The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 07-19E IDIAN�-- I MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: _X Tom O'Brien _X Wendy Newton-Huckabay _X David Moe _X Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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: Approve 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects — 943 W. Overland Road: Approve 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Recommend Approval to City Council 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene — 150 West Maestra: Recommend Approval to City Council 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. LLC — 1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): Approve 9. 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11 -2B -3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re -Noticed from July 5, 2007) Continue Public Hearing to August 2, 2007 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 16, 2007 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I -L and L -O zones to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 16, 2007 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Continue Public Hearing to August 16, 2007 13. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Recommend Approval to City Council 14. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 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: Approve 15. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11 -2B -3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: Table to August 2, 2007 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 16. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: Approve Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. es E IDIAN--- IDAHC •o MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 19, 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: �� f ' t✓ Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe )_Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: PP y y -c 3. Consent Agenda: .g 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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, x" LLC —1875 North Lakes Place: pp ro Ve 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects — 943 W. Overland Road: ppro v 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather -SEC of South Stoddard Road and Wes Overland Road: ®� �ppvway -k Olt &X461' r 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene — ' ` 150 West Maestra: , proVat It( 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: CUP 07-014 Request for " a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot multi- " r tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, w LLC —1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): /4ppr0V(f Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ' Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 3 5+ gay f � � s gv ARn - Yt 5 q 2 g 4 ,rte'" '3" '' >Y $ 41 7 F 5 • • 00 9. 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11-213-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re -Noticed from un, -1 —IW 7-7 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: 0 0 �c ;� 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I -L and L -O zones to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Ro d: �� 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: CoA -i' na c..e +amu-�G�'C I�PQ�"�`/19 .A" US 13. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: PL,,e_6oh-? i AA APPrWdi 4v 6_]�Y «60`.e 14. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 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: Aplor t%e_ 15. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Chert' Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11-213-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: 16. Fin[ of Fact ajgnclusions of Law for Approval: 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. •0 • 0 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC —1875 North Lakes Place: 140q yo Y� Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. i` SS 3 y Y� k3. Y J n 4 ri g { , 4 � 9 a s TWW e- VO-4 jlhaAks I (:��WERIDIAN-,�_� MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING ODAHO REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 19, 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: 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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: 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects — 943 W. Overland Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene — 150 West Maestra: 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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): Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 9. 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11-213-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re -Noticed from July 5, 2007) 10. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: 11. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I -L and L -O zones to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: 12. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: 13. Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: 14. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 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 Lary and Judy Kelley — 403 East Second Street: 15. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11-26-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: 16. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. es •• ,� 3, Block 1, Devon Park Subdivision No. 2) for Devon Park Flex Space by y Fairview Lakes, LLC —1875 North Lakes Place: a �h 1.� M jry{ f f 4 Ta n w� E' b ,F4 , :L T � 1J Y . t N pkv Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — July 19, 2007 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, Y ty. please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. J i'ti4y.bS'II .:x '... `��"aM y, ,y , t I AA x `F `d A id`s" r hr t S. W Y A Date/Time 07-16-2007 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Total Paaes Scanned: 3 Broadcast Report 11:26:12 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5 "x11 " ektxSe fast -hr K4Wt Nol7te- C Ina s 1 E IDIAN - MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING q O A fy REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ;Although the City of Merdlen no longer requires sworn feadmony, 89 presentations before the Mayor and Cfly Council are expected to be D'usyiful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Skddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: MCU 07.002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 06-023) to allow for flex space, warehouse / storage and show room space on species 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 -1876 North Lakes Place: 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,820 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects - 943 W. Overland Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-000: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67akxes from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acme by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene - 160 West Maestra: 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: CUP 07-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square That multi - tenant retali building for J & K Investments Retail by J S K Investments, LLC -1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): Meridian Pb" and Zantng Commissbn Mooft Agenda — duty 18, 2807 Pop 1 ora AN mateNats presented at public meegrW shag become propedy of the City of M w dean. Anyone destrbV mos, modeum for dlsaMes related to doourneMs erallor hung, please cardact the City pedes QMw at MP4433 at feast 48 hours prtar to the puNo rnoe&g. Total Paaes Confirmed: 18 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 690 3810160 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS TU 002 690 8989551 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:46 3/3 1 EC H5 CP21600 003 690 8848723 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:01:14 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 004 690 8886854 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 005 690 2088985501 11: 14: 11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:47 3/3 11 JEC HS CP31200 006 690 8467366 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:39 1313 11 EC HS ICP28800 007 690 8950390 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:37 3/3 11 IEC HS ICP31200 F4e'.. L �4, c j i f7"i'1,�15ii Gp`t.i99f'1G T } 1 Y r >g , t Y £ y.r:y` p a4*,FIs L �4, c j i Broadcast Report Date/Time 07-16-2007 11:26:19a.m. Transmit Header Text CltyofMeridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 690 8882682 11: 14: 11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 -- HS TU 009 690 3876393 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU 010 690 2877909 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU 011 690 8885052 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU 012 690 8881983 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A - HS TU 013 690 3776449 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 013 N/A -- HS TU 014 690 4679562 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU 015 690 8886700 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A - HS TU 016 690 8884022 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU 017 690 3886924 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A - HS TU 018 690 8841159 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 013 N/A -- HS TU 019 690 8840744 11:14:11 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 N/A -- HS TU Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive WS: Waiting send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct F<: Date/Time 07-16-2007 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Total Panws Srannaci - 9 Broadcast Report 12:02:18 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11" rkojSe K&St -hr KtWe Xo-ftte.- Incus I C'M*'EKIDIAN1-- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING t D es tf as REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. 'Although the City of Merkftn no longer requires sworn testimony, aft presentations before the Mayor and City Coundl are expected to be truffiful and honest to best of the aWllly of the presenter.' 1. Rall -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: MCU 07-002 Request to Modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 06-023) to allow for Rax 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: 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07.004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects - 943 W. Overland Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07.009. Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07.012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene - 150 West Maestra: 8. Continued Public Hearing from July S, 2007: CUP 07.014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 7,750 square foot mu* tenant retall building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC -1330 E. Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision): Meddtan Ptannirg and Zoft Commlesim Meaft Agenda— July 18, 2887 Page 1 of 3 M Mole presented et pubb MMrW shd become property of ft City of Meddlan. Amin m deshlnff axommadadm far dtaebft" related lo document$ mWor tu:adng, please owtad the CIV Clerks Ofke at 888-4433 attend 48 hours peorw the pwft mea". Total Panes Confirmed : 18 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 694 3810160 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS FA 002 694 2088885052 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:37 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 003 694 8881983 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP24000 004 694 2083776449 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:01:14 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 005 694 4679562 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP24000 006 694 8886700 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:00 0/3 11 -- HS FA 007 694 8841159 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:40 3/3 11 EC HS CP31200 Date/Time 07-16-2007 Local ID 1 2088884218 Local ID 2 Broadcast Report 12:02:27 p.m. Transmit Header Text Cityof Meridian Idaho Local Name 1 Line 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. I Job I Remote Station I Start Time I Duration I Pages I Line IMode jJobType I Results 008 1694 12088840744 11:29:29 a.m. 07-16-2007 00:00:46 3/3 11 JEC IHS ICP2400 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 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct t k 4, fi i yy.� ,uw *fie f,k,". e T 11"V r a k ' :h F �L .. F 'uFv'� `e � �# �•.a�7 ;�i'o-4 3 •: �� 4 "a` � .a . k �.f� r, �tb +4�F 8 k ,�.9 4.,,; g � � a 3r i...,r Broadcast Report Date/Time 07-20-2007 10:22:57 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 This document: Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size: 8.5"x11 " (CiM E IDIAN IDAi%® MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, July 19, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. ARhough the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, ail presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be bzrthU and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. 1. Roll -call Attendance: Tom O'Brien _,g_ Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moa Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm - chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: A pp r o ire 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: MCU 07-002 Request to Modifythe exJsdng 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 Parc Flex Space by Fairview Lakes, LLC -1875 North Lakes Place: AigprbUe 5. Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot offlce I retail building for Freedom Storage by Ersted Architects - 943 W. Overland Road: 6. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07.009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67scres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and W�AOvarland Road* &Xol? 7. Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07.012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a GG zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene - 150 estvMen�d �Pro!/a.2 -�i Ci'fy t�ne+r-Q 8. Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: CUP 07.014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the constructlon of a 7,750 square foot mufti - tenant retail building for J & K Investments Retail by J & K Investments, LLC -1330 E Fairview Avenue (Lot 2, Block 2, Doris Subdivision), 4,ppr oVe Meridian Platoft end Zmft Conanbstm Meeft Agenda— July 19, Mr Page 9 Of 3 All matelots presented at public ntsetrrga suit become properly cf tt® CRS' of Maddimd Anyone dashing accommodation for disabhli8es related to documents arwor heaing, please cmradfha City Clee9t's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the W= meeerrg. Total Paaes Scanned: 3 Total Pages Confirmed: 54 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 733 3810160 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:03:24 3/3 1 EC HS CP9600 002 733 8989551 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:54 3/3 1 EC HS CP19200 003 733 8848723 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:01:19 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 004 733 8886854 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 005 733 2088985501 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:47 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 006 733 18467366 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:41 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 007 733 18950390 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:42 3/3 11 EC HS ICP28800 Broadcast Report Date/Time 07-20-2007 10:23:04 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 733 208 888 2682 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:39 313 1 EC HS CP33600 009 733 208 387 6393 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:01:19 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 010 733 2877909 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:43 3/3 1 EC HS CP28800 011 733 2088885052 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:40 3/3 1 EC HS CP31200 012 733 8881983 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:47 3/3 1 EC IHS CP24000 013 733 2083776449 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:01:18 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 014 733 4679562 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:44 3/3 1 EC HS CP26400 015 733 8886700 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 -- HS FA 016 733 8884022 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:02:24 3/3 1 EC HS CP14400 017 733 3886924 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:47 3/3 1 EC HS CP24000 018 733 8841159 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:00:43 313 1 EC HS CP31200 019 1733 2088840744 09:47:31 a.m. 07-20-2007 00:05:49 3/3 11 EC HS CP2400 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 i Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 19, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 19, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, Tom O'Brien, David Moe, Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Amanda Hess, Sonya Watters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X 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 call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with the roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: Good. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of agenda and there is a few changes and the changes are items 10, 11, and 12, all three items related to Pinebridge Subdivision will be continued to the regular scheduled meeting of August 16th, 2007. So, anyone who is here tonight to speak to any one of those three items, it will not be heard, it will only be opened just to continue it to that mentioned date. The balance of the agenda will remain intact. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Rohm: And there is no items for the Consent Agenda. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 2 of 83 Rohm: So, before we open up any hearing tonight, there are a number of you that don't attend these Planning and Zoning meetings on a regular basis and I'd like to just kind of go through the procedure and how it works most smoothly and that's -- what we do is we will open up the hearing, we will ask the staff to give their staff report, and what the staff report is -- it's the project as it pertains to the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. So, the staff will speak to the project based upon the merits related to those two documents. Once the staff has finished their presentation, we, then, ask the applicant to come forward and present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been made, then, we will open it up to the public to comment on the project from their perspective. Now, if, in fact, there is a homeowners association with a spokesperson on a particular application, generally speaking we want to listen to the spokesperson first. Once that person has spoken, that testimony stands, really, for anybody that has those same concerns. So, it doesn't add any weight to come up and testify ostensibly to the same things that that spokesperson would say. So, just because there are a number of people that are of the same opinion, it doesn't -- it doesn't change the weight of the testimony by everybody standing up and giving the same testimony. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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: So, with that being said, I will now open the Public Hearing on MCU -- excuse me. Yeah. MCU 07-002. And begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application was heard by the Commission at the July 5th hearing. At that meeting the Commission directed staff to prepare conditions of approval and Findings for approval of the subject application, which are included in the staff report for tonight's hearing. Previously there were no conditions of approval, because staff had recommended denial of the application. With that I will stand for any questions the Commission may have. Rohm: Just to kind recap, basically, that particular project -- the Commission wanted staff put their findings of approval based upon putting a -- I believe it's -- the garage door needed to have glazing, so that it had a more residential flavor to it, and the second item was what -- a window -- what was the second item, Sonya? Watters: Chairman, Members, just windows or -- and/or glazing. Similar to this building that's already in Devon Park, Flahrety Construction building. Rohm: All right. Does anyone on the Commission have any questions of staff? Moe: I have none. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 3 of 83 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, no particular questions of staff, but the -- the findings that we talked about include the glazing, the height of the door, restrictions of hysters and hours of operation. And I have looked over the proposed conditions of approval and they include all those and I'm comfortable that those were added. Rohm: Good. Is the applicant here to speak to this project? I don't believe so. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this application? With that being said, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on MCU 07-002. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing MCU 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Good. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, I move to approve MCU 07- 002, with the proposed Findings of Facts and conditions of approval listed in the revised staff report. Just for clarification, Sonya, are those in Exhibit C? I think that's what the - Watters: B, I believe. Siddoway: As proposed in the staff report. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 07-002, to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Public Hearing: MCU 07-004 Request for Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage by Erstad Architects — 943 W. Overland Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on MCU 07-004 and associated with Freedom Storage, and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow for a • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 4 of 83 CJ single story, 15,620 square foot office/retail building for Freedom Storage. Freedom Storage, aka Stow -It Storage, is generally located at the southwest comer of Overland Road and Stoddard Road. The property totals 13.5 acres and is currently zoned C -G. As you can see on the Powerpoint presentation that's this property right here. Access to the site is provided directly from West Overland Road, as you drive away about right here. This access will be shared with the existing storage facility, as well as future retail area to the east. And this was the site plan that was previously approved. This is the future retail area. This is the area of interest of this evening and this is the storage area. Okay. The history of the site. In 2004 the subject property was approved for 3,200 square feet of office retail space, a 1,600 square foot caretaker's unit, and a 28,130 square foot -- or square feet of condition storage on the northwest comer of the property. And that would be this building right here. The remaining property was to house storage space totaling about 125,000 square feet and that's all of these -- all of these storage buildings in the back here. It is on the portion to house the office caretaker's unit and indoor storage building that the subject building is proposed to be constructed. This was the previously approved one. A detailed view of that. These were the approved elevations at the time. And this is the proposal at this time. So, I have put the two detailed slides side by side here, so you can get an idea of what was previously approved in the northwest comer and what is a discussion this evening. Let's see. Approximately three-quarters of the proposed building will pertain to office uses, as opposed to storage with the previous one. The new building will not only have office space to serve the functions of the storage facility, but will also offer office space to the public for rent. Retail uses are ancillary to the storage facility and the possible renters, in that goods provided will include shopping boxes and supplies, shipping and receiving services, and printing and copying services. It is the change in primary use of the site from the storage to office which prompts modification of this Conditional Use Permit. The issue of concern for staff, as mentioned in the staff report, is that the parking lot at the west property boundary exceeds the length allowed by the Meridian fire department. So, prior to the hearing the applicant provided staff with a revised site plan for addressing this issue. They have proposed to provide a fire truck turnaround within the parking lot. And as you can see, this is the location of where the fire turnaround will be. Staff recently became aware, however, that with the original approval for the CUP, the neighbor to the west was involved in selecting and improving the landscape buffer and vegetation which separates the two properties. And that's the neighbor to the west over here. Staff believes the applicant will need to require an approval letter from the neighbor for the change in landscaping where the turnaround is proposed, as they have proposed grass creet to sort of function and maintain that landscape feel at this turnaround point. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal with staffs revisions discussed tonight and that is all we have unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Amanda, when did you say you were looking for the applicant to provide that letter of approval? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 5 of 83 • Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, after discussing the project with a co-worker, I discovered only today that that -- the previous CUP involved a neighbor in that use. So, I'm confident that even the applicant doesn't know of this requirement prior to now. So, we could make it possibly a condition of approval prior to occupancy of the building or something as such. Siddoway: And one follow up. Is there a revised landscape plan that shows whether they are removing trees or just shifting trees out of that area? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff did not receive an updated landscape plan as of yet. This is pretty much a proposal at this time. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Erstad: Good evening. My name is Andy Erstad, 420 Main Street, Suite 202 in Boise. Thank you for hearing the application and it's nice to be in front of you again. It's been awhile. We concur with staffs Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. We have -- we are a little bit surprised by the letter. I think maybe as surprised as staff. But I think we can handle that pretty easily. The adjacent property is kind of underutilized at this point and I think meeting with the applicant -- or the neighborhood -- the neighbor will probably result in a letter that -- so, we will work to that end certainly. We have met with the fire department and the fire department has actually looked at this layout and they concur with it. We had some concerns about the grass creet. They are comfortable with it. They are fine as long as it supports the weight of the fire truck and that system is designed so it will allow it to look as though it's grass, but if a fire truck has to go onto it -- and it's only 20 feet in width at that location. So, the rest of the landscaping that was agreed to in the prior conditional use remains intact. We had a number of other issues that were -- not really even issues, but just comments made by the police department. They were concerned with the -- with the ability to see in here and as part of the security package with -- that our client was planning on putting in we will have video cameras looking into that area. So, from a safety standpoint it's monitored. We -- one of the conditions in the -- in the application from staff was the connection to the city sewer and as everyone knows, there is a main line that's crossed -- I want to say it crosses the freeway at Ten Mile. In our conditions of approval it identifies that we will connect to a line at the Hardin Drain and we have met with Public Works and spent quite a bit of time going over that and we have a route down Stoddard that will actually work and a route that, actually, the city -- I'm going to say the city prefers. I hope I'm not going beyond that, but -- so, that condition we would request changes from connecting at the Hardin Drain to connecting in a line down Stoddard to the current lift station. And we understand that that's currently underway anyway with a private contractor. The conditional use, as you're aware of, is a requirement, because we are changing use from 33,000, approximately, square feet of storage and a caretaker's apartment to about 15,680 plus or minus a few feet of support space for the storage. Freedom Storage has -- provides boxes and packing and things of that nature and that function really happens 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 6 of 83 • in this portion of the -- of the facility and so as you were to come in off of Overland, you would come in, park, make your arrangements for your storage space and get supplies, whatever, and possibly even make arrangements to lease a Penske truck to go pick up your materials and, then, you would come in, pass through the security gates, and go to the store. The remaining portion of the building is our sort of executive offices, single office suites, that has the flexibility of growing or shrinking, starting with a base module of ten by ten and it provides that opportunity for somebody who maybe travels quite bit, but still would like to be in an office, have a place to catch mail and if they have shipping and receiving needs or supplies for their -- for their business, those materials will be received, put into a conditioned storage area, and, then, when they return to the office they would go and make arrangements to put it into their physical storage piece. We are really excited by the concept, because it provides currently an unmet need at this point. The other aspect of the project that's noticed in the -- in the application is that we are pursuing Leed Certification by the United States Green Building Council and that's a -- to me that's a pretty significant step forward in terms of being a responsible partner in the community and a responsible builder of buildings and whatnot. And so the elevations on the roof, we are looking at a series of photovoltaic arrays, so that we can supplement the power requirements. In addition, there is -- these raised light monitors, if you will, it's a location that we will be putting the TV arrays on and, then, we are investigating right now on the lower roof doing what is commonly referred to as a green roof and it's -- it's planted in a sedge material, low water -- you still have to -- in our environment you still have to provide irrigation, but it's a much much lower consumption of water than the rye grass or, you know, what we all have around our houses right now and can't put enough water on given the temperatures. Anyway -- then, each of the offices would have natural daylight windows, things of that nature. It's a low profile building, simple forms, and, quite honestly, we are very excited by it and we are excited that the client has a vision and the courage to move forward with pursuing Leeds on it. So, I'd stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? O'Brien: Yeah. I have one. What type of material will you be using on the siding of the building? Did you mention that? I didn't -- Erstad: We actually -- Commissioner O'Brien, we actually mentioned that in our application, that we are looking at -- in the front portion up towards the street -- this is a cast concrete slab that is tilted up and in the panels behind we are looking at a concrete -- a panelized concrete system that is really a very stable material, it's -- it doesn't absorb water, it doesn't cup and warp like vinyl siding. It's a pretty stable material. And, then, in areas we are actually identifying some metal siding accents as well. Sony that you can't see this. I'll tum it around in a minute. But in the application these are the locations of the concrete panel systems in here and this is the -- this is the cast concrete walls and, then, the horizontal banding are areas where we are looking at a metal siding material. So, you can see the end wall is a concrete tilt that frames the east elevation. This large glazed opening is for the retail component. So, somebody driving in that's looking to rent storage space will clearly recognize this as the retail space and it will be E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 7 of 83 signed appropriately as well. And this is a played down entry, because this is the entry into the office suites on the north side of the building and in the courtyard area we have a secondary entry as well and a number of entries that get you into the office space. So, the person leasing an office suite does not have to walk through the retail area, which adds congestion and creates a little bit of commotion. They would have their own -- their own series of entries. O'Brien: It's going to be bare concrete, then, on some of the walls without paint? Erstad: The way we are looking at -- these are all going to be colored, so the concrete panels will actually have a color treatment on them, and the tilt up concrete end wall, we are -- we know a number of people that make great tilt panels and they look fabulous when they are clean. I'm looking at Mr. Moe here whose company does a lot of that. We are looking at this as a raw concrete, clean and, you know, consistent in its color and finish. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? If I'm reading it correctly, the south elevation is the one that faces Overland? Erstad: The north elevation -- Siddoway: Oh, the north elevation. Erstad: -- actually faces Overland. Siddoway: Okay. Erstad: And the south elevation actually faces the storage. Siddoway: The storage units. Erstad: You really won't see this. Siddoway: Okay. Erstad: Although I think it's a fabulous elevation. It's adjacency is to the -- to the storage and this connection takes you down into the shipping and receiving. Siddoway: A couple follow-up questions. The landscape buffer along the -- your west boundary, it's not currently planted today; right? Erstad: It actually is currently planted and I think it meets the conditions of the original CUP. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 8 of 83 Siddoway: Would the turnaround that you're looking to add require removing trees? Erstad: I honestly can't answer that. We have tried to place it so it has absolute minimum impact on that location. So, if we need to shift it up or down a little to avoid a tree, we will commit to that certainly. Siddoway: Yeah. The sizes of the trees are they in the two to three caliper inch range that could still be moved -- Erstad: Yes. Siddoway: -- and relocated if needed? Erstad: Yeah. They are still relatively young trees. Siddoway: And your comment on the sewer, the condition to connect to the -- at the Hardin Drain, would you like to have that stated how again? Erstad: I'd like -- I'd like the word Hardin Drain replaced with along Stoddard Street. And if we could go to the overall -- kind of the zoning map that shows -- there. Perfect. Thank you. Right now you still don't see it -- our project location is right here. Our client actually controls all of this ground. So, the idea is that we would connect a sewer line along this property line, so we are not cutting into Overland. No one likes to cut into a brand new fresh pavement road. Come over and, then, bring the line down Stoddard and tie in -- there is a lift station right about down here and currently the -- the new sewer line is actually coming up and will tie into there. And we have worked closely with public -- with Public Works on this and this is the -- kind of the recommended solution that we have all come up with. So, we are not asking for something that is counter to -- counter to staff. I just -- in the report the Hardin Drain was identified quite awhile ago and since then we have had a lot of -- a lot of work together getting to Stoddard. Siddoway: Okay. Erstad: And I will just add one thing real quickly. We have also been talking with the ownership of this property and they are in agreement as well, because they would be connecting in that same location. So, there is an opportunity for more than just us to utilize that, I think, and the properties continuing down. Siddoway: And, then, one last question for clarification on the access. Could you go to the -- the site plan. The one with the -- go to the one with the turnaround, if you would. Thank you. So, this area is the grass creet. I'm actually wondering about this area, which looks like the same hatch pattern. Is that -- Erstad: That area is a -- is an Idaho Power utility easement. It's something that we don't have a whole lot of control over. And Idaho Power, if you can place yourself in this location, has a pretty significant high voltage power line that runs on our property as an 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 9 of 83 easement and comes all the way around and, then, angles back down. So, that location up there is really a requirement of Idaho Power as a utility in there. Siddoway: And is that marked as grass creet or is it just marked as an easement? Erstad: It's marked -- I want to confirm. Is that -- did we decide to try and do that grass creet up there? I think we will do grass creet up there. Siddoway: But the only access that -- one thing I was trying to figure out if that was proposing an access to Overland Road, but this is the only access to Overland Road. Erstad: This is the access. It meets all of the turning radiuses and requirements. This is a -- this is an Idaho Power access point and so when Idaho Power wants to go on it, they unlock the gate and go use it and when they don't want other people, the gate's closed and locked, so -- Siddoway: But you don't need to extend that -- this is landscaped in here; correct? Between this area and Overland Road? Erstad: The extension -- well, currently there is a gravel treatment up in that area and so we were just carrying it to the edge of the property. If it's a requirement, we can certainly extend it up. It goes into right of way and I think, then, we have to address that with the highway department. Siddoway: That's all. Thank you. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Erstad: Thank you. Rohm: Mark Gilbreath. From the audience he said he has no comment and had marked down that he is for the project on the sign-up sheet. Moe: Mr. Chairman, a question of Public Works in regards to the sewer. Is that lift station on Stoddard; is that, in fact, what you want to do? Steckline: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant has been working with Public Works on the sewer issue and he's correct and at this time staff feels comfortable removing that previous requirement. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Now is the time to come forward. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on MCU 07-004. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 10 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MCU 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Any discussion? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I support the use of the grass creet. I don't have any -- any problems with that. I would like to see any existing trees relocated, as opposed to removed. I have some concerns about the gravel out in this area and the requirements of the ordinance, the only -- a gravel shoulder would be allowed if there was no curb and gutter. Given that Overland Road's being improved right now, that shouldn't be necessary. So, the entire area between the property line and the curb should be fully landscaped, I believe, and I want to check with staff to make sure that that would be appropriate. But I would want to make that a condition of approval. I commend the applicant on the Leed certification. I'm familiar with that and think that is a very positive thing for the building. And let's see. I had questions about the sewer, but they have been answered by staff, so that's all I have at this time. Rohm: Thank you. So, do you need a response from staff on that -- on that gravel between on the Idaho Power Company easement? Is that what you're asking for? Siddoway: Yeah. That would be great. Amanda? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they do -- they have provided their full 25 on their own property. So, anything additional would be located within the right of way. So, as the applicant has stated, there would have to be not only a permit granted from ACHD to do any sort of improvements in the right of way, but I would imagine there would need to be some sort of agreement with Idaho Power what they would like to see put in as far as access, you know, gravel or if they would be okay with additional grass creet or anything like that. And that's entirely at your discretion if you wanted to include that in the staff report as well for them to look into that and have that improved. Siddoway: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I need some clarification. If it's in the right of way right here, then, all of this is also in the right of way. Hess: I'm sorry? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 11 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: I guess -- I'm not clear on -- we are just talking about this little strip of land right here, are we not? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, y foot landscape buffer here and so they are providing -- Newton-Huckabay: It's here now, isn't it -- it's just the side of the road. Hess: ACHD -- or ACHD is currently in the works of improving Overland. So, yes, it's just, you know pavement and whatever they have provided. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- but logic would skip this, and, then, start paving again. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know what the plan detailed plan for ACHD from there, but I would imagine you're probably correct. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I can let you know generally ACHD will do the radius for a driveway with just a curb and gutter. They won't pave the driveway into the site for someone, but they will do the radiuses for the curb. The pavement will continue on as a full street section. Basically, the curb line extended straight forward and, then, again, the radius for the driveway. The grass creet could tie into that. It may not look exactly like as shown on this plan, depending on where those radius are, but the applicant has stated -- you know, they are in the process now -- I haven't driven out there recently -- but of finishing that -- gutter and whatever is on the back side of that curb. You know, 25 feet the applicant will put in landscaping consistent with both city code and if a tree is required in there, they would need to get, you know, Idaho Power approval to put something within the 75 feet. But we will make sure that there is enough trees along that entire landscape buffer to meet code anyways. So, hopefully, that helps. There won't be a void in impervious surface that is unimproved with something other than asphalt or grass creet. There won't be any gravel. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, as a follow up on the same topic, the -- I'm reading from -- it's a little bit of alphabet soup, it's in the code. 11 -3 -B -7-C-5. And it talks about landscaping within right of way and it just states that if unimproved street right of way is ten feet or greater from the edge of pavement, that they maintain a gravel shoulder and landscape the remainder with lawn or vegetative ground cover. In this case, since it's an improved right of way, they wouldn't have to maintain the gravel shoulder. And, then, it does note that the landscaping improvements within the right of way shall require a license agreement between the property owner and the transportation authority, in this case ACHD. So, I would support landscaping the right of way up to the new curb as a condition of approval, with the understanding that it will require a license agreement with ACHD. All along that entire roadway? 0 9 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 12 of 83 Siddoway: Yes. Rohm: Wow. Okay. Siddoway: And it doesn't -- it just needs to be grass. It doesn't need to be -- what we want to avoid is a situation where you have curb, sidewalk, a bunch of weeds, dirt, and gravel and, then, the landscaping beyond that when you hit the actual property line. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you have something you wanted to add? Moe: No. Basically, those conditions are about what I was anticipating as well. Rohm: I don't have anything to add. Could we get a motion to move this project forward? Siddoway: I will try it. Mr. Chair -- I think we did close the hearing. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file number MCU 07-004 as presented during the hearing on July 19th, 2007, with the following modifications: To change the requirement for sewer to connect at the Hardin Drain, to read the sewer shall connect along Stoddard to the lift station. Public Works condition 2.1 is that one. Also to note that the turnaround for the fire department will be required using grass creet as depicted on the revised site plan presented at the hearing tonight. And that any trees that are in that location should be relocated within that same buffer, as opposed to removed from the site. To provide a letter of approval from the neighbor to the west for that change to the buffer prior to the hearing with City Council. Oh, wait, it doesn't go to City Council, it comes back here. So, I'd like to see that letter provided to staff prior to issuance of a CZC, a certificate of zoning compliance. And, then, to add a condition that the frontage along Overland needs to be landscaped with grass or other vegetative ground cover up to the curb -- the area between the property line and the curb -- the new curb for Overland must be landscaped as stated. End of motion. Moe: Second. Siddoway: Oh. And also I would further move to direct planning staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 2nd, 2007. End of motion. Moe: I will revise my second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 07-004, to include all staff comments and as revised by the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 13 of 83 Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007 AZ 07-009: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 22.67acres from R1 to C -G Zone for Queenland Acres by James Prather - SEC of South Stoddard Road and West Overland Road: Rohm: At this time we would like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21 st, 2007, the item AZ 07-009, related to Queenland Acres and begin with the staff report. Watters: Give me just one second here. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is an annexation and zoning request for the property located on the southeast comer of West Overland Road and South Stoddard Road. And the property consists of 22.67 acres and is currently zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada County. Here is an aerial of the site. The site consists of 12 rural residential lots in Queenland Acres Subdivision and 12 acres of an un -platted land. There are some existing homes and outbuildings on the property that will be removed upon development of the property. To the north are existing commercial properties. Mountain View Equipment, Boondocks, and a veterinary clinic, zoned C -G and C-2 in Ada County. To the east is commercial property where a Lowe's building is being built, zoned C -G. To the south are single family residences in Bear Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. And to the west are commercial storage units and vacant property zoned C -G. The applicant is requesting to annex and zone all of the subject property with a C -G, general retail and service commercial zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial, which complies with the proposed C -G zone. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan for this site. The concept plan shows one 125,000 square foot big box retail building located along the southwest portion of the site. Right here. And one 60,000 square foot building located along -- excuse me -- one 60,000 square foot building with three mid range box retail stores. The plan also shows two 6,000 square foot building pads located along Overland at the northeast comer of the site and one 10,000 square foot pad located at the northwest comer of the site. The site is proposed to contain approximately 207,000 square feet of commercial uses overall. The proposed retail uses are permitted in the C -G zone. Other uses are allowed in the C -G zone as listed in UDC table 11-2-B-2. The concept plan shows access to the site being provided from two full access points. Let's see. Right here and right here. And one right -in, right -out access point on Overland Road. And two full access points on Stoddard. A stub street, South Alaska Avenue, to this property exists and is shown here at the southeast boundary from Bear Creek Subdivision. Staff is requesting that this stub street be extended into the site as a nonpublic street and that local access only signs be installed near the stub street to discourage cut -through traffic. Off-street parking is shown on the plan and will be constructed upon development of the site. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for future buildings planned for this site. The first is an example of a big box retail building. This is of the Target store, I believe, over on Chinden and Eagle, specifically. The second is an example of a mid range box, attached retail buildings. And the third are examples of buildings proposed for the pads along Overland. All of the elevations that were submitted demonstrate an appearance of high quality materials and a mix of materials and colors. No landscaping improvements are required at this e Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 14 of 83 0 time, but a 25 -foot wide buffer will be required along Overland, a 20 foot wide buffer will be required along Stoddard, and a 25 -foot wide buffer to adjoining land uses will be required along the south property boundary upon development of the property. The buffer along the south boundary is required to contain a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and bushes that will result in a barrier that allows trees to touch at the time of maturity. Internal parking lot landscaping will also be required. Letters of testimony have been received on this application from the following people: Scott Anders. Aaron Neil. And the Bear Creek Homeowners Association. The Bear Creek Homeowners Association letter is accompanied by a petition signed by 236 people. The primary concerns noted are that a transition in zoning is not proposed between the medium low density residential uses and the property proposed to be zoned C -G. The noise created from businesses that are allowed in the C -G zone. The height and size of buildings allowed in the C -G zone, which will block residential views. And the minimal buffer required between land uses. Staff is requesting that a development agreement be required for this property to insure the property develops in a fashion that is consistent with the Comp Plan and does not negatively impact nearby property. Staff is including a provision that limits the types of businesses allowed along the southern portion of the property adjacent to the existing residences. A six foot tall solid fence is also required to be constructed along the portion of the south boundary where no fencing exists. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation and zoning request with the development agreement provisions noted in the staff report. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Prather: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and staff. James Prather, 707 East United Heritage Parkway, Suite 150, Meridian, Idaho. And along with me this evening is Scott Stanfield of Mason Stanfield, provisional engineers and surveyors. In getting started -- Sonya, if you could go back to the aerial photograph, please. The one that was before this. I think you have another aerial in there that was just a little more -- a little more vivid. Watters: That's all I have. Prather: Then roll it back one. That will be fine. Just to point out again, just for clarity, where this site is. This is Overland Road, of course, and, then, Stoddard. This would be the water park, of course. Veterinarian clinic. Western Electronics. The mini -- Freedom Storage. This was the application you heard just prior to this one. Then to the south is Bear Creek. And, then, this photograph doesn't show it, but Lowe's is being constructed right now on this property right here. And, then, concurrently Walgreens is being constructed here and, then, there is a bank of retail going in right at this point. This, of course, being the comer of Meridian and Jacksons and JB's. Sonya, I'm sorry, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 15 of 83 go back to the bubble plan and the site plan and we will pick it up from there. Originally in our submittal we submitted this bubble plan and this is really indicative of what you see here, but much more in generalities. Here is this particular box on this -- on this 12 acres. This is where the mid range box is. This is a 60,000 square foot box which consists of three 20,000 square feet. And this is where these two pads are located right here. And, then, on this one and a half acre is consisting of this pad. I would like to first point out this is a conceptual plan that we have. This is -- we are not running -- this is just for annexation and zoning, as you know. So, staff asked me to come back and try to give them at least two or three conceptual ideas of what we were going to do and we have boiled it down to this -- to this particular template here. However, I must tell you this is not exact, because, one, we do not have any tenants signed on now, obviously. We have a lot of interest in it, but we -- obviously, we are going through the platting, so there is not a particular tenant that we are tayloring this to. As well, this configuration is subject to change a little bit. We would really like to do this footprint, but it may -- I just want the Commission to know that this may change somewhat down the line. Now, as far as utilities being annexed into the city, as you know, Overland Road is being completely improved to a 96 footer by ACHD and that's going on as we speak. If you have gone through this neighborhood you have seen all of the construction happening. Also as well, not only with the 96 foot, they are also peeling up part of -- about 400 feet of Stoddard. Our utilities, basically, are already stubbed in. Our water lines -- three 12 inch water lines stubbed in, along with sewer, coming off of Overland Road and, then, as previously discussed in the other application, we are working with Public Works now in sewering this particular pad and this building down Stoddard into the lift station. Now, I just want to go over -- between Brighton -- this is the developer for Lowe's and myself, we have -- we have put this light in here at the quarter comer. We have moved — Brighton actually moved the water park entrance from here over to this point, that we could all utilize the light and Mr. Nicholson, the owner of the water park, was quite pleased with that, because if you have been in this area in the summertime, this is a very difficult place to get in and out of, because it doesn't have a light. That will certainly take care of that problem. Now, as you're heading west -- this our first full access that was noted earlier by staff. Our second access, which completely line up with Lowe's across the street, and, then, this right -in, right -out, along with full accesses here on Stoddard Road and, again, at the southerly part of the property. These are full accesses. Now, internally we have worked with staff and along with ACHD what you see here we will not change. This is where the full access -- the northerly access will go, that we can have connectivity right along here, in front of these boxes, which will completely line up with Lowe's, and then -- it's not on this picture, but if you wanted to, you could go from Stoddard to Meridian by coming in front of Lowe's, kind of making a little turn and, then, down and, then, out on Meridian to go south. If not, we'd come down here, just line up with the light, and out. Now, one of the -- I believe that some of the neighbors down here to the south demonstrated pretty strongly at my neighborhood meeting, is their concerns about this stub street right here. This is -- the stub street is called Alaska -- I think Alaska Street. Between ACHD and myself and public -- or with staff, we have worked diligently to try to solve this issue and I believe we have done so. I agree with staff, as a condition of this permit, that we -- we would make this a circuitous type of drive path that would come right down here and, then, right out and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 16 of 83 either to Blue Marlin or back down this drive aisle or this drive aisle to the signal. That's what we have agreed upon. The only issue -- and I'd like to mention it for the record. The only issue I have with this is to -- all these folks that are in Bear Creek that are going to use this -- there is two speeds of travel through this -- that Bear Creek will use here, whether it's Bear Creek or anyone else. There is two speeds that people will travel. One, a speed that if they are coming in from Bear Creek to utilize this, any of the shopping here, that will be one speed. The second speed will be if they are just coming through here to get to this signal. That will be a different speed. And that's what I personally am concerned with. It's not the first one, it's the second speed. So, I'd like to just note for the record of my concern on that. However, as a -- as what we need to -- to approve this application, I will agree with Public Works and staff and ACHD on this particular issue. Now, concerning zoning -- and I believe the neighborhood also voiced this at my neighborhood meeting -- is the intensity of the zoning on this southerly part, roughly right back here, that would affect these property owners. What we have done with staff in securing C -G zoning is to agree that these uses down here be restricted. I think as an example one would be drycleaners, gas stations, landscape type of designers like you see here. Sonya, there is a few others. Watters: Fuel station facilities. Prather: I think car wash. The more intensive uses we have agreed not to permit in here and the difference between -- and staff should probably -- is more qualified to go through this than I am, but as part of the C -G zoning, most of the things that are permitted in this zoning are permitted in the C -N zoning that would be the zoning right undemeath C -G. And with these exceptions out, we are trying to make sure these property owners here are comfortable with the fact that this is what we are going to be doing, not some more intensive use slip back in down here. Now, as far as the back of the property is concerned about landscaping, I'd like Scott Stanfield to address these issues. We are going to be talking about elevations, we are going to be talking about landscape, and any other questions the staff might -- or the Commission might have on this. Scott. Sonya, can you put up -- can you put up the slides that show the cross- section? Yes. Stanfield: Good Evening. Scott Stanfield, 314 Badiola in Caldwell, Idaho. Mason Stanfield Engineers, the Project Engineer on this project. What you see before you is an example of an elevation cross-section on the southerly half. I think the immediate concern just driving out there, just getting on the off -ramp off of Meridian Road is seeing the big wall that Lowe's has up and, then, putting yourself in the rear yards of Bear Creek Subdivision to the south of Lowe's. Lowe's finished floor is quite a bit higher than what we need to be. Lowe's finished floor was established by the Kennedy Lateral, which coursed -- used to course through the middle of their large pad. The ground dropped rather quickly to the south and to the west from the Kennedy Lateral. Kennedy Lateral had to be relocated to the south on Bear Creek's north boundary and, then, to the west -- or to the west of Lowe's or to the east of this subject parcel. That required an inordinate amount of fill to fill that comer and provide cover over the lateral, which raised the finished floor three to six feet above the natural ground at the low sight. If r: Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 17 of 83 you have been out there, Kennedy Lateral doesn't course through this site, so we don't have any reason to raise the finished floor up that high above the ground, nor do we want to, because that's a lot of money in fill materials. So, we are going to keep the finished floor reasonably close to natural ground -- a little bit higher for drainage. But these cross sections represent a five, five and a half foot high height from the northerly neighbors to the south, the northerly portion of Bear Creek looking to the north at the rear of the building and you can see -- you can't really read from it here, but there is various growth rates and tree foliages on both the coniferous to the right and the deciduous to the left and I believe staff wants a mix of plant types. So, at two and a half years you can see its maturity growth there is kind of in the middle and, then, at full growth you can see that it covers the building both in the cross-section and the elevation views to the bottom right of that slide. The idea there is to match the existing ground as much as we can, keep the top of the buildings down low and covered up with foliage. One thing you do not see there, but we have proposed in an elevation view of the Target photos -- thank you, Sonya. Is that right there. That is what we -- we don't really show on the plan view site view now, but we would be willing to entertain that idea, if it pleased the Commission. That is the rear elevation of the target on Chinden and Eagle Road, I do believe, and they have a landscape -- the upper left-hand comer slide, they have a buffer to the left, a tree -lined buffer, and that is a residential boundary. Then, they have a landscape strip and, then, the drive aisle and, then, another grassed area with trees along the rear of the building. It makes a big difference in noises and glare and sound. Our only difference is I believe they are bermed quite a bit more than what we would afford to do, but the end result is the same, two landscape buffers split by a drive aisle and that also really limits the users on what they can do in the rear of those buildings and should help mitigate some of the concerns the neighbors have. So, that's kind of our ideas on the treatment. Again, I know you guys have probably seen the Lowe's going up and the neighbors have seen the Lowe's going up and the topography just won't dictate that in this case. There will be a drive aisle transition between the two users in the front northwest comer of Lowe's coming out of their northwest comer and we will have to ramp down to this site and either put a short retaining wall along the landscape buffer or just transition in a three to one down to our site, but, again, there is no reason for us to raise our site up that high and it would be silly to do so. So, with that I'll stand for any questions, unless James has some other items. O'Brien: I have a question for Mr. Prather. Can I have that overhead view, Sonya that shows the whole section? You mentioned that access from the back -- or, I'm sorry, from right here through Lowe's and, then, in front of Lowe's over to -- over to Meridian Road? Prather: That is correct, Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, is there going to be a ramp or another road built behind those section of stores where Walgreens is that's going to access Meridian Road? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 18 of 83 Prather: We don't see it on this map, Commissioner, but what it does is it comes down in front of Lowe's and, then, at their property line here it drops to the north. It doesn't go all the way to Overland, but there is a cross-over easement there just about lining up to where Walgreen's back door is and, then, it -- from there you can access any of this -- the shops that will be going in here or come down to this point and slip out a right -in, right -out and go south. O'Brien: So, this road is going to be extended, then? Prather: Correct. Drive aisle. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. There is quite a drop off. I just wondered. Prather: You know, we carved -- I have not done this. Brighton, the developer, has carved that down some, but there is a drop off. Correct. O'Brien: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Prather: One other thing I wanted just to put in -- I agree and concur with staffs findings. There is -- only with one exception and that comes underneath the sub title of development agreement, page 11 of the staff report, I think it's bullet number six, which, basically, reads that there will be a minimum of five -- five building sites, just like we have here, and, then, a 15 percent over or under on the sides of the buildings. I would like to -- I'm trying to agree with this, but the more I review it and the more the engineers review it, we are finding that that's going to be a very tough one. That's not very flexible for us. We may have less, we may have more, we may have three and we may have seven, we may end up with five. But right at the moment we don't know what the market is doing, we don't know what tenants -- if I knew exactly that -- what tenant this was -- was going in this particular site, I could tell you exactly the square footage and we would be done with it. But I'd like that one to be stricken from the -- from the requirements for those reasons. I'll stand for questions, Scott and I. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Prather, I have a concern -- and it has nothing to do with, I guess, per se, this -- the intent here, but they are improving Overland Road and they have improved the intersection Meridian and Overland, with the exception of one -- one drawback and, unfortunately, there wasn't enough space to take care of it and that is a right-hand tum lane coming from the freeway to have access to these buildings and it's only a two lane forward with no right tum lane at the -- I guess the gas station at the corner of that to make a right tum and congestion there is going to -- you're going to be backed up to the freeway off ramps and also going over the overpass to access these buildings and I'm concerned about -- about that alone, the increase in traffic flow that these -- this is going to create outside of the number of homes that are already over there with the number of trips that are already going on. So, any study been done on that or has Ada County Highway District discussed that? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 19 of 83 0 Prather: Commissioner O'Brien, I'm sure they have in their design -- at least I'm -- I may be speaking out of turn, but I'm sure ACHD in their design of that road took that all into account. I cannot testify to that, but I would assume so. What you see now, I'm assuming you have traveled this road. When you go down right now there is -- I believe there is -- the way you see it striped is not the way this is going to finish. I think we are going to have either two tum lanes to the left -- one tum lane to the left, rather, and, then, two forward and, then, one lane to the right. O'Brien: Oh, is that right? Prather: It's not striped the way that -- O'Brien: Oh, I thought it was already striped, they just have it barricaded, because the lights were in. Prather: It is striped now, but it's not the final striping when they get -- O'Brien: I was concerned about that, because that didn't show any right tum lane. Prather: I understand that. That's my way home as well. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. Prather: That's why I'm so familiar with it. O'Brien: All right. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. Jim Kouril. Before you start, are you speaking for a larger group of people? Kouril: Yes, sir, I am. Rohm: Could I get a show of hands from the audience for those to whom this gentleman is speaking? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He's speaking for them. Is that what -- Rohm: That's -- that's what I asked. The reason for that is that you're afforded a longer period of time to speak than if you were just speaking for yourself, so -- Kouril: Thank you. Go to the bottom left, the little thing that looks like a -- Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you. Staff and Sonya, thank you. We will try and work through it. As we -- Rohm: Could you -- E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 20 of 83 Kouril: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. Rohm: -- state your name and address. 0 Kouril: Jim Kouril. K -o -u -r -i -I. My address is 374 West Davenport Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. As we spoke about earlier, I represent 236 signatures on a petition that you have all been provided in your handout. The petition were signed members, residents, in the Bear Creek Subdivision and Strada Bellissima Subdivision and the signatures were presented on the petition because, like myself, these are all people concerned with the possible zoning changes in and around our neighborhood. We believe it will affect our home values, there will be increased traffic, which has already been discussed earlier. It will affect our quality of life. A little bit of background of Bear Creek. Bear Creek is a planned community. There are 354 homes there and the homes range from 300,000 to roughly 900,000 dollars. We have pedestrian walkways and we have the nice park that the city has provided. We have lighted streets, lighted walkways, planted medians. We have separate entrances that have plantings and we also have street trees. Strada Bellissima is a newer community. There are currently 64 -- approximately 64 homes in that area. Values ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 dollars. They have lighted streets and walkways. They also have plantings. The unique thing about that neighborhood is they have a tot playground area that the neighborhood has provided. It has been discussed earlier, the Queensland development and I'll just give it to you from my perspective or the neighborhood's perspective -- that the C -G zone would allow the developer to place 200,000 square foot buildings in the development, with 65 foot walls. Only a 25 foot buffer adjacent to the property, the neighborhoods. It is adjacent to a low to medium residential neighborhood, which is very unique in the City of Meridian. The impacts are visual, noise, traffic, and there is no transitional zoning. The issues I'd like to cover are the land use and zoning, traffic access, the values of our homes, visual pollution and noise pollution. Land use zoning -- the current land use has been shown as an R-1 and it is proposed that it be a C -G commercial zoning. And, again, we are talking large buildings, big box stores, 200,000 square foot buildings, with large walls and a minimal buffer. There has been no consideration of the -- Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, page 106, which states: Redevelopment of this type of area is to be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and the transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. No transitional zoning has been proposed as a buffer between the low to medium density residential neighborhood and the commercial zone. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, page 109, Goal One, Action Six, identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow uses such as office and other low intensity uses. The issue on the land use again is the transitional zone and in that example I have highlighted some of the transitional zonings in the area, but it is not shown with the Queensland proposal. It is too intense of zoning adjacent to a low and medium residential neighborhood. Some examples of transitional zonings. The one on the left-hand side -- or, pardon me, my right, that is around the area of Strada Bellissima, that subdivision. This location here is the Schuck's store, which is on Calderwood and Meridian Road, which these transitional zonings -- this particular one 11 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 21 of 83 protects the residents of Meridian Greens. This type of transitional zoning protects the south side of the residents of the Strada Bellissima. We are asking that you judiciously apply the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan guidance on redevelopment. Carefully considering the intensity of the existing use. The underlying zoning, the surrounding land use, the location of the property and transportation issues in the decision making process on the land use for this development. In consideration of this guidance and the adjacent land use, permit only commercial N or lower zoning. Again, the city's own action item requires that transitional zones be established as buffers between commercial and residential uses. Vehicular traffic from a C -G zone -- Mr. Prather discussed it earlier and we have both actually talked outside of this meeting about it. However, Alaska Way will serve no purpose. It is not a through street, it is still a stub street. Traffic dumped into the parking lot -- and you saw from the example given earlier, there is no clear route. There are safety issues with people zipping through the parking lot and maybe trying to beat a light or to beat traffic. Mr. Prather and a representative from Lowe's or Brighton corporation has told me or reported earlier that they don't want the stub road. Through traffic invites traffic into Bear Creek and it promotes -- it can promote crime. I don't think posting a simple sign that says local traffic only will suffice. It's technically not a street legal sign, like a stop sign. The stub street location, Alaska Way, sits right about here. Again, there is no direct route. Unsafe driving conditions. It's a very poor design. And if you were to sit down and actually count the homes in this area that would -- are the closest to the stub street, you'd count about 40 homes. So, if it does continue all the way through, it's only going to benefit about 40 residents. Again, in consideration of the city's Comprehensive Plan, we ask that you permit only the N zoning or a lower rezoning. We are asking that you support Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima in keeping traffic out of our low to medium density residential neighborhoods, especially on a road that has no purpose. And we ask that you send this message also to the Ada County Highway District. Home values -- Bear Creek residents have sizeable investments in their property. We pay taxes like everyone else, but we have a nice neighborhood and we have nice homes and pay a slightly higher tax. Increased traffic and noise and visual pollution related to the commercial zone will negatively impact the values of our homes. And to maintain the property values we are asking that you deny the C -G commercial zoning. Again -- and I'm going to keep harping on this, because it is -- we all talk about, you know, guidance that the City Council has provided and, again, the Comprehensive Plan is to have a commercial N or lower rezoning to protect our property values and adjacent residential developments. Also, with commercial -- and we have all been to some of the large commercial projects around. You have increased noise. Increased noise is not compatible with a low to medium density residential neighborhood. There is noise from delivery trucks, loud speakers, back-up alarms, drive-thru facilities. And one other noise that wasn't mentioned up there is noise from increased traffic going to these -- these commercial projects, these box stores. Again, we are asking -- a solution to that is a commercial N or a lower rezoning. Visual pollution. This example is the Lowe's example. This is a C -G zone. There is no transitional zoning. It is not compatible with the low to medium density neighborhood. The high walls of the building block views. They shade the property. Lighting outside 24-7 will create visual pollution. A minimal 25 foot buffer is not adequate to screen the developments, residences, from projects F1 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 22 of 83 like this. Again, this is another view of that same project. There is no adequate visual barrier. The walls are towering. It's visually ugly and distasteful. And there is no consideration of the homeowners adjacent to the low to medium residential. But I would like to add that last Thursday I did meet with a representative from Brighton Corporation. He came out to my house and he looked at that and literally apologized to me for what has occurred. I am working with them hand in hand to have them erect an eight foot decorative concrete wall, along with plantings, that will help protect the view. Go to the next one, please. Thanks, Sonya. I guess I see a little bit of humor in this, because I have the same picture as it seems like everybody else, because this is an excellent example, if a C -G zone is allowed, of what residents would like to see. It should be noted, though, in this example that I'm providing and was provided to you earlier, is this more than a 25 foot buffer and I would ask that you take that into consideration if you do approve it and you do like this type of a plan. Some other examples -- and this is what we get to look at right now and you can see that the elevation of Lowe's has been raised. The big issue with this is that the landscape plan that was originally submitted was not an accurate plan. The landscape designer said that the plan was -- had an existing six foot wood fence, but as you can see there is no existing six foot wood fence there. However, this got raised five feet and it becomes an eye sore now. This is an example of over near Wal-Mart of what the residents of Bear Creek would suggest seeing if it is a C -G zone. The barrier is raised up. There is a nice block wall, not a wooden fence, because we all know that the block's going to stop the sound a lot better than a wooden fence. Again, in your Comprehensive Plan we ask that you permit only a commercial N zone or lower to prevent the visual eye sores that can be caused by a C -G zone. Employ Goal One, Action Item Six of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and provide transitional zoning between commercial and residential zones. Don't allow another big box and be considerate of the Meridian taxpayers and residents. Now, the big box issue I would like to add that Mr. Prather did stand up here and state that that was a conceptual drawing that we were provided. He could change it. Well, I joked with him on the side and said how do we know you're not going to have a large Wal-Mart and a large Sam's Club sitting there and he told he wouldn't do that to us and I believe his word. However, I have to watch out for my neighborhood and our investments and we don't want to see a large box store there. In summary, allow the rezone only to be a commercial N. There is nothing that says you have to allow this C -G zone. Granted, that area is commercial, but there are different levels of commercial. We are asking that you not jump from a residential R-1 all the way to a highest commercial. If anything, we are asking that you just take a small step and go to the lowest commercial, the neighborhood friendly zone. We ask that you give careful and informed consideration to this issue that's been presented to you tonight and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Kouril, I only have one question. This property is shown on the Comprehensive Plan future land use as commercial. