about the setbacks between our retirement center and our -- and these proposed buildings. The way we .~r".;~° look at it is since it's an internal setback that's a transition that we are providing is, actually, the retirement center, so that the transition to the single family neighborhood ~ ,~ here is this retirement that's in between. You know, again, we did a single level, you know, no traffic, you know, dead end street and so -- you know, but even, then, we have got a 25 foot setback at the -- you know, the end of our Alzheimer's building and we j have got a ten foot setback to the back of the building. These little stars right here show the location of the overhead doors. Again, the other thing that we have is -- to the ;,~~~~ mobile home park is we have got a large drainage swale. So, we have got a substantial :`uH -- I believe that's about a 50 foot setback from the end of our building to the mobile ' home park. The other thing is we worked very close with the Fairview Lakes Terrace q~s ~'~'~"~` people, because, one, is we wanted your cooperation on the extension of the pedestrian _- path and so we met with them about our proposal and they support the use of our two overhead doors on our buildings. I have got Adrian Larsen here and he is the president of Acu-Graph and the other thing that I thought would be to have him discuss the type of ; use and delivery of how these overhead doors are used and, Adrian, why don't you ; w- f F,, come up and tell the Commission a little about your company. ,~ Larsen: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Adrian Larsen. My ,:.. , ~' '' "' company is Meridia Technology, located at 940 East Carol Street in Meridian. Currently using one of the buildings in the project. We are proposing building this building with the warehouse space. My company produces software and hardware used by medical doctors and healthcare providers. It's a low volume type of a business and it is -- we have no retail, no showroom, and no customers coming to our building at all. Typically ' ~ our products are purchased by health care providers at trade shows or through our _ catalogs or through the intemet and so we are not proposing a retail showroom or retail ~ °r= traffic. We are proposing the use of the warehouse space because it helps us _y ;. ~~ r sue,} ~~a;, ,~ ~-:. ?; rt>.-.: ti":. i ..~; .~~~;; ,:~; ^ -, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 53 of 62 consolidate our operations, keeping our inventory all at the same place where our headquarters are, and we are not proposing having a lot of heavy duty deliveries, things like that. We are not going to be pulling semi trucks in and out, but more our deliveries are typically handled by UPS on a daily route and we are simply looking to be able to consolidate all our space in one building. And I will be glade to stand for questions. Moe: Do you use forklifts and whatnot in the warehouse, then? Larsen: Not currently. No plan to. Our -- the things that we are moving around in the warehouse are small enough to carry. Moe: So, then, why the need for a garage door? Larsen: Simply it's easier to load things in and out when -- particularly with UPS. And if we are moving, you know, 10, 12, 15 boxes at a time, we don't want to be going in and out a glass door. It gets to be cumbersome. And occasionally if we do have a large delivery, it's much easier to load that way. Any others? O'Brien: Not from me. Siddoway: Not for you, no. Larsen: Thank you very much. Tamura: You know, I guess in closing, the reason that we asked for this modification is only for the overhead door. You know, I think our overall intent is to keep this an office complex. Even though we have this zoned as commercial, that's not our intent, and we just felt esthetically, you know, one at Flaherty's building, we haven't had any complaints in the single family detached residential on this side and he's planning on moving his office from here to here on Acu-Graph. You know, again, he's operating that same type of business here without an overhead door here in the front of Fairview Lakes and haven't had any complaints and so because of the esthetics of the overhead door we thought, well, we could locate them back here in the back portion where it wouldn't be seen, that we would have a nice complimentary. So, we have got, like I said, two potential users of those two lots, if we can have this modification approved. I'm just here for questions. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Doug, what does Flaherty Construction use their overhead door for? What are they moving in and out that they need that overhead for? Tamura: Commissioner Siddoway, I've never really actually seen them use that overhead door and I'm assuming that there may be -- you know, they are a high end residential contractor. I think he may have an extra pickup or, you know, maybe a service van or something that's in that overhead door. But as far as their boneyard for their construction company, that's someplace else. And, like I said, it's been, again, a low intensive use as far as that door. I've actually never -- you know, I have never `-. .Y r~„.i .,~4:... ,: rF t' rr~; n ~` Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 54 of 62 peeked inside it. What his intent -- and even with what Adrian's intent is with this, with these warehouse spaces, we have got both of them designed so that in the future, if they sell that building and there is a tenant that comes along that would like to convert that to office -- in Adrian's space we have got it designed that we could replace the overhead door with a store front and, then, that could become additional office space. The other option would be as Adrian's company grows and if it had a need that they will need more delivery and more warehouse space, he'd move his warehousing off site and, then, that would be expansion space. So, as we are doing our plans we have got it designed so that it's got both forced air heating and right now it's got the electrical in place. But, again, like what Adrian was saying, it's very low intensive use, but it's just for the convenience of what they do, when they have deliveries picked up. Siddoway: And you're saying Flaherty wants to build a new one to move their offices and what will become of the one they are in now? ~ Tamura: He's assuming that he will sell that to an office user. ~; Siddoway: I'm trying to think through the ramifications of other potential users and what they might use those overhead doors for. You have got two low impact tenants wanting to use them now and the question in my mind is just what's the, you know, potential for higher impact uses in the future as tenants change. Tamura: The one thing about the location of why we thought this was desirable -- again, Flaherty's was because of the access and the non-visibility of the door. The other thing that's nice about it is because, you know -- one is we are real conservative about the number of parking spaces that we have and so at least where this is kind of a dead end cul-de-sac, it leaves an area that there is not a lot of cars parked there. The other thing is all we provide is just a -- you know, just a sidewalk that goes to that door and, then, there is -- we will have an access and all that we will stripe out one parking ~ stall. So, it's not designed that you could ever have very intensive deliveries in and out of those buildings. You know, the other thing about it is it's -- in Acu-Graph it's 1,500 square feet, so it's a relatively small space. I think in Flaherty's space it's only the size of one car. It's just a single car garage that's in the back of his space. So, the rest of his building is all office space, which is the place that he could a pickup in there. Rohm: Do you believe it would be possible to meet your objectives by putting in a -- like a standard residential garage door, as opposed to the larger roll up as depicted here? Tamura: That's designed as a residential garage door opener. Rohm: Oh. I -- Tamura: It's aten-by-ten door is what we have got shown. Rohm: Oh. I guess I -- my assumption was -- with the description being aroll-up door that it was -- _;. ~" 1't+:~Jfv~: t~h' ;`, 1.~2 -: ~ .y rta ?,.t ,~~ --~: ,S ' x; 4 .. ~ ;~x ,..,..; ;.,, ,~ ,_ -,,, `~ ~2 -;" x ;,`> ; , ~; ~.~; ,,. ~~> ~s 'rg i7 ~~: ~~ ~~_. . :~ . __. a._: s Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 55 of 62 Tamura: Oh. No. We have got a standard just garage -- insulated garage door. So, real similar to what Flaherty had. But, like I said, I think the only thing he puts in there is his pickup. Rohm: Okay. Tamura: Anymore questions? Rohm: Not at this time. Tamura: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: Question for staff. Sonya, the -- I remember reading and you may have said it -- that the buffers between land uses were reduced in this area as part of a previous action when it was platted and coming through. Did that reduction also occur in the C-C area to the south? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, I believe it went clear along the west boundary. Doug could confirm that. I'm not positive. Adjacent to the residential uses, I believe. Siddoway: Yeah. And what is that width today? Wafters: I believe it's 15 feet on the west boundary and ten feet on the north boundary as I recall. Siddoway: You can come up. And, then, is that -- on the north boundary do you have ten feet plus the additional separation from the Alzheimers -- there is -- are there two -- back to back buffers there or how is that working? Tamura: Commissioner Siddoway -- my name is Doug Tamura. What we did was we maintained alarge -- I think a 20 foot landscape buffer on the commercial next to the Hastings, but from our experience at doing the first phase of the -- well, one of the things that we did on the first phase of the office was originally the pedestrian path was going to go up here, was going to cut across here and it was designed at 20 feet, because it was going to go through here and, then, loop back over. Well, we got such an outcry from the neighbors to think that the pedestrian path was going to be in their backyard that we agreed that we would move it. But part of that 25 foot setback accommodated a ten foot pedestrian path. So, we -landscaping-wise we only had five foot setbacks -- or I think we were going to do ten foot setback one side and, then, this ten foot pedestrian path. Well, one is we know that from the experience of doing phase one that we had plenty of landscape buffer. You know, the other one is the types of uses that we have in our complex, if we didn't have any conflicts with the single family detached residential, so when we submitted for the conditional use of Devon Park Three, which was this office complex, we went ahead and reduced those setbacks. The ® • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 56 of 62 t, ~` ~~,.k~t other thing is that when we bought the pedestrian path through here, again, that's a ten ~: ~~ - foot pedestrian path with a 25 foot setback to the south end of that building. So, overall ~` _ "{~' we got a 35 foot buffer between the back of that building and our residential. But, again, what we are doing is -- it's just an internal setback from one of our own buildings to another one of our own buildings. So, I think the concerns should be more the setbacks ;~~ s up here, but, again, we have got a type of use that's an ideal neighborhood transitional Y~ thing for neighborhoods. It's real quiet. The only situation potentially might have been ~. ~ ~ here, but, again, I included those pictures to kind of show you the quality of what we did. One is we put up a nice six foot high vinyl fence for the mobile home park. We have never had any comments back from the mobile home tenants as far as there -- and ''` particularly one of the things I asked the manager is, you know, has he had problems leasing his spaces when it backed up next to all that, you know, heavy commercial. You know, you're looking at C Stores that are open 24 hours a day, you know, you have y~'a~ got Minute Lubes, you have got fast food restaurants and he says that no. So, thought, well, gee, you know, we have got such a benign type of use in relationship to ~~ .`~~' what the rest of this was like and that's what I was saying that I look at a mobile home park as more of a transitional use than I do a -- you know, strictly residential thing where, you know -- because one of the things that we are always very conscious about is buffering, you know, and like our application for the apartment complex, you know, we had 60 and 70 foot buffers against those neighborhoods, so -- ,~~ yti, . i,: '`' = Siddoway: The existing buffer along the east -- or the west side there is 15? ~~ a Tamura: Fifteen feet. So, we only reduced it five feet. But, again, you know, this was going to accommodate a ten foot path. Rohm: There is nobody else in the audience, but, still, if there were, we would open it up for further testimony, but seeing nobody else, that's the end of public testimony on .: this application. Does anybody have any questions of staff or the applicant before we move to close this Public Hearing? y~F O'Brien: Nothing. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing, then? O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing CUP 05-023. ~; },: Rohm: I believe this is MCU -- a ='~~' O'Brien: Oh. MCU. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. MCU 07-002. Moe: I would second. ` ~„; Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MCU 07- y "T ~ 002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. _ L'~r( ~ r. , ' ' ~~ -.? ,,. y' __ x~:. 1%,': fh3k . u;-, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ~`,~";`; July 5, 2007 Page 57 of 62 ,p x~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~:., ~, ~ ~ ;~: Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway, do you have any final comments on this application :~~~=, before we get a motion? . ~ ;' Siddoway: I'm still feeling a little conflict internally on this one. As I read through the `~ :~ staff report my initial thought was denial. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that there are ~~°' intended uses that could produce noise right adjacent to those homes with a reduced ~ landscape buffer. I saw as a negative -- potentially negative situation. As I see the built structure in the photo provided tonight for the existing Flaherty Construction building, very nice, it's residential in nature. I don't find the overhead door obtrusive. If anything, ` ~~" =' it makes it look more residential. The -- so, the look of it -- the look of it does not _ concern me. I think they are nice buildings. What's still concerning me is just trying to think through -- someone could move in there and have larger deliveries and a forklift "_~ and that's the thing I just can't quite get over. It sounds like the existing users are not doing that and there is not a problem. I'm just concerned about other potential users in } '' `' y h..,~ r the future. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I would pretty much mirror exactly what Commissioner Siddoway said. I'm really ~" ~ kind of tom both ways. Quite frankly, I think they have built a very nice product in this ~ area. I guess I would probably say I wish the garage door was on -- was not right at the front of the building on this one, but it is. Plus there is enough building in front of it that ~~ '? ~ you're not going to really note that all that well. But I, too, am very concerned about what happens, you know, down the road and larger vehicle trafFc and forklifts getting in there and whatever else, so I'm actually very tom on this one. I -- right now I'm going either way, how does that sound? ~~~ Nary: Mr. Chairman? ~: ' ~., Moe: I'm struggling with it. - . , .v ~ Nary: Mr. Chairman, if it will be of any assistance to the Commission, the City Council _ recently had a similar proposal in front of them and they did require that the door -- and believe they limited the height of the door to eight feet and they did require that the door match the surrounding neighborhood, so that it would be -- it would look similar and not ~'~` like a traditional roll-up door like you have in a more heavy industrial user type of .R.~~' location. Because they weighed the same concerns that you have. You know, certainly because it's a modification of a CU you have the ability to limit hours of operation, when deliveries can be made, what type of machinery can be used on the premise and those types of things that may alleviate some of your concerns as to how it's -- a future user might use the site. But they did require that the doorway had to blend into the neighborhood and they'd have to work that out with the staff and that might, again, <,. >f alleviate some of the types of uses that you're concerned with. y .c..,n , .`~; ,zx; w,. ~ :~:- ':Si 'rv;,= Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 58 of 62 Siddoway: Mr. Nary. So, did they place specific use restrictions on that or did they just feel like the restriction on the height addressed that issue? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, I don't recall in the discussion a limitation on the uses of the vehicle and the like, because Ithink -- it was not a C-U, it was -- it had been a director's determination on the use of the property for a storage facility in an office zone and it was an appeal of that decision. So, they did approve the -- they did approve the appeal, but only limited, essentially, the door and how it would blend into the neighborhood. I don't think they had a use application of any sort in front of them at the time. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just to add onto that. I believe -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Nary -- but they added a row of glass on that garage door to make it have -- most residential garage doors do have alittle -- some type of glazing or something, either at the top of the second tier or something like that and I think that's how they got to that blend in thing was to have it be required that they put that in. Nary: And the only thing, Members of the Commission, I -- we had two garage door discussions. One was on Meridian Road, a tire shop, and the other was this one in Heritage Commons area. The one on -- the tire shop required the glass panels in it. I can't recall -- I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Hood -- what sticks in my mind is they require that it would look similar to a house, so they limited it. And most of the ones in that area have some type of treatment, some design, panels, glass, some other look to it, so they didn't look like the traditional roll-up door. Moe: Well, based upon the photo that we are -- that's in front of us, that's exactly what would want to see. Siddoway: And when we started talking together, that's -- it was my -- the same point I was going to make. When I look at the elevation there, it has no glazing and it's a little bit starker on there and, yet, when I -- and I look at the photo of the existing building of Flaherty's, that row of glass really does make an esthetic difference and I think that I would be okay with the door, especially if we limit the height to a standard eight foot residential height and require the glazing similar to the -- what we see in the existing Flaherty Construction site. That's where I'm at right now. Rohm: Works forme. Could we get a motion? Oh. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, I don't mirror everybody's concerns, but -- but most of it right down to the door part, my suggestion is -- and you guys have a hand on a lot things, is that -- he said -- I forget his name. Rohm: Tamura. Doug Tamura. O'Brien: Doug I think mentioned that it was built so that they could modify the roll-up door into an office type environment. Well, office type environments have double doors ,1'~.~ F$ ))~'~~ ~~ ~; ~~_ .;~ ~~ ~:; ~; 4 ~'~ i ~, -~c: s Sys ,:~- Y`, ~4Y ~ ~.;>r~- '':' ~ ~ ~„~; ~ ~:: .~ ;x~~. Y.y;,- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 59 of 62 usually and my suggestion would be do away with aroll-up door and just make a standard double door, which one side locks and if they have to bring in bigger boxes, stuff like that, they could open the double doors and achieve the same thing and eliminate the possibility long term of somebody turning it into a maintenance garage or something like that. You wouldn't be able to park a truck in it, but this other guy does, which I don't have a problem with that, but at least he would eliminate the possibility of using it for anything else. So, that would be my proposal. Everything else I think is -- I have the same concems. Rohm: I think the double doors in some ways would be a good solution, but the glazing that's available through a standard eight-by-eight garage type door has other benefits, SO -- O'Brien: Well, I'm not talking about a standard steel double door for a commercial, I'm talking about something that looks more like a residential door with glass -- smoked glass or whatever you want to put in front of it to make the design look esthetic. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Moe: Well, if you remember that was one thing that the owner had made comment as far as for deliveries and that's a little bit cumbersome and whatnot for the doors and that's why they wanted to go with the overhead door and so I think -- I think with the glass, you know -- at that point if, in fact, that business was to go away; they would still have the opportunity to take the door out and put in, you know, basically a store front section or whatever and take care of it for an office environment at that point, so -- O'Brien: I think we are just looking at the same thing. As long as we meet what Sonya's concems were for the denial to begin with, I think if that meets their approval, I think that would also achieve what they are trying to achieve as far as the zone goes, then, I think we are okay. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: One second. Do we have -- are there findings that we can modify to reach a motion for approval at this point or would we have to direct staff to come back with conditions of approval? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, there are not findings for approval at this time. You would have to continue it to the next available Commission hearing date in order for staff to prepare conditions of approval and findings. Siddoway: Okay. In that case I would move to direct staff to prepare findings and -- conditions for approval and corresponding findings for MCU 07-002, with the restrictions that the roll-up doors be limited to eight feet in height and to include windows, glazing, tinii'„.. `,J,._ti: 4 ~~iJ i ~ ~uK ~., ~fx-' ~~ ~ '':::~-: ~~; • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 60 of 62 similar to what we see on the overhead door for the existing Flaherty Construction site. Is there anything else? Moe: That's it. Siddoway: And to bring it back to our next regularly scheduled meeting on July the 19th. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: Before we vote on this, does this, then, go to City Council after us or is this the final stop off? Well, would there, then, also be Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that would have to be drawn up as a follow-up to a vote? Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, this will just come back to Commission, it will not go to Council. At the next meeting staff would have findings for approval and conditions of approval at that time for you to approve if you so wish. Rohm: Well, I guess kind of like with Jonathan Seal's deal at the last meeting, we had both the -- the hearing and, then, afollow-up -- Hood: Mr. Chair, we may, if you give direction -- I think I understand the direction that the Commission is going. If you give us some conditions that you'd like to see, maybe we could prepare that findings document and, then, the applicant wouldn't have to come back two weeks later for the findings document. Staff will have some general conditions that we will impose right in the staff report. The couple that Commissioner Siddoway mentioned in his motion -- if there are any others that you want to make sure get put in there, probably need to make that part of the motion and, like I said, staff will probably have, I don't know, a half a dozen more or so that will just say, you know, comply with previous Devon Park approvals and I don't know what all those will be, landscaping requirements or whatever. And the applicant may have an issue with one of those, I don't know. But we will -- if we can get a better idea, we can have a findings document on the same agenda. If there aren't any issues you can approve it and if there are issues, then, we are going to have to continue it out and do it two weeks later. But if that's the only concerns you guys have, I think you have given enough to Sonya to work on a revised staff report. Rohm: I guess the only additional discussion that I -- I'm not sure I feel real comfortable with is that related to the operation of a hyster and as far as the operation of a hyster specifically, I don't care about it internal to the structure, but I don't want the hyster coming -- Siddoway: It's so small that -- Rohm: Well -- but coming in and out and having a big semi and unloading pallets after pallets of -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 61 of 62 N O'Brien: We could limit that to electric forklifts. r Rohm: Well, in any case that was my comment. How we address it is up to whomever is making the motion for the continuance. But just -- that was my only other thing that didn't -- I wasn't real comfortable with for long term. I wouldn't want this to turn into a transfer yard for the next business that may occupy the space and I just would feel uncomfortable with making