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 23 of 83 Kouril: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: But you're saying it's not commercial. Kouril: No. I apologize if you misunderstood. What I'm saying is that it is correct that it is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as commercial -- commercial zoning. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not say it has to be a commercial C -G zone. What we are proposing is that it does stay commercial, but it be a commercial N zone, which is the neighborhood friendly business type of zoning. Newton-Huckabay: I understand. Kouril: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of this individual? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Kouril: Thank you. Rohm: Scott Stanfield. Oh, you have already testified. Is there anyone else -- there is nobody else that has signed up to testify, but if there is anyone else that would like to testify that has something other than what Mr. Kouril brought up, please, come forward and you will be heard. There is nobody else that's come forward. By the way, that was a well put together presentation and well appreciated. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to the testimony? Stanfield: Scott Stanfield once again. Just a couple items real quick. Newton- Huckabay, she made a comment about it being on the Comprehensive Plan as commercial. And Mr. Kouril is correct, too, there are various levels of commercial. That's why we would agree to Sonya's recommendation in the development agreement to limit the southerly portions of this to a C -N type designation and that is clearly spelled out in the proposed conditions for the development agreement. So, I believe that addresses the concern. Mr. Kouril even indicated he would like to see a C -N type designation. We don't want to do it blanket, but, again, the south half we think provides that new transition and that could be done, again, through a proposed development agreement. The buffer strip, we never proposed a 25 foot buffer strip. Even the current site plan shows something in the order of -- can't read it, but I think it's the mid 50s. To do the dual buffer strip I believe we would need to make that closer to 60 feet. So, we would agree to continue to work with Sonya on providing that dual buffer, because it's in the best interest of everybody. We are not associated with Lowe's. This is a completely 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 24 of 83 different project. We don't have the same conditions that Lowe's has. But, again, the topography and the constraints that Lowe's had -- a completely different product. So, we don't want to get lumped into what -- with what Lowe's is doing. The noise was mentioned again. I think the dual buffer with the mix of trees will help mitigate that concern. Again, visually we are not doing what Lowe's is doing, providing upwards of the 60 feet and we will agree to that condition to that dual buffer. Surrounding land use. We have C -G on pretty much three sides, so we feel with the development agreement restrictions to C -N to the southerly half, transitioning to a C -G to the north really is a good transitional use. And with that I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: I guess my first question is because the previous testimony included a number of pictures of the Lowe's that's under construction, can you give us some sort of a feel for the difference between the total elevation of your proposal, as compared to what was depicted in the Lowe's building? Stanfield: In Lowe's? Yes, sir, Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission. That ground on Lowe's is -- was, again, filled three to five feet above the natural ground. We are going to be substantially closer to natural ground. So, the Lowe's finished floor - - Mr. Kouril showed a good -- a good view that you can see from their backyard where you're pretty much looking at that finished floor. You're level with the finished floor. That will not happen at our site. We will be more indicative of what you see on the two slides and the top left and top right, because of the natural terrain. And Lowe's -- you don't see it in the pictures, but they have a 25 foot landscape buffer. It's not built yet. And, then, they have a drive aisle and they don't have a provision for the dual buffer and we had agreed to the dual buffer on our rear elevation. Rohm: Is the height of that southerly wall, as far as from ground level to the top, is it -- is it shorter than the Lowe's building? Stanfield: The wall height? Rohm: The wall height. Stanfield: It's kind of hard to predict on our site, because we don't know what the user would be and we realize the C -G and I think even a C -N zone allows a 65 foot wall. This is a six foot story building and we are not proposing that. Rohm: You're not proposing a six story building. Stanfield: No. And I think Lowe's wall height is somewhere around less than 30 or -- plus or minus 30. So, you take the Lowe's height and you drop it three to five, maybe six feet and, then, you're indicative of our potential top elevation. Rohm: Okay. E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 25 of 83 • Stanfield: Each user has their own treatment that they do on the buildings. Some -- some buildings will have a parapet wall, a false wall along the top to hide their HVAC system, some will leave that exposed. So, that comes into play with the fixed wall height as well. But, again, we are sitting down quite a bit lower. Rohm: Last question. That dual buffer that you depicted in your presentation, are the trees that will be planted adjacent to the building itself are -- is the caliper of those trees going to be one to two inches or are you planning on putting in some larger trees to -- up front or -- Stanfield: We haven't gotten that far yet. I think that the UDC and the landscape ordinance specifies a minimum caliper two inch. Perhaps James could be more specific. Rohm: Okay. Prather: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, James Prather. On that particular issue I'm a big landscape proponent and it would probably be the equivalent of 36 inch box trees, depending on whether they are deciduous or whether they are evergreens. But they will probably be in the neighborhood of three or four, if we can get them in there and keep them alive. Rohm: All right. Thank you very much. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have got a couple of questions. You spoke of -- in regard to the C -N zoning in regard that you guys had planned to be looking at -- Sonya, could you go to the site plan, please? First I'm going to ask you a question, Sonya. In regard to the report -- I guess I haven't read through this. In regard to the C -N, is there conditions that the southern portion would be -- would be built into the C -N zoning? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, actually, staff recommended the C -G zone for all of the property. However, staff did compare the uses allowed in the C -N versus the C -G zones. Fuel facilities -- they are virtually -- very close to the same uses. Fuel facilities are conditional uses in the C -N zone and permitted in the C -G. Building material, garden equipment and supply stores, such as Lowe's, are conditional in the C -N and permitted in the C -G. Vehicle washing facilities are conditional use in the C -N and permitted in the C -G zone. Those are really about the only differences. Also, the C -N zone, buildings over 7,500 square feet require design approval. Moe: That's kind of where I'm going with this, is -- is based on your conditions here in regard to the comments that he made he wanted to get stricken from the -- from the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 26 of 83 report itself, at the present time you're looking for a minimum of five buildings on this site and whatnot, if we are going to stay to this condition, it would -- it would behoove to stay at the C -G. I mean if you're going to go a C -N, you're going to anticipate a few more buildings in there, simply because of the square footage that you got to deal with. So, I guess what I'm saying that I would find it hard to believe that you're going to have a big box building right there on the south end that would be a C -N type building. I would be curious to see what that might be. But anyway -- Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. Retail is allowed in both zones. You know, staffs conditions basically, you know, support the C -G zone, but reflect the conditions as in a C -N zone. Moe: Thank you. She answered my question there, so you're okay. Stanfield: That was an easy one. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant at this time? Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple, Mr. Chair. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: The first one -- I mean the concern of where we would want to put loading dock facilities -- you know, you have indicated that your preference is not to stick two -- not to be committed to this layout design and with some conditions I would possibly be okay with that, like, for example, if you were to exceed this bullet point, the 15 percent shift, then, maybe it kicks into a conditional use or something, but we will discuss that in a minute. I prefer not to see loading docks on the back of the buildings. On the southern piece of it. Are you looking at possibly putting them on the sides, such as they have done with Target? I think that was the big -- Prather: Certainly, Commissioner. Sonya, go back to the slides of the Target in the back. Newton-Huckabay: Right. And the middle one you can see where there was -- Prather: Can you go to the other set? It will show it a little more clearly. Here you can see -- we are actually looking south. This is how -- now I'm not saying we are building a Target, I'm just saying this is how we are doing it. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Prather: If this is their loading, they load from -- from the north going south. It is not in view of any of the back. So, what you see on the back of Target is what you see right here. You just see the trees. They have only outside of maybe an emergency door, E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 27 of 83 E that's all the business that they do on the backside of this and that's what we are agreeing to. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Prather: And staff has put as well in here -- and it was mentioned earlier, that there will be a design review on every building over 7,500 feet. So, they have plenty of coverage over us and what we do. Now, going back to the site plan, Sonya, just for a second. That -- the loading would probably come right in here, because that's how we could bring trucks in loaded. Now, these buildings are a little more complicated, especially because of this stub road. These will have to be loaded from the back, if it is built in this manner, where there are mid range boxes. They can load from the -- they can load from the side. I know they are roughly about 100 feet wide here. They can load from the side and still be out of view. The only thing we would have to work out is if this road does go through the traffic that will be in here. Newton-Huckabay: My largest concern would come with a larger retail, because you're going to be getting a lot more -- Prather: They will load for the side. Newton-Huckabay: -- a lot more semi traffic and that's the same with stocking it and whatnot. Prather: It will load from here. Newton-Huckabay: And I may have just completely missed this, but is there a block wall along the south? Prather: There is not. There is a five foot solid vinyl fence currently. Newton-Huckabay: Can there be a block wall? Prather: Well, in the staff report -- forgive me. It's four feet. The vinyl fence is four feet, as Jim noted. In the staff report we agreed to putting in a six foot concrete wall along this southerly border. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Prather: Now, how that actually comes about, they have a fence there now. We would have to put a parallel fence in and it won't be -- as Scott mentioned earlier, this won't be bermed in the back, because there is no -- there is no reason to berm it. If we were to berm, then, we are only going to berm up to the property line and putting a concrete wall down just half a berm really doesn't hold. Which we, actually, don't really need to. So, we were agreeable to that. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 28 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. I just want to clarify one point that Mr. Prather just mentioned. Staff did request in the development agreement that the applicant construct a six foot tall solid fence where none currently exists along the southern boundary of the site. We did not discuss -- or I did not require a concrete block wall, as the staff report sits right now. Newton-Huckabay: It would be my preference to see a concrete block wall. Whenever we have done it in other places in the city I think it adds that finish to -- to a development and -- Prather: Commissioner, we concur. Newton-Huckabay: I'm okay with the C -N zoning. You're kind of limited by gas stations and mortuaries and I don't think you're going to want to put either one in there. Siddoway: Just for clarification, though, they are not being -- you're not being restricted to C -N zoning, just the uses are being restricted. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm song. Sorry. Sony. Sony. Siddoway: Because C -N zoning comes with several other setback requirements and building size requirements that they wouldn't be held to as currently written. Watters: And, excuse me, Commissioners, Chairman, if I could just add one more point to that. That's only for the buildings proposed south of that northern access point on Stoddard. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: The pads along Overland would be allowed to develop according to the C -G district. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Watters: Per the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: So, we would exclude the uses on the southern portion that are not -- that are in the C -G zone that are not in the C -N zone, but not apply the design standards. Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, design standards are required for all buildings in this development as a condition of the development agreement. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 29 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Then I don't know if this is a question for you, but I have to chime in that I don't really get the whole Alaska Street myself. You have one, two, three, four, five, six accesses into this piece of property, if you don't include the cross -accesses over to Lowe's, and I just don't -- I would be in support -- I mean maybe an emergency access with things -- the Fire Department can unlock, but I would concur that the Alaska Street is really not -- Stanfield: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I agree and my client agrees. He's stuck in the middle between what the neighbors don't want and what ACHD and the city staff wants. That's why we kind of made that circuitous, we did not want a direct route. The direct route is going to cause more problems. But our preference would be, really, to block that off and just have it pedestrian or as you indicated we could put a pedestrian, widen with grass creet, and put bollards there for emergency. I think that would really be our preference, because we do have so many access points and we have an ingress -egress with Lowe's and I believe even Lowe's has an ingress -egress to the east with the Walgreen's. So, there is a lot of ingress -egress points and that's really not needed, in my opinion, from an engineering standpoint. But it's up to you folks and ACHD. Newton-Huckabay: All right. So, we will talk about that. Thanks. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Siddoway: I have one. There is a proposed condition in -- for the development agreement that says that you must construct a multi -use pathway through the project. I'm wondering if you have provided for that in this concept or if you have given that thought at this point. Prather: Do you want to comment on that, Sonya? Watters: I can. Prather: We have, Commissioner. Stanfield: Not on this site plan, but -- Prather: It doesn't show here, but according to the staff report they also put it in there that it would come in on -- it will come through whether it is a crash gate here or not, it will come through and either come up straight to Overland Road this way or come back through here and, then, go up back exactly -- and the planter is right here, the ten foot wide multi -pathway to get to Overland Road. Siddoway: So, you can comply with that condition, then? Prather: I can. 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 30 of 83 Siddoway: The photos that we have seen of the landscape buffer near Target is the -- has the -- the buffer, the access drive, and followed by other additional landscaping up against the building. On the site plan it appears that you have the landscape buffer strip at 25 feet or 20 feet -- is it 20 feet, Sonya? Watters: Twenty-five. Siddoway: Twenty-five. Twenty-five feet. Then, your access road. And, then, it looks like just the wall of the building. Could you comment on that and whether you can accommodate the additional landscaping on the other side of that access drive? Prather: Commissioner, this -- from the back property, back to where you can just basically see the wall in the back here, from this point to this point is exactly 60 feet. We have no problem extending -- I think this site plan showed it at 54. There is no problem with extending that to 60 to do exactly what you see here. And that's what we intend to do anyway. Siddoway: Okay. Prather: Basically a double -- a double landscape. Siddoway: You mentioned that you're amenable to the addition of the concrete block wall? Prather: Yes, Commissioner. Siddoway: And I support that. My only concern is that I have just seen problems in the past where you have got two fences or a fence and a wall that abut one another and the stuff that goes on in between those and I'm just wondering -- I don't know if the -- if we can -- this may be a question for the homeowners, but I don't know if we can get the homeowners association to agree to replace the fence with the wall, so that the fence can -- the homeowners fences can abut that wall. Prather: Well, they will be -- I mean that -- you're correct, Commissioner Siddoway, it will cause maintenance problems, it will cause a lot of things. But the homeowners representative Jim just mentioned that he believes the homeowners association would agree to take down or have us take down that back southerly wall and, then, replace it, and, then, but it up to each one of their walls coming out. And I think that's a good idea, because that just -- that right away takes care of that future problem. Siddoway: I would be more comfortable with that. And, then, a question for staff. One of the bullets says -- for the development agreement that the internal building shall not be subject to the eight foot pedestrian walkway requirement to the perimeter sidewalk. Can you clarify what that is? i Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 31 of 83 Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, the internal pedestrian sidewalk requirement is taken from the design standards. It's a pathway from like say along Overland Road to the entrance of the building. So, basically, saying these southern building lots wouldn't have to extend a pathway clear from their front, you know, building entrance clear to Overland Road. Siddoway: And one last one and, then, I will let you take over. There is a bullet -- if you could go to the site plan. It says that the pad -- the building pad proposed at the comer of Stoddard and Overland should be situated so that the parking is evenly dispersed as shown on the concept plan. I'm just wondering if they chose to move the pad closer similar to these, I wouldn't find that offensive. I'm just wondering what the thought was to require the parking to wrap all the way around. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, I would not find that offensive either. The point behind that was that, again, with the design standards, no more than 70 percent of the parking should be located between the front of the building and the street, so that was the point, just trying to restrict it from having a sea of parking in front of it. Siddoway: Okay. Watters: Staff would also like the building to be brought up closer to the street. Siddoway: So, if they chose to bring the building up to the street, they would not be in violation of that condition. Watters: It should probably be reworded. Siddoway: That's all I have at this time. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Sonya, can you go back to the berm? So, that fence on the upper right, is that sitting on top of the berm or is that down -- is the berm kind of curved? And if that's the case, will the fence -- the new fence is built on top of the berm, which, in effect, elevates the height. Newton-Huckabay: There will be no berm. O'Brien: Be no berm? Prather: Commissioner O'Brien, there will be no berm. We would -- we would put the fence -- block wall right at the property line where it is now and, then, just transition right into that. ® 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 32 of 83 O'Brien: Thank you. I just wanted that clarified. Thank you very much. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much. Prather: Thank you. Rohm: Any last discussion before we close the Public Hearing? Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-009. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-009. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, before we attempt a motion, I'd like one point of discussion, and that's on the extension of -- is it Alaska Way? Street. I, actually, would support the connection. I don't think it's going to encourage cut -through traffic. I think it will just serve the residents of that subdivision to be able to access it without having to go out to the street and around. It's not a deal killer anyway for me -- either way for me, because I don't think that it puts a lot of traffic out onto Stoddard, but I don't have the concern that it will have a lot of cut through. I think that it will be easiest to go by the residents of that subdivision that want to access the stores there and return home. Just a thought. I don't know if there is any additional thoughts. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just would like to -- I think given, one, that it gives a pretty direct route to Boondocks and Roaring Springs and you can pretty quickly get to a stop light. I just think that you're going to encourage a lot of -- a lot of traffic to go -- because it's going to make it easy to get into the water park and the Boondocks area and -- Siddoway: But just for this subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: You know, with only one teenager per car these days there is going to be, you know, three times the cars going through, and I think if it were a walkway, with the bollards, to encourage possibly more foot traffic through Bear Creek and -- I just -- it just doesn't -- that Target that we have been taking about has the very same thing and I -- I know, I, myself, personally have used that cut -through to get out onto -- driving off of Eagle Road into the Target parking lot, behind Target, up to Alaska Way, • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 33 of 83 through Mahogany Park and back out onto McMillan driving my kid over to school at Centennial High School, because traffic gets so bad. And I'm in good company. I mean that's how -- I mean people want to get somewhere fast and you find ways to do it and I think that streets like Alaska Way, although they have all the good intentions, for those four years, so people that live around it, I just don't think that there -- I don't think they meet the spirit of what -- the person who says you will have this road intended. And I very strongly, if I were living there, would feel exactly as the neighbors of Bear Creek do. If you give me a walkway, that would be great. It would be wonderful if those 40 people would walk over, because I suspect they will use these stores and you can walk over there and get what you need and at the end of the day we have reduced traffic all the way around. And I just -- I can't -- you can argue until you're blue in the face with me, but I think that that is -- there is just no need. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your input. Before we move forward, I would like to get staffs response to that, if, in fact, you have a specific reason why you want to see that or if it's just because there was a cross -access requirement out of the subdivision to that property when the previous subdivision was developed or is there a compelling reason that the city would like to see that road extended. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, it's the city's goal and ACHD's goal to provide stub streets to adjacent development for interconnectivity to reduce the traffic on the adjacent, you know, arterial roadways and, you know, this stub street was planned with the Bear Creek to -- in the future connect to this property and there has been a sign on the stub street saying that it would be extended in the future. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to make a comment. The fact that the sign's there doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Rohm: And I think there is general support for your position. Newton-Huckabay: I mean -- and I don't think that by not having it limits connectivity to -- I mean Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima and all of that whole area has been built up under a Comprehensive Plan. That is one of the most interconnected areas of the city. It's very -- very interconnected, which I think is great, and I just -- I just think that -- I would love to go knock on the doors of those people who live right next to those stub streets in other developments and ask them how well it's worked for them. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make a motion, please? Newton-Huckabay: We have a couple more issues that -- Moe: Yeah, I do, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 34 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: The bullet -- page 11, bullet six, development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual building elevations and site plan submitted with this application. Individual buildings within this development shall be limited to 15 percent over or under the sizes shown on the concept plan and the minimum number of buildings allowed on the site shall be five, as shown on the concept plan. The applicant was not in favor of that bullet. Moe: You have, actually, got the same question I have got. I was curious, if you don't mind, I'd like to find out from staff why that was put in there. Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the condition was put in there so that, hopefully, it would limit the site to one big box store, rather than -- you know, there was five buildings -- a minimum of five required, so that we wouldn't end up with, you know, a couple of huge stores out there. That was the main, you know, reason behind that. And, then, the 15 percent over or under, you know, just -- you know, allows us some tool to enforce the concept plan for future development that comes in, so it doesn't change drastically from what the neighbors have seen. Moe: Thank you. Siddoway: And for clarification, if it were -- if things were to change and they needed to do something different that was more than a 15 percent modification, they could propose that, it would just have to come back as a modification of the Conditional Use Permit; is that correct? Watters: That is correct. Siddoway: So, there would be a new Public Hearing. Watters: It's a development agreement modification. Yes. It would be a Public Hearing at City Council. Siddoway: At City Council. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: With that said, I'm in favor of leaving the bullet in. Moe: So am I. Newton-Huckabay: I was concerned about taking it out, so -- well, I have had my little rant on Alaska Street. Rohm: I think you echoed the feelings of the majority and that's well stated. Newton-Huckabay: So, recommending that as just with emergency access? s Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 35 of 83 C Rohm: I don't even know that it needs an emergency access. I think just the public traffic -- the foot traffic. I don't even know that you need the -- Newton-Huckabay: The walkway? Rohm: Yeah. Just the walkway. Moe: I guess what I would say is I would rather have the emergency access point, along with the walkway. I'm not in favor of putting a road in all the way through either. I just think it's going to be more of a hindrance than anything else. The problem I had tonight when we were all discussing all this traffic, you know, we are all concerned about the cut -through traffic, but the applicant was discussing how great it was going to be to get from the western side of this property all the way out to Meridian Road as well, because he's got access all the way through and I realize we have got to get access from property to property, but I see cut -through traffic all through here and I have seen Stoddard Road and realize everything is being redeveloped and there is going to be probably a light on Stoddard and whatnot, but I see traffic that goes all the way south almost to Victory it seems like every morning. So, there is a lot of traffic there. I'm going to anticipate with that Alaska Street over there -- over a couple months after that was in there, there would be a lot of people that realize where they can cut through and go in and get to the freeway that much faster. So, I definitely would like see that not be there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: You're on. Siddoway: Chairman, I'm just pointing out the bullet that begins on the -- it's the sixth bullet that talks about the building pad and the parking wrapping around. We will need to modify that language; so that they are allowed to shift the pad up the street if they so choose. Newton-Huckabay: Sonya, may we -- do you have suggested rewording for that? Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, you know, this -- we have a couple options. It could be stricken entirely. You know, all these lots are going to be subject to design review, which a provision of design review is that no more than 70 percent of the parking be located between the front of the building and the street. We could do that or -- I guess the reason staff made the comment we did was because we liked the layout that was there, it -- you know, it's much less than 70 is the reason for that comment as it is. The Commission may decide which way they'd like to go on that. Newton-Huckabay: Well, in lieu of wordsmithing, I'm in favor of striking it. Watters: Or you could also -- another option is just to have them bring the building up to the, you know, buffer, the front buffer. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 36 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: Or you could say as shown on the concept plan or to move the building -- Watters: Closer to the street. Newton-Huckabay: Closer to the street. Watters: As the other two pads are shown. That might be a better option. Newton-Huckabay: Similar to the ones on the east side of the property? Watters: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Construct a six foot tall concrete fence -- Siddoway: Concrete wall. Newton-Huckabay: Concrete wall. Along the southern boundary of the site. So, construct a six foot tall concrete wall along the southern boundary of the site. Now -- Moe: What are we doing with our landscaping in regard to the dual buffer and whatnot? Newton-Huckabay: Where is that? Siddoway: I don't know that it's in there. I would just say that they need to widen it to 60 feet to include -- page 11 of the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I see it. Siddoway: See it there? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Siddoway: Construct a 25 foot landscape buffer between residential uses on property zoned C -G. I would just say to -- it would need to be a separation between the property line and the structure of the 60 feet, to include the 25 foot minimum buffer and access road and, then, additional landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Can we refer back to the presentation sample -- I mean in my motion? Siddoway: It's part of the record. Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Separation between the block wall -- concrete wall and the structure -- E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 37 of 83 Siddoway: Yeah. The structure. Newton-Huckabay: -- of 60 feet. Okay. And we have expressed our desire to eliminate Alaska Street and -- okay. Do we even have the authority to eliminate that requirement on Alaska Street? Baird: Madam -- or, I'm song, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you certainly have the ability to make a recommendation to the City Council. ACHD is the road authority. I don't -- you know, the folks with planning may have a better idea about -- you know, if City Council follows your recommendation, how that fits with ACRD. Anybody over there want to chime in? Newton-Huckabay: I don't recall my ever saying -- that I want to eliminate an ACHD requirement, so -- or making that recommendation. New ground. Baird: Certainly between now and the time that this gets to City Council we will have an answer for that question and we will have some feedback from ACHD. But there is nothing to prevent you from making that your recommendation this evening. Newton-Huckabay: I will go ahead with that, then. Moe: It doesn't surprise me at all. Watters: Excuse me. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was your intent on the 60 foot setback -- was that your intent to apply to all buildings along the southern boundary? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Watters: Rather than just the big box? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Yes. That's the way I understood. Watters: If you could include that in your motion if you would. Siddoway: I supposed one of the details that you're thinking of is that those -- those smaller stores -- he said they would have to load from the rear. So, maybe between those loading areas they could still provide that landscaping and still do the 60 foot setback, but just thinking about whether we are requiring a continuous landscape buffer on the north side of that access road, which would block off any ability to do loading, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I'll take a stab at some wordsmithing on that and you can jump in. Okay. Rohm: You're on. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 38 of 83 Watters: Excuse me. Can I make one other comment quickly here? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Watters: On the DA provisions there is one other requirement -- I'm not sure if you caught it or not. It was a requirement for the six foot fence to be constructed in areas if there was none existing. You will want to go ahead and strike that, if you're -- Moe: Yeah. We've got that one. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. We got that one. Watters: Thank you. Sony. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2007, with the following modifications: I'm going to start with the landscape. On page 11 of the staff report, bullet ten, construct a 25 foot landscape buffer between residential uses and property zoned C -G, we are changing that to construct a total of a 60 feet -- 60 foot separation between the agreed upon block wall and any structure, which includes the 25 foot landscape buffer, and the landscape buffer against the new -- the structure and with a concession for an access to loading for the smaller retail establishments that may be built on the southeastern portion of the property. Then on bullet point 11. And on -- also on page 11, bullet point 11, will be changed to read: Construct a six foot tall concrete wall along the southern boundary of the site to assist in providing a buffer to the residences in Bear Creek, et cetera and so forth. And, then, on bullet -- Siddoway: Do we want to clarify that that wall is to replace the existing fence? Or do we just leave that? Newton-Huckabay: And is intended to replace the existing fences along that northern Bear Creek property line, if allowed. Now where is -- here we go. Page 11, again, bullet four, the building pad proposed in the comer of Stoddard and Overland Road should be situated so the parking is evenly dispersed around the front and rear and sides of the building as shown in the concept plan or situated closer to Overland Road, similar to those depicted on the east -- east property map. And the C -N zoning is already in here. South. Siddoway: Not C -N zoning. Just restrictions to the uses. Newton-Huckabay: Restrictions to uses. Rohm: How about the access? • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 39 of 83 E Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. And the -- sorry, I can't find that one. On page ten, bullet point five that starts with the public stub street Alaska Street in Bear Creek Subdivision, along the south property boundary shall be extended as a nonpublic street into this site. I would like that to be changed to not extended as a public street -- or a nonpublic street and strike the rest of that comment and in lieu of that to have an emergency access cut through only and pedestrian path. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of -- I can't even remember which one we are on. AZ 07-009, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Folks, thank you for coming in. At this time we are going to take a ten minute break. (Recess.) Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-012 Request for Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian by the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene — 150 West Maestra: Rohm: At this time we'd like to continue the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'd like to begin by opening the Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing from June 21st, 2007, of RZ 07-012, related to Valley Shepherd on Meridian and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request for rezoning of approximately 22.7 acres of property currently zoned R- 8 to C -G and that's general retail and service commercial. The request is prompted by the applicant's desire to construct electric signage on site, which is not principally permitted within the existing R-8 zone. The Valley Shepherd property is located on the west side of South Meridian Road approximately at the half mile mark between Overland and Victory. As you can see, it's the large property here. It is currently under construction for a church. To the north and west is the existing Bear Creek development. We will go back to the zoning map here. Bear Creek over here. To the east residential properties within the county still. A little bit of light office there in the middle, though. And to the south Strada Bellissima, also part residential and some light office along the highway there. The property is actually designated public/quasi-public on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Public/quasi-public areas are designed to preserve and protect existing private and municipal, state and federal land. This category also includes churches and public lands. Staff believes that the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 40 of 83 requested C -G zoning designation for this property, for a church, complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the existing and future use of the property. Additionally, as the current use of the property is not proposed to change and the church use in the proposed C -G zone complies with the UDC, staff believes that rezoning the subject property from R-8 to C -G is justifiable. However, staff recognizes the surrounding residential uses and believes that a development agreement is necessary to insure that this property is utilized in a fashion that is consistent with the plan and does not negatively impact the nearby property. Staff believes that the development agreement should restrict the uses allowed on this property to only the church and ancillary church celebrative and recreational activities. This means that despite what the zoning may indicate on the map, no retail or service uses would be permitted on this property whatsoever. If in the future the current property owner wishes to develop this site for commercial purpose, this would require more public hearings before Planning and Zoning and the City Council and at that time adjacent neighbors would be notified of such and would have opportunity to again participate in a hearing process long before any commercial uses could even be approved by the city. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone request subject to this development agreement and the stipulations as previously stated. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. That was well put. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Hoaglun: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Brad Hoaglun, I reside at 2470 West Tressel Drive here in Meridian. I'm a board member and a building committee member of the Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene and here to request the rezone from R-8 to C -G. For those of you not familiar with Valley Shepherd, we are located right across the street. Been in that location -- just had our 90th anniversary here this fall and due to space constraints and the growth downtown, we are moving out to the property on South Meridian Road and we are 80 percent complete on that facility and as part of this project we are moving forward looking to the next steps for that building phase, we were looking into signage and came to the realization and with planning staff that under the current zoning designation signage would be non -- limited or nonexistent under R-8 and with that being a major highway out there, we were looking at some type of electronic signage and C -G is the only zoning that fits that category. So, we are not looking to build a commercial facility, we have got a 46,000 square foot facility there that if you go by there you see it, you have a good idea of what it is, but because of that sign issue, we were looking at the C- G zoning. We also have a small park that's being developed that we want to have like Fourth of July picnics, those types of things, so that a zoning change would be necessary there as well from R-8, so we don't have to get a permit every time we want to have some sort of activity out there. So, we are seeking a change in the zoning to accommodate some sort of signage out there and to allow normal church activities on the property. We do not have any planned changes in the use. Staff has recommended that there be an addendum to the development agreement and we agree to that. There is -- if you want to go back -- probably the aerial view, I think, might be E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 41 of 83 • the best or maybe the next one, the site -- site plan. Zoning Map. Yeah. Here we go. We do have some vacant land here and here and we are looking at seeding that and you may or may not have heard of a program called Upward Soccer for kids to participate in soccer activities and those type of things. Those are things that we are looking at down the road. You know, ten years from now, whatever the time frame may be, we don't know what will happen with that property, but we think it's appropriate that if we do want to build something there, we come back before the city fathers and talk to the neighbors and seek permission before anything is done. But there has been no discussion of that. We are concentrating on completing this facility right here, developing the park area right there, and finishing things off and we are very pleased with how it looks. And I know C -G -- there was a lot of talk in the previous hearing about big boxes and everything. That is one thing we didn't want our place of worship to look like. This was meant to look like a place of worship and we are very pleased with how it's looking and if you have that opportunity to go out there and see it, we would be more than happy to drive by. I know there was some issues about traffic and different things early on in the process and this is well over a year ago. We had sought working with ACHD and ITD about putting in a collector and connecting into the Bear Creek Subdivision and having a light. There was resistance from neighbors along here about having that street there. So, it ended up coming out here. So, those are the types of things that we worked long and hard with neighbors to try to do different things, so the C -G is primarily about one thing and that's about some sort of electronic sign and, of course, if we decide what we are going to do, it would have to fit within the parameters of what the City of Meridian requires and, of course, we want it to fit within what the building looks like and not be intrusive at all and also improve zoning to allow normal church activities on the property. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I stand for questions. Rohm: Thanks very much. Any questions of this applicant? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: So, given the right -in, right -out traffic on Meridian Road there, it seems like it's going to be quite a bottleneck there. I think it's Victory, is it? Hoaglun: Yeah. Victory is down here. O'Brien: Okay. Hoaglun: There is a left tum and right tum lanes coming out of Strada Bellissima and Maestra there. O'Brien: And that's the only entrance next to -- coming out that one side? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 42 of 83 Hoaglun: There is a connector or a street that runs through here and, then, it curves around and I think comes out on Victory right about somewhere in here and there is -- thank you. Right through here. O'Brien: Okay. Hoaglun: So, that does connect out. But the main entrance and exit is planned to be here, like I said. There is a left tum lane and a right tum lane to accommodate traffic both ways. O'Brien: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Hoaglun -- so the collector didn't go in or -- Hoaglun: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Chairman. No. There is no street. Right here we were looking at putting in the street to come out and come wrap around and this is about well over a year ago in discussions with ITD and ACHD and that did not fly, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Hoaglun: And there might have -- and I know we even discussed right turn only, right tum only, and coming around into the parking facility, but, again, their folks didn't want street -- or headlights coming into their backyards, so -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: In your application you talk about the electronic sign and recreational activities. Hoaglun: Correct. Moe: What does recreational activities mean? Hoaglun: Sure. Two things I mentioned, you know, we have Fourth of July picnic, those types of things, but also if we develop those areas into grass, open space, Upward Soccer is something that we have talked about, it's a program for young kids of various ages to participate in soccer programs. You know, being a member of the community and having space, if the parks department wants to utilize our space out there, I mean that is something we are open to considering and participating in. You know, as a member of the community if we have got the space -- and park space is always at a premium in this growing community, that's something we are willing to do. So, having a change in zoning to accommodate that usage, we'd like to do that. Rohm: Thanks very much. 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 43 of 83 Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Rohm: Shawna Gardner. Brad Hoaglun. Oh, excuse me. I'm song. Kathleen James. James: Hello, Commissioners. I'm Kathleen James. 