that available to them, so -- Siddoway: I would consider a friendly amendment on the motion that we would add a condition that hysters, forklifts, and similar equipment could not be used on -- on these sites. Rohm: Again, I don't care what they do internal to the structure, I just don't want them running around outside. If they need to move stuff around inside, I don't have a problem with that. It's just I don't want forklifts running around outside. Siddoway: I would include that in my motion. Moe: I will second that. Rohm: All right. It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to write conditions for approval of MC 07-002 with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Oh. And continue it to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, before the applicant leaves, too, if I may, hours of operation are probably something else that we would have -- if we were going to condition this for approval we probably would have limited the hours of operation. We will get with the applicant and propose something. I think it will probably be something reasonable, but just so maybe we can all be on the same page, do you have any hours that you're concerned about or is it 24-7? It looks like Sonya is showing me that it's 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 is what their application says, so we'd probably just condition it that way. Rohm: If they are agreeable to 8:00 to 6:00, but, quite honestly, I'm a lot more lenient than that, from -- until 10:00 o'clock at night type deal. And we have almost -- every application that's come before us we have given them -- Hood: So, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 would be something that -- Rohm: Yeah. Uh-huh. Hood: -- would be -- okay. Maybe just so we can get the findings on that and get it approved, so we don't have anything to discuss and we will coordinate that with the Id,r \J Meridian Planning & Zoning July 5, 2007 Page 62 of 62 applicant and make sure that if he does have an issue, we won't have a findings document for it. If you review the staff report and are agreeable, then, we will do the findings document. Siddoway: If Commissioner Newton-Huckabay were here I think she would say, as she said at our last meeting, that we have -- we have a fairly standard time restriction that when we use a time restriction we have one that we use and I -- the actual hours are escaping me at the moment, but in the interest of enforcement, it may be good to just look at what those typical hours of operation are. Rohm: I think it's actually 6:00 to 10:00. O'Brien: YeS. I think you're right. Hood: And that would be for a more typical office use and this is really flex space, so it is a different use, I guess. I mean we are -- I don't want to say we are splitting hairs, because there is a big different, but that is generally when it's L-O -- office use next to residential. Siddoway: Okay. Bring us back a proposal. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: We need one more motion. Moe: I move to adjourn. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THES ROCEEDINGS.) APPRO~D: ,~ ,~ ;,~> Mar.- , MICI-GAEL ROHM = CHAIRMAN ATT DATE ,~~~,,,. /,'~r~'~-~ro-r nr~~'~~-~a'~~ ,,, ~~ "~ J ~;., , ._,,., ~: r, ., ~~:: ~r< ~::. .;' ~;. , ~' _ _ ~~ a E..,. ; r: . ~. dtr"*. iw ~. t; ;: . c'.;' '' ~,-.. ~ is ~:.., E< ~, F;=,: try, ~, t.. ~' ',•'., C COMMENTS July 2, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3'A REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 7, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: :~P-~~ ~+~~ss '~- I ~b~„~- m :`~ C~ ~~~ fl Date: Phone: Emailed: JTarr InITIaIS: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CtiY (J ~ "cl J ~~3'`~ .j~j •. F.1 Sf..Llri Nt Y Tr L ~~ ~~i it ~ ,~, .: fFO Y K `~~ty'' t ~ 'i r: N 1 ~ .-: ~~ ~:- ~ s. ~ :r>~ ~ .~t''^ y l t,: ; Si~~ , fi ,, F -} l ~ yi"!u-+ "1 ~ • q r ~ ~ $`'3 u ti s Yq, ~;.~~ ~' ' ,~ y. } ~; ~: i -'` a ~i : f ~h ~ 4xs~ _ `. ,.yr,;r~~.; _ .Va l ~ 5~ I~~I~TL ~~~r ~V~~J7 \! rr', 'a , ;, ~,:.. ® • July 2, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of June 21, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~c , ~ ~ ~ # f, , ~~ p ~ ~~ {t ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~j.~ rc , A r .. 4 ri~~~~ li.+F E t ~ Y"3l ~,~ ~ ,i . Y ~ ~~y/.. 4}~ ~ ~ ` per J .. ~ t "' C 5 {~S A. ~ ~W r ry ~ a^ ~ .~ ~ "~ A.fi~ S ~~ - ryry~~yy t a } ~ ~ .. ¢ t Lb"t 1 fhT } <'~j ~ 4 1 ~` ~L'1 ~ t ' ~' ~ ~ ~.. t ~ -.1 : ~ .~ ~Y~ f l Ariz Y`, ~r ~ 'i~ ti Y ~R ; / T; 7 ~ Yr^~j K r r f-ta ~~'~`+ fi"i ~il~ 'a ~3 ~,1~ » i '~ t 1' k~ r ~ " ! 5 a ~ ' y Y ' ~ ~~.~~~~ t rs ~,'.J ~'+~' ~" R : ' ~ _ ~ R +' ` +7c ~ } 'AG. ~ s ; l ~` `h ~tr"tiy~ r ~~~~y,t3. '7 fr]~ G r ]f^f f{A Y C ~ a ~ ~ ! ~'~ ; Y 7. ~ , r.:,, ,. ~ 4 ,. ~. ,, r :, ~.r i~x ~ ; ~' ~ ~ Y "~ f K 4 ~4 - t~- ~ G . ~4~ F. ~ 7a -•i - ~ e .r d ~i ]' ~~` ~ COMMENTS ~~~~ ~-m~SS ~' ~ C<.6see~" ~_ 't}'`~~ ,_~~ , .; ~(:h ,. '~~ Y.~ ~`,''~ -:F~ k, :~~~ ~~ July 2, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 CUP 07-012 APPLICANT Larry and Judy Kelley ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Con#inued Public Hearing from 6/7/07 -Conditional Use Permit to allow a a 200 square foot canvas carport in the O-T zone for Kelley Carport Revised - 403 E. Second 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: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes Date: Phone: Staff initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 4 .lam t ~~ ':~1 ~ }r f ~ ~ ~. !~ S i 7 T Y' C ,~I~ j `: ~i t' ;y i~' °,i ~;- t,Y. ~.i :. ~~ >;'s , #_> I MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT LandPro Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from b/21 /07 -Annexation & Zoning of 1.56 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Amar @Wapoot - 2400 West Wapoot Drive. July 2, 2007 Az o7-O1 l 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 Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report I Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the CNy of Meridian. .~~~~ ; ., .~ .V ~1 .;~[ 4 4. .,t_. _ - y K` s i `¢ tip' "~ ,+ _ K s~r_ t ~~ . r ~~ ~ r ~~:~ ( F4 ^ ry 1 I~ M~5 ~ q ~, _ .~,, ,' (, R '} ~ r 1~1 ~ ~~~ F ~ 3 ~ . .~. , ~ . ~. i of ~ ~ ` M ~t y 4C~ ~ iiR ~ ~. ~_ 1}' ~ r., . ~~ 1., t ~~;Pk~~ ~ ~ f y z i ° ++~ ~4 ~~~~ ' _,y l~i _ ti,,.,i _, A. ~j ~ l ~x~+h 3'~ I ;'f • ~ <~ ~' ^J' f 6, ~i~,`~ J~ ~ [r F ~ ; 7~ • F t < ,i~ sK~ E ~, N; 1 ~ .y~ B ~ ~~C , ~_ to t - } A~_ ~ j ~ ~ ~ a y~ i Z ~.`~ h_ ~~.~f r~ yt 4 1'~ ~ y q~~ W.f hF.. Q«+ _ _ 1~~3~yf~ ~~ T .tr ~ ;i 4. c(~Y i ~{ d4~'Y~ ~I{ r 1' - a~ {; t V ~1'rh 4 `~ ~ ' w • ` July 2, 2007 AZ 07-010 ~~-`' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT Ahlquist Development, LLC ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21 /07-Annexation and Zoning of '' 6.67 acres from an R1 to a C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South - SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads AGENCY COMMENTS ;. l`~.: CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached A#tidavit of Sign Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ,,? "p~ s ~ E n~'Z i ~~' h ~ ,: i, '€ ~ ~~~ i' °t ~;~ n a gig: ~t}~ r rid" ,,..": ~' L un ~3~ ~ ..,` Gt t~ ~F ~ ,'~,~_~ ~,t7i F6"~~,"' ~~ t' ~ 7-:, ;;~ f £`£ ~r,!~ ~~ ~n df r r t: ~~~~~X ~; 3~r+ t i r:~ ~ -- s ~~ ~~ . . .,~1 ~`~ h'i I :~ - July 2, 2007 PP 07-012 t~`~ MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 ~~7= APPLICANT Ahlquist Development, LLC ITEM NO. 7 ~' >> REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21 /07 -Preliminary Plat approval of `~ ~ 6 lots on 6.67 acres in the proposed C-G zone for Gardner-Ahlquist Gateway South - SEC of Franklin and Eagle Roads '~ ~; AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet ~, - ,. ~ ;'~ CITY ENGINEER: _:.,, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: ,.. CITY ATTORNEY ~ ~'_a ~e CITY POLIGE DEPT: ~; ?} CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~~"'V 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' IRR{CATION: IDAHO POWER: ~°~` INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Con#acted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. T > ,~ ~ ~ti~;~ ~ s 1# , ~ . ' i~~'~~ ~1 ;' f i Y~ ~•'•'Rt .~ 9 S ° ! y_ tr~Z r t ~ ~r^.1,. r, ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.4 ~ t f'- ~~ Y' ~{ v 7~h% ri~X! ~ - r. -.+5. 7~'. '.~ s} : ,; ~, a• ? ~'IAl rFa ~ 7 f ~ { I r ,~ < ~d~ ~ ,,,,, s w,E;£ < < C~ JUIy 2, 2007 CUP 07-O14 s MERIDIAN PLANNING 8. ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT J & K Investments, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square ~~.~!' foot multi-tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail - 1330 E. Fairview Avenue (lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision) AGENCY COMMENTS -~ r, CITY CLERK: ;~ CITY ENGINEER: ~ ',` CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY >r,,~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ~.- ;~; ~, CITY FIRE DEPT: ,,r;~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ ; CITY WATER DEPT: ~r;~ ~j CITY SEWER DEPT: (Vo Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: ,, MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: e ~k''~I SANITARY SERVICES: ~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments ,~+°;; CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments ,~,. '-`''~ ~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ~::~±~ SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: u ?~1 IDAHO POWER: :;~: 1 ~~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Mat®rlals present®d at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meddlan. ~ j ~ '" ~~~ ~ r 4~ ~~ '., r3,~~~~ ~ .,r.... r ~~! ~'t".I 6 't' s w +~ r~~" hj v ~i, ~,"'~~ ~~~~~ ~~' kp s i ~ ~ ~ *.. ~ -i r ~ •~^~ ;i ~ ~s ~v}~ x ~ . ~"3 ~ tM .:' i -, 5M~ f:' J, ~~ t. ~~~f C,4 }~ .-' j ~ ~:n' ~ ) ~? ~~, `'~ ."x x~ ~~i .~ S J ta+'S '''~, t r ,t j ~: y.1~?'¢' F= r~ L~r 1 !t ty~'4r ~~I IV ;; ~ Y ~. ~~~ f ~~ i:f t ~ t~~ j, w~ s ~ t G~~~T.Ib V~' -; ~h 77i~ ~! ~ '~~' ~ U. rS~_i'ri ~ '- :~ t -' ry. 4 . v_..-~~ ~. . ~ 1 t ~ 4.: '~ Yt " ,F ..t' w' a' S r S ~ July 2.2007 RZ 07-011 ,~ ,; MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5. 2007 ~= ~ APPLICANT Tealey's Land Surveying ITEM NO. 9 REquEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/7/07- Rezone of 0.77 of an acre from ~'~` C-C to an O-T zone for Shaylee Estates - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian 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 SCWOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY WIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes ~ ~~ "~i ~a <,:~ s,. 'n '~~ See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emaiied: Staff Initials: Materials presented at publk meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. :.'41:'Kri:7. .... /~h ~ .' 4'~:~' 1 y ~ Sf :~~~~~~ ~'S 'liar ~,' K ~` M1 , ~~¢ + ,`ri'i +a. , . ~~y' ,~..<, >x tR ~~ .y 7a t bl? t~ti'~y2j .,M1 ,ti `, ~+~k ~. .V~' L~:i~ . ,. ru_ ~' 3J4~'- fi~aa ~: y .,~~4~~,k:., ~ ~ ~~ July 2, 2007 PP 07-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT Tealey's Land SufVeying ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/7/07- Preliminary Plat approval of 2 office building lots, 6single-family residential building lots and 1 common lot on 0.77 of an acres in a proposed O-T zone for Shaylee Estates - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: ~,` " ~'' CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: =:'~ `1 CITY ATTORNEY '~<'~_.~ CITY POLICE DEPT: !~.,, ~~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ ~I CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~~~`-~`` CITY WATER DEPT: i .~~:`~; 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 RZ Packet COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public m®efings shall becom® properly of th® CNy of Meridlam. } r r}YrL ;~_i$ r~ z y r. . t~~ ~ ~ i 'ia *~ r~ ` w '~'~ ~~ ~ ~. ~, q ."st ail r7 ' ~M w,Y ~ » 3' t A~, .~' d . ~. c ,'D: tr.a ~ 4 ~~%'" ~ u ~ ~,} ~~' ka N~~ i~ a,$~ ~a ~+ Y ~ ~~ ~ } ~ ~' }-.- lr 7 „tLr"'.~ +`»u:jr r:~„ Li ..Y""-rS{L`. ~ ~i. L~.j~: C July 2, 2007 C~ CUP 07-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT Tealey's Land Surveying ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/7/07 Conditional Use Pem~it to construct 6 townhomes in a proposed O-T zone that do not meet the criteria of a Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Shaylee estates - 1402 & 1404 N. Meridian Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY i, CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: '2, , * ' 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 RZ Ppcket COMMENTS Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Sfiaff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the C{ty o} Meridian. w:y~;, ~ '~i l~. i R~ v ~ S ~.` { r ~' `~~~ `R~ t~ T 1 ~~ " ~ +x {' ,., a...lW ; T - ~~ ~ c ~.~ ~~>~ `~ July 2, 2007 P P 07-011 ~~~!~` MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT Ustick Marketplace, LLC ITEM NO. ~I ~ REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21 /07 -Preliminary Plat for 18 commercial building lots on 18.5 acres in a C-G zone for Paramount Commercial Southwest - NEC of North Linder Road and West McMillan Rood. AGENCY COMMENTS «.. ,~ ~F~4" CITY CLERK: See Previous Iter1'1 Packet /Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT WEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Attached Staff Report INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of M®rfdlan. ~~~ ~xyrk ~~ ; ~,: ~~;fr;.,ti:~.~ i ~ ~c ^~ ~ l v- Y'S ~ y, .;r ~ ~+Ffr~C ~ r~ , ~} P ~i4 ~: 'Y'1+,'f'~'t~'i I',..3 ... c`~~`S ~ ~ ' k it~ ~ .}j;=. ~ ~ ;k,..i v ~. [ {. Y~ •L c t l St °~SN }',{~ :,. X15 :ti ~J llj+-g A ~f LLi~s ~1~~~ 'k~c . L.~~.,~-,ji_J,. I!~. Sj`` rr i ; ~d?t.,;~r_ ;_. >T ~~, =~, :~y w .:- „: ': :.'; < '' s':~. ~.;;,Y L" _:. a r 'z . ~'r {;'': r~ , .. ~: 4~ '. S~ {r> r~ U July 2, 2007 CUP 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING JUIy 5, 2007 APPLICANT Steve Pardew ITEM NO. ~ 3 REQUEST Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site for Cherry Lane Christian Church - 175 N. Ten Mile Road AGENCY COMMENTS ~...~_ ..,~.e CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Request for Continuance No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials pr®sented at pubOc meetings shall become properly of the C{ty of AAeddlan. :~~H,~~~~°+. --~ .. :~,: "Y~,SL~L i~.^K a. ~ ~~ ' a~ ~? r3' ti j '~ rT~;f a ~, ~}~ ~ ~ ~ r '~ iii hh of v~'Er~SK .~ _~k ~0 {~ ' 1 ; a~ t Y.,' Y .~..: .,w`. y~ c_x:-_ t ..t Pl 1~r~ T C ~ y._. S~F~~+ ~ ± ~~~ t o-'•~, ...~~ Tc~ 3K. ~~ ;a k x ~f.. ~~ x' ~ acx'~~'~ ? ' ! a t .i.5 k:: ~} c'• r "~~ a ~ - ,, ~ ~~ y# ~ ~w~~t +.i. '~-1. ~ ~Fi July 2, 2007 MCU 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING Jury s, 2007 APPLICANT Doug Tamura ITEM NO. ~ 4 ~" REQUEST Public Hearing -Modify the existing CUP (CUP 05-023~ to allow for flex space, warehouse/ storage and show room on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, ', Bik 1, Devon Park Sub. No 2) for Devon Park Flex Space -1875 North Lakes Place AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPt: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff initials: Mat®rials presented of public me®tings sl~aN become property o! the City of M®rtdtan. ,. ~. ~~ ~4r~ ~~~' ~ ~. ~, , . a~ '~ ~ ,r°, .~,~e~ ~~ ~,. ;~e ~} j z s~+ ~~w ~ `,. t H. 1 ~~ F ~ ~ ~' 1 Y 9 ~~~{ 4 i ~ "~3; ~ ~ £}. ~. ., ',~ r, T; r.: ~ ., y~ ~ ~i.N,4 r#r ~'T 't't,? ~ .sY' F'ti~ ~r~ ~~, f ~~ F <, `~ _ =._ ~'. ffr. s, fr. i' ,r; i i-. ~,;;,.