2825 South Garibaldi, Meridian. I'm here representing myself, but I also believe that most of my views are also the views of many in my subdivision of Strada Bellissima. I am here opposing the church rezone. The city planners premised their recommendation to you subject to a necessary development agreement and in the belief that, one, the rezone doesn't violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and, two, that it is reasonably compatible with the surrounding zoning. I disagree with their assertions. Yes, there is commercial zoning across the east side of Meridian Road and a small amount of L -O, office zoning, but the vast majority of the property actually surrounding the property is residential. It's residential to the south, to the west, and to the north. If rezoning is guided by the intensity of existing use, i.e., residential use, then, a change would not comply with the comprehensive code, i.e., existing law. The CP also states that it must insure property values aren't adversely affected. A change from R-8 to C -G would certainly affect property values, if for no other reason than the underlying zoning would be commercial. The church may not be changing its use now, but what about the future? Circumstances change. What if the church wished to sell off a part or all of the property? Staff states that C -G zoning is okay, but only if a development agreement goes with it that calls for no further development in a commercial zone. That's senseless. The city planners are going too far to try to accommodate the church. There is no point in having C -Z zoning -- C -G zoning if no commercial operations are allowed now or anticipated in the future. It's plainly bad planning and sets a bad precedent for future rezoning on this particular property, as well as other rezones that come before the city. The church says that it needs the C -G zoning for signage. If granted, the church would able to have center signs up to 200 square feet and 35 feet high, together with direct and indirect illumination. I assume that that could be day and night. And all this as close as five feet from the church's side property lines. Now, that isn't what they have proposed, but it would be what they would be allowed. If that wouldn't impact property values to nearby houses, I don't know what would. This rezone request violates existing law and is very poor long-term planning. It leaves the property basically in limbo for the future. Therefore, I believe it should be denied. Thank you. Are there any questions? Rohm: Thank you very much. Jim Kouril, would you like to come up, please. Kouril: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff. Thank you once again. I will -- Rohm: You need to state your name and address again for the record. Kouril: Yes. My name is Jim Kouril. Spelling K -o -u -r -i -I. Home address 374 West Davenport Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Just so you're aware, we are going to -- I will go through the first part of my presentation quickly. Again, I represent the people on the petition that you have received earlier. Much of my presentation is similar to what I 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 44 of 83 presented to you earlier, because it is a similar issue. And you would be seeing the next slide, which would be a little bit of background about the petition. Thanks, Amanda. Again, the -- a similar slide, 236 signatures. What's unique about this situation is that myself and others collaborated with the people that live in Strada Bellissima, because the issue of the church does affect Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima at the same time. Strada Bellissima, to refresh you, nice homes, 300,000 dollar homes, up to 500,000 dollar homes. Not very many homes in the area at this current time. About 64. Nice street plantings. Trees. A tot park. Just a nice place to drive into and see. Bear Creek, similar type of neighborhood, except a little bit more mature with trees. Again, nice homes, 300,000 dollars homes to 900,00 dollars. Lighted streets. Walkways. Street entrances that have plantings. Another point of view on the background of this situation. Again, the commercial C -G zone, if granted to the church, they would be allowed in that zoning, whether or not they have an agreement -- if they have an agreement, they could still come back to the City Council and say, hey, you allowed us to change our zoning to a C -G, therefore, we have decided to sell off a parcel of our property now, since it's already a C -G zone, why not let them put a 200,000 square foot building in there, a building with high walls. It's surrounded by Bear Creek and it's surrounded by Strada Bellissima, both low to medium density residential neighborhoods. Same issues apply. Visual. Noise. Traffic. Again, I'll just refresh your memory, I mean this is straight from the city. Redevelopment of this type of area is to be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property and the transportation issues associated with the proposed development of this property. And all of those are key and unique to this proposal on this C -G zone. No transitional zone with the church. If they are allowed to rezone all that property to C -G, again, there is transitional zone separating the neighborhoods. The example showing some transitional zoning near Strada Bellissima that's currently there and it's just south of where the proposed property is. So, not one of these single residents would have any buffer or protection with a transitional zone if that's allowed to be a C -G zoning. What's important in this example is this is a transitional zone, which is directly south of Strada Bellissima. There is not one to the north, which is an issue in this situation. This is across the street from the Strada Bellissima, Bear Creek area, protecting Meridian Greens. We are asking that the city or the Commission also require that transitional zones be established as buffers between commercial and residential uses. And, again, this is straight out of the city's own action item. It's not something that I'm sitting here making up, it's some that the city has created. Vehicular traffic. Commissioner O'Brien started to get into this issue and I'm going to cover it with you, because there are no protected outlets to primary roads. Traffic will travel up Alfani Way through Bellissima Strada to Victory to access Meridian Road, creating congestion on Victory and Alfani. Alfani Way is not a collector road, it is not designed for high volume traffic. It is a subdivision road with homes located on either side and kids that play in the street. The church property and what they want to rezone is marked in yellow. You can see that coming -- this road here is this road in this area. So, if you work with me on this, this is the church property. The road will come right down here and dump right into Strada Bellissima, traffic can continue straight down a residential neighborhood road, which depicted right above you right there, or it can come out into part what is the C -N zoning that the city has provided, • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 45 of 83 • which I believe was referred to earlier as some type of L -O or office -type zoning, which I'm unfamiliar with. In consideration we are asking that you only allow it to be a commercial N or lower zoning. We are asking that you protect the residents of Bear Creek and Strada Bellissima in keeping traffic, which would be commercial traffic if it's a commercial zone, out of our neighborhoods and we are asking that you communicate this same issue to the Ada County Highway District. Because of having a commercial zone butting up against residential neighborhoods, home values will decrease. You can see photographs of the nice homes in the area. Increased traffic. Increased noise. Visual pollution related to commercial zoning will negatively affect our values. We are asking that in order for us to maintain property values, you not allow it to become a C -G zone. And, again, Meridian's Comprehensive Plan -- and I know I keep harping on it, but it's a plan that the city's come up with and I ask that we stick to it. And that is use some guidance, take into consideration the adjacent land and permit only a commercial N zone, which I believe was demonstrated earlier as a purple zoning, which is an office - type zoning. Again, the commercial zoning, increased noise from delivery, loud speakers, back-up alarms, drive-thru facilities. And I want to make it a point, too, that I understand that the church came up and said they wanted to rezone for a sign and I'll cover that at the end of what -- a proposal, if that is all they want to do, then, I think there is a much better way to achieve that than just a C -G zone. Again, in consideration with the Meridian's Comprehensive Plan, only allowed to become a commercial N zone. We are going to zip through these real quick. And the reason I'm touching on all of these is because this is what a C -G zone is. Regardless if somebody says they want to put a sign there or there is some agreement if they are going to further development, a C -G zone can be ugly. Go ahead to the next one, please. We have covered screening and we would recommend that if they do become a C -G zone, that there be some type of adequate screening. But I don't think it's going to come to that. Again, only allow the commercial N zone, which is similar to the property surrounding Strada Bellissima right now, the office buildings. I jotted a couple of notes down in summary, but we do ask that you give careful consideration to the information that has been presented tonight. One thing that I have found very peculiar was that the city's own future land use map designated that property as public or quasi -public and the staff report says that doesn't exist and I guess I'm trying to understand why it went from a public/quasi-public to an R- 8 and now it wants -- they want to go from an R-8 to a commercial C -G zone, which is the highest zone. I don't think they need to become a C -G zone to have grass soccer fields. I think you become a C -G zone to put a big building there. Why not make the grass soccer fields, keep it as the residential. In speaking with staff, I was told that because of the sign they have to become a C -G zone and I looked at the picture of this sign and I admit I'm not that familiar with the ordinance, but to me that sign didn't look very big. It didn't look like that sign fit into a C -G zone and I could be mistaken. But what I would recommend is that they stay the current zoning that they are at, that they obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the sign, that -- or a smaller sign should be used that would fit a smaller type zoning and that maybe the city considers what to do with the situations like this when they come up in the future, because, quite honestly, we are taking time to discuss a zoning change for a sign, if that's all they want to do, and I think that we need to think outside the box and come up with a better solution to signage. I would recommend that the issue of Conditional Use Permit where they go about getting Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 46 of 83 it that way, that the zoning not be changed to the highest commercial zone and I stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Newton-Huckabay: I have none at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Deborah Ross. Ross: Yeah. My concerns -- Rohm: Please state your name and -- Ross: Oh. My name is Deborah Ross. I live at 2835 South Alfani Road and it's just the second house, which I can see right there from my porch. I was also concerned about, you know, the sign itself, you know, from my view for one thing, but as far as the commercial, I am concerned. The park is right there on Alfani. All the kids, you know, in that area will play right there. I have a lot of children over at my house. I let them play down there, we will go back and forth. They will run home -- you know, run to my house and get a drink. I wouldn't have that freedom. I'm not even sure about -- I was told that on Maestra it was going to be a right -in and a right -out. So, I'm already concerned about -- I don't know how many members are going to be acquainted with that church, but I'm already concerned with the traffic already. I don't know, 500 cars coming in and out, if it's a right -in and a right -out already, and, then, to be commercial on top of that, the hours -- I mean our houses are right there. It's not like it's the back of our house, it's the front. It's access right to our houses. I'm concerned with crime. I'm concerned with accidents and just all that -- that traffic mainly and all that's going to bring. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Please come forward. Wheeler: Hi. I'm Darlene Wheeler and I'm at 2857 South Alfani. The one thing that hasn't been clearly pointed out -- and I will try and do this -- is that South Alfani -- right now the only way that -- Alfani is this road right here and right now, even if this comer becomes a soccer field or any kind of field area that is used by a large group of people, it is -- the only way out is going to be down Alfani, out here to Victory Road and that is going to cause an extreme amount of traffic coming through this housing area. The one area that has been referred to in the previous presentations as the tot play lot is right here on this comer. So, any traffic that is incurred by whatever -- the church or the soccer fields are going on here, will come through this street to come to Victory where the traffic light is to make it easier and safer to get out onto Meridian Road. And so any kind of change to allow even occasional large groups of parties or whatever for the church or soccer fields that would benefit the community, is going to have an extreme adverse affect, especially on Alfani Road, because there was never any access allowed to the church onto Meridian Road over here. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 47 of 83 Rohm: Thank you. Please come forward. 0 Kelly: My name is Lary Kelly. I live at 403 East 2nd Street in Meridian, Idaho. One thing I wanted to point out, regardless of the situation with the soccer fields, that's just pie in the sky at this time. We don't know that that's going to happen. But keep in mind that the traffic is basically only on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. That's the time that church is. So, all the rest of the time you're not going to have any traffic going through there at all. It's just a point that I thought was important. Rohm: Thank you. Bonner: My name is Lachelle Bonner. I'm at 2868 South Alfani Way. And I would like - - again, the issue with the traffic, I don't have a problem with the church being there, but the first Sunday that they did have a meeting, I waited in my driveway while the first few cars coming out came straight down our street to get to Victory. So, instead of using the Maestra access to Meridian, Meridian to Victory, they all came straight down Alfani to cut through to Victory Road. Again, I want to, you know, support my neighborhood, that it's a lot of traffic coming through, even on Sunday morning and Wednesday nights, coming straight down our, you know, small street. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify at this time? Would the applicant like to come back up, please. Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brad Hoaglun. Yeah, that was a concern. We wanted to do something different and for traffic and the traffic authorities at that time, with the development of Strada Bellissima, said, no, we are going to make you guys share a street and that's what we have. Like I said, we wish we could have done something different, but they said, no, this property will be served on Maestra as Strada Bellissima will be served on Maestra. So, that's -- like the neighbors, wish something different could have been done, but that's what they said will be done and there we have it and if in the future we can change that, great. But, unfortunately, we don't have that authority. You are kind of limited in your authority to make recommendations for traffic, but that's another jurisdiction. So, the change in zoning and traffic, whether we are an R-8 or a C -G, does not change the fact about that and, you know, that's -- that's something, yeah, we wish we could change and we worked on for a very long time, but not something we can do. So, you know, I noticed in their -- their argument that that commercial designation would change traffic patterns. No. What we have now will be there and down the road, if I understand the development agreement, that if -- if something happens down the road and we don't know what happens ten years from now, 15 years from now, that the church would have to come back to the city and we are fine with that. To protect the neighborhood. To let them have a say in what goes on there, so there is not a big box with 65 foot -- we certainly don't want that as a church. We have a beautiful facility there and we want to keep it there. In fact, that was one of the things I mentioned earlier. We planned this church not to be a box, but to look like a place of worship and something that people can see and know that it won't lower Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 48 of 83 property values and is very separate from a big box retail where we are not shoving the facility up against the neighborhood. Our parking is on the side and in the back. You want the church up front, completely reversed. So, landscaping issues -- of course we are going to have landscaping needs and requirements, those types of things, but to say it's the same thing as the hearing you just had and if you're going to require that, I don't know what to say on that, because it's -- they are completely different issues on this particular property. So, the reason for this zoning C -G is an electronic sign. If there was a way to accommodate that, hey, great, we are willing to listen and to find ways to make that happen, but we also know the city has -- puts in compliance levels and certain things can occur in certain zones and we will go from there. Rohm: Thank you. Before you sit down, let me ask staff. In their current R-8 zone is there any vehicle available to them for the signage that just C -G offers? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is not. Rohm: Thank you. Hess: There is even no vehicle for them in the C -N zone or the C -C zone. So, even the lower commercial districts do not allow the type of sign that they are looking for. This is the only commercial district that does. In addition to this commercial, industrial is the only one that allows reader board signs. So, that would have been their options and they elected for commercial, which is obviously less intense than industrial. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that very much. Any additional questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. Hoaglun: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Amanda, can you put up the sign? Hess: If I can answer some questions for the Commission, I have the measurements of the sign in front me right now. The sign is -- the -- I guess the length there is 12 and the height is ten feet. So, it really isn't that large of a sign. A normal size monument sign. Moe: Do you have a location on the sign? Hess: I'm sorry? Moe: Where is this located on the site? Hess: I was told by the applicant -- Moe: Right there? E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 49 of 83 E Hess: -- that it would be located near the church on the street. We also do have provisions in our code that states that these signs cannot be located within five feet of residential districts. It's actually one hundred feet away. So, it will be significantly far from -- or visually obtrusive towards these residential districts. It just -- it won't be like that. We have provisions that protect neighbors from that, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff for the applicant before we close the Public Hearing? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant had something he wanted to add to that and I'd like to know what that was, since he came up. Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. Just briefly. In talking with the architect, he is suggesting to us now that -- and it might work better for the neighborhood that we move it to the other side of the church to the south side of the building, so there is no visual issues with any of the neighbors over there. So, it's -- I'm song, if I can use this -- so, putting it over here, that way you don't have any -- any sort of visual from the neighborhoods and that's something I think would probably be a good thing to do and we would be willing to do -- to help that out. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Yeah. I just have a question, maybe staff can answer. What were the reasons why they couldn't have access to Meridian Road from the parking lot or -- because of the traffic issues? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay alluded to it earlier. There was a project, the 12 acres that the church actually split off and sold to the residential subdivision just further to the west. As part of that subdivision city staff did push for a collector roadway out to Meridian Road that could be shared by both that -- Shepherd's Creek Subdivision I think it was called and the church as an access out to Meridian Road at the mid mile, which the UDC requires on a type four arterial roadway. The ACHD commission did not find that way and they, basically, said do not construct a public street, we don't want one, we are not going to accept one. So, ACHD and their commission did not want to see another access point out to Meridian Road on this property. O'Brien: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Question for staff. As a church campus, do they qualify for the center sign allowances or are they restricted to the sign allowances for a single structure? I would assume that they could qualify for the center sign, but I'm just trying to clarify. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 50 of 83 • Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, as I have been conferring with staff here, they seem to believe that you have to be a multi -tenant type structure to be eligible for that type of sign. Siddoway: When I looked up the definition of center sign, it said a sign allowed to a planned sign program and planned sign programs -- are they tied specifically to multi - tenant? Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. Siddoway: Thank you. Hess: The code specifically reads: All development in commercial, office, or industrial districts comprising more than one principal building on a property shall apply for a planned sign program. All developments in commercial, office, or industrial districts with more than one tenant per building and proposing more than one wall sign for elevation, shall apply for a planned sign program. And this application does not apply to that. Siddoway: Are projects in L -O zones eligible for a planned sign program? Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, an L -O zone is considered a commercial zone. Siddoway: Okay. Hess: It's the least intense of the commercial districts. Siddoway: But just so I'm clear, they could not do a center sign, because -- even within an L -O zone, because they are not multi -tenant. Hess: That is correct. Siddoway: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Commission Siddoway, I'm assuming you're not comfortable with the C -G zoning and are searching for some other potential way to get compliance for a sign? Siddoway: That's correct. Hood: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I mean we did that at the staff level, too -- I mean with the applicant and it seemed a little over the top to rezone the whole 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 51 of 83 38 acres to C -G for a sign, but you can't apply for a sign variance, there is no such thing in code. There is no variance permit. A Conditional Use Permit is not an option either, as they are just prohibited in the R-8 zone. So, that's not an option. Rezoning it to C -G or I -L as Amanda mentioned are, really, the only options to get this type of sign. So, the reader board sign -- not even the center sign, but a reader board sign is what the church is after, so this is, really, the only mechanism that they can achieve that sign. It seemed a little -- you know, okay, a lot much to rezone all of it to C -G, but that's, really, what it came down to when you look at the ordinance and trying to find other ways around it, so we couldn't find any other way. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it seems to me we have an Achilles Heel in our ordinance here that -- we have one of those scenarios in the ordinance that are not covered in the detailed sign ordinance. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may. I mean that's done on purpose. We aren't looking for reader board signs all over the city and so limiting it to a couple of districts is the intent of only allowing them in the most intense commercial and the most intense industrial zones or else you don't get them, so -- and not having loopholes I think was also done on purpose, so people couldn't put them in a residential district. Now, churches I don't think were thought of when the zone ordinance was -- those provisions were put into the zoning ordinance, so there is an out lier, if you will, or a case that probably wasn't envisioned for -- that needed a reader board. Schools -- same thing with schools. They are in the same boat and you're going to see them rezoned to a district where they can have a reader board. In fact, we are dealing with one of them right now, because they have got a residential district. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess that's my -- my point being is that we are every day more and more a technology driven society and more and more a society that communicates through technology like that. So, maybe it's -- we need to look at the -- possibly at the sign ordinance versus the zoning of buildings, because we are only going to have more and more requests for some type of reader board sign, my personal opinion, because you're seeing them pop up more -- distracting as they may be, I don't think they are going to go away and it seems like we are -- a lot of maneuvers to have to go through, as we anticipated. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you know, that is something our ordinance is not static, we can make changes and we will, you know, bring that back up for further discussion. We do -- particularly on highways -- I don't know if you have seen the new sign that they have at the All Valley Animal Clinic -- it's distracting. People are going 65 -- or right now they are supposed to be going 55 miles an hour, but 65, 70 miles an hour trying to watch a movie at the same time, that's not very safe and I think that's -- you know, that's what we are primarily charged with is public health, safety, and welfare. So, whether communication is done through reader board signs, we do want to try and limit that and let people focus on the �J Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 52 of 83 i road. I mean we are carrying 40 to 50 thousand cars a day here and for a church -- I mean that -- just streaming videos and things that -- there is -- it's not real appropriate for signs. At least that's the general stand for the department, so -- but we can evaluate it and see if there may be some exclusions or other instances where we can create a better vehicle to get some -- to allow these in some other places in some certain instances, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, this is the perfect instance where we are talking about both sides of the issue. We don't want reader board signs, but we are willing to rezone the church so they can have one. Well, either we want them or we don't and that's kind of how -- I guess I don't have a real strong feeling about it one way or another, but I think like was said, going over the top to rezone to commercial, so that we can allow reader board signs that we conceivably do or don't want in the city. I mean I guess that's the question is do we or don't we want the reader board signs. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, if I could help to refocus. The question before you is whether this particular reader board is appropriate for this particular site. If you're in general agreement to that, you have a vehicle before you to get you there. Although it does require the C -G zoning, the development agreement that we use extensively really makes it so that it's a C -G zoning in name only. No other uses will be allowed, except the sign. You can even make a motion to limit the size of the sign to what was presented, so that your net effect of any action that you take tonight would be very minimal. So, if I could just refocus back to that and maybe have planning staff put the general reader board discussion for a future workshop. Newton-Huckabay: Fair enough. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your input. With that being said, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing RZ 07-012. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Any discussion before we request a motion to be made? Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the rezone to C -G. What I have heard tonight is that it's only -- the rezone is only for signage and I think a rezone to commercial simply for signage sets bad precedent that I don't want to see repeated all over the city. To zone something commercial and, then, say no commercial uses can go on it, or to zone • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 53 of 83 is it anything and to say that no uses typically allowed in that zone are allowed, is something I think is -- I have a problem with that. I would rather see it addressed through the ordinance than by a bad rezone with a development agreement that restricts all the uses. During the Comprehensive Plan discussions this corridor came up a lot and whether or not commercial zoning would -- or commercial future land use designations would be allowed and it was clear from that discussion that they would not be. Now, I understand they are not necessarily proposing commercial land uses, but the -- to get the commercial zone and, then, the next guy down the road says, well, they got it -- I just think it's a bad precedent, even with the restrictions on the uses. I do believe they should be allowed to have a sign, so I do favor a rezone. Because I understand they cannot really have a sign in the residential zone they currently have. A couple years ago we went through a rash of rezones for church sites for reasons of signage and other things and as I recall all the church rezones that I can remember rezoned to L -O at that time. I was just looking up -- even under the L -O zone you would have -- the sign they are proposing would not be allowed, that is true. They could have, for a single building free standing sign up to 50 square feet. While smaller than what they are proposing, still certainly visible. One of the reasons I favor restricting to the smaller sign size is Highway 69 has been designated as a historic byway. I have been sensitive to, you know, signage issues, landscape issues, along this newly designated byway and I think the lack of a reader board and the slightly smaller sign, is more in harmony with what I envision as compatible with that byway and it fits with the rezone that I have seen applied to most other church properties, so that's where I'm at. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, it's almost ditto. One of the comments as far as the signage goes that -- and you're right, that's a very -- you know, it's a heavily traveled corridor Highway 69, and I have seen it go from a two lane all the way up to a -- what is it, five lanes now? And having a sign out there -- especially a streaming sign, to me is just waiting to have something bad happen. Distraction from driver's especially, you know. So, I'm totally -- if the sign ever comes about -- I would be totally again any kind of a streaming sign or something that's streaming through a video. It's just too doggone dangerous. But, again, with -- I'd have to ditto Commissioner Siddoway's comments on all the rest. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I have probably said enough. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, quite frankly, I'm not really in favor of a reader board type sign and whatnot, but at the same point I -- the change in the zoning in order to put the sign in, I'm pretty much like Commissioner Siddoway, I would just as soon see this done properly, as opposed to, basically, a change in a DA just to accommodate putting a sign in. I would say that I would probably not be in favor of approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 54 of 83 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I have a clarification question for staff. Does -- would -- under L -O would they be allowed to have a manual reader board -- reader board sign like they have at their existing site here? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it does look like manual reader boards are allowed for a maximum of 50 percent of the sign background area. Siddoway: Thank you. That helps with the ability to have some changing text, if they want to advertise a certain event or something that's going on that week. Question for legal counsel. Can we recommend to Council -- City Council a rezone to a different zone or are we faced with -- can we recommend a rezone to L -O or do we just have to approve or deny a C -G? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, you know, it's been done both ways. You're, in essence, recommending something against what was applied for. So, the remedy for the -- for the applicant is to continue with their request when they get to Council against your recommendation. So, you can certainly make that recommendation and, then, your other option, of course, would be an outright denial. Or approval. I mean you have got three. Siddoway: Either way it would go onto Council and they would have their -- Baird: Absolutely. So, they would have another opportunity to -- what really puts them in a fix is to get to Council and the Council approves something less than what they have requested and, you know, whether they want to accept that or not is an open question. It looks like Caleb has got something to add here. Hood: Yeah. I just wanted to follow up on that and just -- this has been a point for neighbors, too, because it will be noticed as rezone to C -G, because that's still what the applicant's applying for. So, everyone that's within 300 feet of this will still get a notice saying that the applicant is requesting the C -G zone, even though you may recommend approval of a lesser zone. So, I just wanted everyone out there to know that your motion doesn't necessarily change the notice that the clerk is going to send out for the City Council hearing, so just to follow it up, we do get phone calls on that quite regularly. So, it's another point. And maybe this helps for future. In the past the Commission is able to recommend a lesser zoning. If you were to recommend a higher zone, say you recommended industrial, then, we would have to re -notice and actually start that process over again. So, because you're recommending a lesser zone we are okay, if you recommend a lesser zone. But if you were to recommend something more intense, we would have to, essentially, start the process over. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 55 of 83 Rohm: Everybody else has spoken and now it's my turn. I'm fully in support of the application. I think that the applicant and the staff have done an excellent job coming up with solutions that meet the needs of the church, while at the same time, addressing the issues of the community has a whole. They have done everything that they can to limit the opportunity of the church to expand into any other commercial venture beyond the inclusion of this sign. The sign that's being proposed is ten by 12 or 12 by 15 and the church is 35 foot tall and I don't know how many square feet, but it's a beautiful structure and this sign is minuscule in comparison to the church itself. If its placed in front of the church, whether it be to the north of the frontage or to the south of the frontage, it is going to be blocked from the residential development behind it almost exclusively and, true, as you pull out onto the roadway you're going to see that sign and I think that that's the intent of a sign. Now, if, in fact, the Commission as a whole wants to address the reader board, I don't know how you do that, but my personal opinion is that the city staff and the church have gone above and beyond to come up with something that does not violate ordinance, while at the same time gets the job done. That's my opinion. Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. If the discussion is still open, I like the church use and I actually don't have any real problem with their sign. It's an attractive sign. I just think the rezone to C -G for me is the wrong mechanism. Rohm: If there was another -- that's why I asked the question initially is is there another vehicle via a variance request or any other vehicle, but there is not. The current ordinances say you either got to do a rezone or you -- or you don't put the sign in. And I think that it is in good keeping to consider as we move forward in our community to make changes in ordinances as we find issues that don't fit, but you don't stop what's going on today, because our ordinance doesn't provide the provisions for an answer outside of the limitations that staff has proposed limiting, so that it does protect the community as a whole. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, would it also be fair to say that the current ordinance and most other churches being zoned L -O isn't -- the current ordinance isn't designed to support electronic reader board signs. It's not that it's -- the sign is the issue, it's that we are going to extraordinary lengths to allow signs that are not endorsed by the ordinance, is my interpretation of that. So, I would be in favor of zoning -- recommending or suggesting zoning that's in spirit with the rest of the church zoning in the city or that continuity and I am all for any sign that would be allowed that any other church is allowed to have in that zoning. Now, is that -- are we in agreement there? Because, in essence, we are going to these extraordinary lengths to rezone it C -G, so they can have an electronic reader board sign. If they want a regular sign, like every other church has that's zoned L -O -- Rohm: You still have to do a rezone, then, don't you. Newton-Huckabay: But we are not rezoning to C -G. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 56 of 83 Rohm: You're still doing a rezone. Let's -- Siddoway: Take a motion. Rohm: Let's get a motion. Siddoway: I will take a stab. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 07-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2007, changing the zone from C -G to L -O and having the L -O signage standards apply to the property. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-012, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. I was the Ione objection. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 2007: 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): Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013 and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject application came before you on July 5th, the previous Commission meeting. The applicant requested Conditional Use Permit to construct a 7,500 square foot multi -tenant retail building with a drive-thru window. The subject property is located on the north side of Fairview, approximately a fifth of a mile west of Locust Grove. Totals about one point -- about one acre and is currently zoned C -G. At that time the discussion was access. We will go down to the site plan here. Currently the sole access to the subject site will be from an improved shared driveway to Fairview Avenue at the south. And that's here. Staff encouraged the applicant to realize secondary access by the neighboring property, the Idaho Athletic Club to the east. Otherwise, the fire department stated that they would require an approved turnaround within the front parking lot for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the applicant submitted elevations for the proposed structure, of which staff requested modification. Staff was supportive of the proposed north and south facing elevations. However, east and west facing portions of the structure were generally blank walls. Staff believed the applicant should provide either one window or awning on the east side of the building. To give the applicant time to resolve these issues, the Commission elected to continue the Public Hearing to tonight. Staff has spoken with a representative for the Idaho Athletic Club and while a cross -access • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 57 of 83 agreement has not been finalized at this accomplished. Additionally, staff received proposed structure early this week and it elevation with an awning. And that is questions. U time, it is in the works and will likely be revised elevations as you can see for the does depict a window on the east facing all staff has, unless the Commission has Rohm: Thank you, Amanda. Any questions of staff? Before we move forward, just in case I opened it inappropriately, it's CUP 07-014 and I think I said CUP 07-013. So, just to clarify where we are on the J&K Investment Retail. Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please. Slawson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Jason Slawson, I'm with Architects Northwest, 224 16th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. Authorized representative for J&K Investments, LLC. As presented by the staff we have worked with the Idaho Athletic Club, we are working with them currently to get that cross -access agreement finalized. We are just finalizing some verbiage and sending it to the attorneys to draft up. So, that is going to happen. What we did show -- I did talk to Joe Silva at the fire department for if something were to happen for a temporary barrier to limit that to 150 feet along the front, so it is shown a dash there that we would lose one parking space on the north and south side of that front access and it would still allow for -- room for a car to back up and tum around and proceed out toward Fairview. And we did rework the elevations to add the window to the east side with the awning and the window is larger than the drive -up window on the west side. And we add additional elements to the rear, the north portion of those east and west elevations to dress it up, but not have it as a blank wall. And I'll now stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: I, actually, didn't hear this the last hearing. I was just wondering which way the cars faced on the drive-thru, is it north or south? Siddoway: South. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, on the site plan -- could you go back one or two there? So, the dashed line indicates how you would resolve the issue for the fire department if you're not able to get the cross -access agreement. Slawson: Correct. Siddoway: But you're still working on the cross -access agreement, you're just showing that you have the option of getting the cross -access agreement and punching clear through and if that does not work out, then, you will end the parking lot there. 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 58 of 83 Slawson: That's correct. 0 Siddoway: And, then, if the parking lot ended there, then, it wouldn't just be a barrier in asphalt, you would actually have that part of the landscape buffering? Slawson: That's correct. Siddoway: That's all I have. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. There is not anybody that has signed up to testify to this application, but if there is anyone that would like to come forward, now is that time. Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Mr. Chairman, motion to close CUP 07-014. Siddoway: 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 carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Well, I probably would have liked to have seen a couple more windows on the west face, since that's what I asked for last time, but you did do another awning and a little larger window, I guess. So, I guess we will go that route there and -- but other than that, I'm glad to see the cross -access agreement is close to being done, so -- anyone else have any comments? Siddoway: No. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and the opportunity for public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 07-014 as presented during the hearing of July 19th with no modifications. And I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the end of our meeting tonight, I do believe; right? No. I'm sorry. At our next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. And just a little discussion. Do -- staff, do we need to incorporate the requirement for the additional window as shown tonight as -- into our motion or does the staff report address that already? Because I'm thinking we need to add that. Or just Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 59 of 83 reference the site plan and the elevations as presented at the hearing tonight in the motion. Moe: So moved on that. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Item 1.6 actually requires the applicant to install either a window or awning on the east facing building facade already. Siddoway: We are doing both, so if we could -- could we just reference the site plan and elevation at the hearing tonight? Moe: I would like to do that. Siddoway: Yes. And I would second that. Moe: Make that a modification to the motion. Siddoway: And I will second it. Moe: Add those, please. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded with modifications to approve CUP 07-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11 -2B -3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: (Re -Noticed from July 5, 2007) Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of CUP 07-013 related to Cherry Lane Christian Church and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew. The property was previously annexed into the city with a C -N zone and consists of 39.47 acres. The site is located on the northwest comer of Ten Mile and Franklin Road at 175 North Ten Mile Road. The application is only for phase one of the church development located on a portion of the property that lies south of the Ten Mile Creek here. The surrounding property uses are as follows: North of the site is residential agricultural property zoned R-1 and RUT, Ada County, and mini storage and vacant property zoned C -N. To the east and south is rural residential agricultural u Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 60 of 83 property zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is vacant property that is approved for multi -family and office uses, zoned R-15 and L -O. The subject Conditional Use Permit covers several different requests as follows: The first is a request for detailed site plan review of phase one of the church site as required by the development agreement. The DA requires that a Conditional Use Permit be submitted to the city prior to future development in the C -N zone. That requirement has been satisfied with this application. Future phases will only be required to obtain certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval at staff level and must comply with the master plan site plan and master landscape plan submitted with this application. The second request is to exceed the maximum building height of 35 feet allowed in the C -N zone. The maximum height limitations do not apply to architectural features that are not intended for human occupation, such as the proposed belfry and cross, which are allowed a maximum height of 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Additional height exceeding 20 percent of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a Conditional Use Permit. With the aforementioned allowances, the maximum height is allowed to extend to 62 feet as proposed if the CUP is granted. Staff is supportive of this request, as the belfry will contain and screen HVAC equipment and will not be used for human occupation and because the height of the building complies with the height allowances mentioned. The third and last request is for an approval of an urban farm use in the C -N zone for the portions of the property that will be developed in future phases. Staff is supportive of allowing undeveloped portions to remain being farmed as it will minimize weed problems and because agricultural use of the property will compliment adjacent rural uses. And this application also includes a request for the city to accept a letter of credit for the landscape area between the existing edge of pavement of Franklin and the south edge of the sidewalk until such time as ACHD constructs its improvements along Franklin Road. The road widening improvements planned for Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile are in ACHD's five year work plan, but are designated for federal funding. The construction year is unknown, because it is not a funded project. For this reason staff is not supportive of this request and is requesting that the applicant comply with UDC requirements regarding landscaping within the right of way. Phase one will consist of a 48,000 square foot church building capable of seating 888 people in the sanctuary, an administration office area, a fellowship area at the front entry of the lobby, and classroom space for the nursery children, middle school, high school, and adult programs. The church campus is proposed to be constructed in ten phases as the congregation and its financial abilities grow. The proposed hours of operation for the church are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. The primary access point for this site is proposed with one driveway to and from West Franklin Road, located here at the bottom, and will be constructed with this phase. An access point to/from North Umbria Hills Avenue is also proposed with this phase at the west boundary right here. Staff is supportive of the access point shown on the site plan. However, the fire department has included a condition, an Exhibit B of the staff report, for a third access point to be provided at the east side of the church building from Ten Mile for emergency access. The applicant has met with the fire department regarding the location of the third access point and it has been agreed that the access will be from the north edge of the parking lot on the north side of the building to the north property line of Avis property and, then, go through to 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 61 of 83 Ten Mile Road. Off-street parking is proposed on the site and will be provided upon development of the site. Ninety-six stalls are required and 481 stalls are provided. An additional 156 spaces are provided for overflow parking proposed on a treated gravel surface. This is a copy of the master site plan that the applicant is proposing. It's more refined than the previous conceptual master plan approved with the annexation. The layout and traffic flow as been revised at staff direction to break up the visual connection of asphalt parking to Franklin Road, with a less rigid landscape island configuration and a relocation of the admin building for presence and representation of the church at the Gateway intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin. The admin building is now planned to provide a retail function, likely represented by a future bookstore or cafe down here. Landscaping will be provided on the site per the landscape plan and conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. A 25 foot wide buffer is required around Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along the west property boundary adjacent to Umbria Hills Avenue and the future residential uses in Umbria Subdivision. Because this property lies within the area specified in the Ten Mile specific area plan, staff is requesting that a berm be provided within the buffers along Ten Mile and Franklin to satisfy the purpose of the plan regarding screening of parking lots visible from public thoroughfares. And the applicant has also submitted a master landscape plan for the site that coincides with the master site plan. Elevations of the proposed buildings have been submitted as shown. The building facade is proposed to consist of three different colors and the construction materials shown on the plan includes stucco, cultured stone, and metal siding with metal accent bands. Because the church building proposed for this site is over 7,500 square feet in a C -N zone, the applicant is required to comply with design standards per the UDC. The staff has reviewed the design standards applicable to this site and found the building and site in compliance, except for the metal siding proposed on a large portion of the exterior walls. This slide shows a sample piece of the metal siding. The design standards require that exterior building walls demonstrate the appearance of high quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tenant or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels or stucco or stucco like synthetic materials. Prefabricated steel panels are prohibited, except as an accent material. For this reason staff is requesting that the metal panels be replaced with an acceptable material as allowed by the UDC. If the Commission deems the proposed siding a high quality material, the Commission may remove condition number 1.7C in Exhibit B. The applicant has also submitted a perspective elevation of the proposed church building at the south entry and the southeast entry. This model concept of the final build out of the church building was also submitted that shows a view of the church building and the site from the south. Staff is recommending approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit as stated by staff in the staff report subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have -- Mr. Chairman. Sonya. So, the reason this is before us as a Conditional Use Permit -- did that DA require a CU, you know, for the future development of the property? • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 62 of 83 • Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, the development agreement did require Conditional Use Permit approval. Siddoway: And the request to exceed the maximum building height, is it only for the belfry or is the actual structure exceeding the building height as well? Watters: The code allows for architectural features that are not intended for human occupation, such a belfry and cross, which are allowed at a maximum of 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Additional height exceeding 20 percent of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a Conditional Use Permit. So, they are requesting an additional 20 percent. Siddoway: But it is only the belfry that's exceeding it, it's just exceeding it -- the rest of the roof line is not. Watters: No. The building is exceeding it by 20 percent. Exceeding the maximum height allowed in the zone. Siddoway: Okay. Watters: And, then, beyond that the belfry and cross are allowed to extend an additional 20 feet as measured from the roof line. Siddoway: Uh-huh. And can we grant that through a Conditional Use Permit or is that a variance? Watters: No. It specifically requires Conditional Use Permit approval. Siddoway: Okay. Watters: But it does allow for it in those instances. Siddoway: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Sonya, I just want to make sure. You got it in here in to -- the CUP now, you made the point that other -- the future phases will just be staff level, even though the site -- as long as they are in conformance with the master site plan is what -- okay. Because I see quite a bit of difference in -- well, between what they are proposing to start with and there will be a heck of a lot of asphalt that will be deleted out to basically match up with the rest of their site plan. I'm just kind of curious that staff will take care of that, it won't come before us again. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, Commissioners, that is correct. It will not come before you again. • 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 63 of 83 Moe: Okay. Watters; This Conditional Use Permit satisfies the DA requirement for CU approval. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff before we invite the applicant up? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Woodard: Good evening. My name is Larry Woodard, I'm one of the ministers at Cherry Lane Christian. We have actually changed our name now to Ten Mile Christian Church. So, all the legal documents I would ask now read Ten Mile, instead of Cherry Lane. I live at 1701 Almadan Street in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. As the file indicates, our congregation purchased these 39 plus acres on the northwest comer of Ten Mile and Franklin in 2003 for the purpose of building a new and larger church. We appeared before you folks in the spring of 2005 for annexation and have signed a development agreement with the city. At our initial hearings before you a couple of years ago, we presented to you a conceptual plan of how we intended to develop this property and for the most part that concept has not changed. Last year we received permission to move a rental house to get it out of the way of a planned widening of Ten Mile Road by ACHD and in the process we have developed a 34 vehicle parking lot, a gazebo for outdoor weddings and musical venues and a memorial rose garden and this little -- how does this thing work? This little three acre park is over here in this comer. Just shows a part of it here. But here is the gazebo. Here is the rose garden. And we have moved the house over here. We call it the church annex. In the future we plan some day to have a group picnic shelter there and outdoor basketball court and we believe this little three acre comer is a good addition to the expanding community and our church to date has shouldered most of the expense for this mini park. Up in the northwest comer of our property -- is there a better -- that shows the whole piece? There we go. We reserved this comer up here for city well number 27. They have drilled a preliminary well, but have not come back and finalized it and I, frankly, don't know where the status of that is. But we have reserved that for them. They have put a major trunk line across the property about right in here and we have been involved in that. We have been active participants in the Ten Mile study and we are pleased to see that the final plan identified our property as the sole church site in that study. Our proposed worship facility is in concert with this recently adopted plan. We have also been active members of the Ten Mile interchange steering committee. Now we come before you with a plan to build our primary and first phase worship facility. It is first phase and we envision other expansion as the congregation grows. We held a neighborhood meeting at the gazebo on May 14th and no one came. We are still out in a rural area, unlike our friends who were just ahead of us here on Meridian Road. For the past two years Compass Charter School has been using our current facility on Cherry Lane and this past month they completed the purchase of the property and are now remodeling our church for a charter school. If you have driven by our old campus on Cherry Lane, you notice that the crosses are down and we are pleased to see that a public school is going to be able to use our old facility. But we now have the clock ticking to get into the new facility by Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 64 of 83 the end of 2008. So, that's why we are here today. What we have before us is plans for a new worship facility that will seat over 800, which is double our present facility. We are a church that averages about 1,400 people a week. We do operate seven days a week, by the way. We have something going on all the time. We expect to start construction this fall with Kriezenbeck Constructors as our general contractor, and they tell us that they think they can finish it in 12 months. Before I tum it over to Steve Pardew of BRS Architects, who can answer some of the specific questions you might have about the plan, be aware that our congregation is stretching its financial capabilities to get this building in place. So, when it comes to the landscaping requirements along Franklin Road, we would simply ask that you give us some relief there by deferring that landscaping for a few years, just so we can get in there and get settled. I think we have demonstrated time and time again our community spirit and we are just asking that it be deferred to a later date. I leave you with this thought. This is phase one of a long range plan and as the area develops between our church and the freeway and to the east, we will grow also. In fact, this comer here of Franklin and Ten Mile, is the first stop light when you come off of the new Ten Mile interchange and for that reason is -- one of the reasons we changed our name to Ten Mile Christian Church, because it's going to be easy to tell people to find us, go to the interchange, go north to the first light and you're there. So, do you have any questions of me before I tum it over to Steve? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. What is the reason why you want to exceed the height requirements? Woodard: I'll let our architect answer that, but, you know, it's just part of our design. We want a structure there that has some height to it that can be seen and we have got a plan that's expandable and it just so happens that once you get out to the third tier of seating you're going to be talking about an auditorium that will seat thousands and for that we need some height. O'Brien: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Do you want to bring your architect up? Pardew: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Steve Pardew, BRS Architects. Address 1010 South Allante Place, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho. 83709. Sonya, could we have the landscape master. As Lary mentioned, that is really one of maybe only two items that we have request to you for additional consideration. It is specifically the landscape area between what is this meandering sidewalk at the front -- the frontage of Franklin. It is proposed and agreeable to the church to go ahead and do the landscape buffer adjacent to the residential zone to the west, as well as the landscaping adjacent to the Ten Mile area. With our most recent meetings with ACHD it was discussed that there is possible postponement of the improvements to the Franklin and Ten Mile intersection, whereby it could be as late as 2009 when that would actually be improved. That's all that we are really requesting for your consideration is a deferral via the letter of credit for the landscaping south of this meandering concrete sidewalk 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 65 of 83 and berm and ten -- excuse me -- ten feet of gravel adjacent to the north phase of the asphalt on Franklin and the landscaping south of that meandering concrete sidewalk. The other item that staff mentioned, which we would like to also discuss, is relative to the metal siding that is proposed. We have an actual sample of that product. This is the actual sample of that metal siding specifically. And I just brought that per staffs recommendation specifically, so that you could see that it was somewhat residential in nature of its scale. It's not the concern of what staff shared with us in it being a prefabricated corrugated panel, similar to like an agricultural or an industrial type metal siding. Its intention is to be smooth in nature and it has -- you can show that one. So, that the seams specifically or any relief that really is caused specifically by the shadow line of the two joints of the siding coming together and I do have some color handouts of some other buildings in Meridian that have used this product before. The church is agreeable to reduce the overall square footage of that metal siding that is used in the elevations to be more of a specific accent detail over a cultured stone area and as more of a repetitious type element or accent that would help move the eye in the elevation of the building. The reason that we have proposed it initially is that we felt that it helped modernize and add a fourth element or finish to the stucco and cultured stone and just creating interest in movement as you looked at the building. The specific photos that you have in front of you are from Sawtooth Middle School on Linder. Moe: What gauge material would that be? Pardew: It would be gauge adequate such that you would not have the oil canning that you typically see in a smooth face panel, probably a 22 or better. And the intent is that it is specifically an element that would catch your eye. There is some very very expensive panelized systems that are anodized, which have a tendency to cause maybe more of a high tech look and that's, obviously, not what we are trying to achieve. We just wanted kind of a detail element that would draw your eye on the building. Moe: All concealed fasteners? Pardew: Yes. And the second example that you see there is in the Silverstone building complex. It's a retail function. So, we do concur with staffs recommendation and I believe per the current code that does allow for that metal panel to be used specifically as a detail element, instead of the amount of square footage that is currently proposed in elevations. And those are primarily the two elements that we have in request for your consideration and would stand for questions. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pardew, do you know what the reflective properties are relative to sunlight reflection off of this material and do you know of any issues or concerns that you have heard about when a whole side of a building has been up and the sun hits it right -- in the right way, whether it may blind motorists or other people or residential areas? Pardew: Understood. The residential zone specifically to the west would have some exposure to that. I believe the offset, plus the orientation of those residences may not • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 66 of 83 • be directly at the church, but, like I said, the elevations as proposed specifically to this west elevation, the metal as shown would be reduced purely just to a square or width and height specific to an area over a door. And so it would be a very minimal, maybe a six foot wide panel. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Pardew: So, not the entire west side of the building. O'Brien: Okay. Pardew: As any longer. O'Brien: I was concerned about having the face of that thing blind somebody. Pardew: One of the other reasons that we originally considered it was it creates a very clean and a very modem, somewhat reflective appearance here at the entry, but the main concept and the intention of the elevations is to cause movement of the eye and also a specific focus to the center -- the entry the focus of the cross. And so at the southern elevation that there would be specifically an accent of that panel, possibly over this cultured stone element and, then, you know, every other window or so, just as more of a repetitious element, but not a large expansive metal to be used. O'Brien: I have one other question. On the -- could you put up the landscape view, please? Excuse me. Now, your proposal is to -- on the Ten Mile comer at Franklin is to put a ten foot wide gravel buffer temporarily? Pardew: Our understanding is that in this that there would be a -- until the improvements of the ACHD widening of that intersection occurs, that staff would require a ten foot strip of gravel at the shoulder of the existing pavement and, then, this additional turf -- basically this edge of turf, then, is where the gravel stops and that irrigated lawn begins. And so the deferral -- O'Brien: You're going to put a grass lawn, then, in temporarily? Pardew: Yeah. And so what the request is that the trees are left and the lawn behind that meandering walk would be in place, we are just hoping to offset some of the cost of the irrigation and that lawn previous to the construction of that ACHD widening. O'Brien: Who is responsible, then, for the maintenance of the ten foot wide gravel buffer as far as maintenance goes, the weeds, et cetera? Pardew: Well, specifically, if it's within the property of the church, I would assume the church would be. That gravel as well as, per the existing right of way for ACHD, versus what's proposed, are two different things. But the church would be responsible to keep it weed free and maintained. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 67 of 83 O'Brien: Thank you. E Pardew: There was a previous question in regards to the height of the cross and the belfry. O'Brien: Yeah. That's right. Pardew: The height of the belfry and cross are specifically developed for that mass model concept. As Lary mentioned, the sanctuary, in approaching the second phase -- well, what we are calling the second addition to the sanctuary, then, the potential third addition to that sanctuary, continually increase in height and the intention was that this belfry -- you can imagine if this was ten feet or any distance specifically lower, the real center point of the cross and that belfry would become somewhat of a recessed accent to what the whole purpose of the building is for. And so that's why this has been developed such that there is almost a humility in the going down away from, you know, their primary symbol and concept of a church and, then, also creating some movement of the eye in, you know, moving your eye around that element. So, that's why the belfry is as high is in looking at the proposed other phases of construction that in this concept are two story and, then, at the back phase three story. O'Brien: I think it's a very unique design. It's really nice. Thank you. Pardew: Form is following function somewhat. Any other questions? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: You -- well, I'll stick with the height for just a second. Can you -- is it more than just the belfry that is exceeding the height limit and, if so, I mean are all of these buildings exceeding it? I'm just trying to get a gauge for how much of this structure is exceeding the height limit. Pardew: In phase one and probably upwards of at least the next three or four phases that would not be a concern. And that is somewhat of the unknown in the future phases that as the need for that space is considered, obviously, there is a consideration also for additional parking and so this is a concept at best guess in regards to the ministry and projections of what the dream for the property could be. But it is a possibility that these back classroom area wings could end up being just a two story. The sanctuary is driven by the vision triangles and ability for people in the auditorium to be able to see the platform and the other areas of the presentation and so that's what's driving it to be higher and it would at least match that belfry and we have to further consider the engineering and the actual heights of that. I don't believe in our latest building sections of studies that we have done that it will exceed that 58 and 62. E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 68 of 83 Siddoway: So, currently drawn, the two classroom areas and the sanctuary are -- exceed the maximum height. Pardew: In a future phase as a concept -- a potential concept that it would. Yeah. In the phase one there are none. Siddoway: Right. But we are acting on the whole thing tonight; is that right? I thought all future phases just went through staff level. So, we have got to decide on those future -- Pardew: Our proposal is not to have a building exceeding the 58 or 62 and I was somewhat apprehensive with Sonya to even show that, because it is -- it's trying to allow for the future, but the allowances of what we are asking for tonight is specifically the 58 and 62 on the belfry and the cross. Siddoway: To the landscape plan for just a second, please. One thing I'm confused -- that I am unclear on is you're saying -- you said you wanted to defer the landscaping that is south of the meandering sidewalk; is that correct? Pardew: Right. Specifically this irrigated lawn is pertaining to that request. Siddoway: And how far from the intersection do you want to defer that? Pardew: The entire frontage across Franklin Siddoway: Do you expect that that entire frontage will be impacted by the intersection improvements? Pardew: There is already construction into the Umbria access, a deceleration lane that takes a portion of this as asphalt and that's already in the works with being constructed per the approval with the Umbria -- what was formerly known as Silveroaks, the apartments over there. Siddoway: Done as part of this development, not done as part of the intersection. Pardew: That is correct. That is correct. As far as the -- but there would still be the trees and the lawn improvement behind that meandering walk. We are just trying to basically request that cost savings for the church and, then, also we feel it's a better blend, the construction of ACHD's improvements, which they have and are the latest plans that we have seen that tapers and comes out all the way to the primary entrance of the church. Siddoway: So, is the right of way that's shown on here not the ultimate right of way? It sounds like they are going to be chopping into your site with these improvements. E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 69 of 83 Pardew: In later phases there is a potential need for a deceleration lane, which would be an aspect of the final phrases of the site plan development. Siddoway: Because I would want to make sure that we have 35 feet of landscape buffer beyond whatever the ultimate right of way is. So, that was one concern. The other question I have is the -- you were going to provide a letter of credit to bond for the -- those improvements? Pardew: Yes. Siddoway: Most letters of credit expire in a year and it sounds like we are looking, you know -- Pardew: For an extended agreement. Siddoway: -- two, three years out. Pardew: Right. Siddoway: So, do you have a way to address the extension? Pardew: We would be agreeable to whatever the extension would need to be with legal. Siddoway: And, then, the final question has to do with the metal siding. You were pointing out areas that you would say would be limited to for access. Do we have any elevations that we can act on tonight that show how the siding will be limited to accents? Pardew: Well, my current understanding of the design review process is that that's approved through a staff level review and that the current code does provide a means of having metal siding used as a detail or accent. Staffs primary objection to this proposal was the amount of square footage on the building that was covered with that -- Siddoway: As a siding material, an accent material. Pardew: -- that was covered with metal. And one of the original considerations of doing that was that as this plan develops and other phases around, that all the exterior walls of this current building become interior walls at some point and so there was a hope that that siding could be possibly recycled and reused, versus the stucco, which becomes something you cover over. It becomes disposable, so to speak, in cost. There is no recycle value. Siddoway: Thank you. Pardew: Any other questions? • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 70 of 83 Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Thank you, sir. E Watters: Excuse me, Chairman, Commissioners. I would like to clarify one point. Commissioner Siddoway inquired about the building height, if the Conditional Use Permit, if it's approved for additional building height, if it only applies to phase one. This application is only for phase one. If the Commission desires to approve that request, you should make it clear if it's only for phase one or if it applies to the whole development for future phases also. Rohm: Thank you. There is not anybody else that is signed up to testify to this application, but if someone would like to come forward at this time and offer testimony, now is that time. It doesn't look like we are getting anybody else up there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Sonya, on the building height question, I'm still just confused as to how we can -- we deal with the -- with it as a conditional use. Can you just tell -- point to where that provision is in the code or just tell me how it's dealt with? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, just a moment here. It's UDC 11-2-13-3. Essentially, the building height -- you know, the maximum is 35 feet in the zone. It's allowed to extend with Conditional Use Permit approval an additional 20 percent. An additional 20 percent of the 35 feet is seven feet. So, that allows it to extend to 42 feet. And, then, the additional -- the architectural features that aren't intended for human occupation are allowed to -- the height limit is 20 feet, as measured from the roof line. So, 42 feet and they are allowed an additional 20 feet to extend. Siddoway: And are they within that allowance? Watters: They are. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 71 of 83 Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: With this application. Steve mentioned that this building did not exceed the maximum height. I was under the impression that it did, but the -- the building height is measured -- per the building code is measured to the mid point of the roof. I may be mistaken, but I thought the mid point was 42 feet on this building. The applicant's stating that it's lower now. Not a lot, but a little bit. So, apparently, it's changed from the elevations that were submitted. Siddoway: Still exceeding the height, but within the 20 percent allowance. Is staff okay with just a general requirement that the metal be used only as an accent and, then, leaving with the interpretation of that up to the design review process? Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, staff is okay with that. However, it's not really necessary. Everything on this site will be subject to design approval and part of that design approval does require that metal only be used as an accent material. Siddoway: So, the staff report as currently written would still allow for the metal accents. Watters: Correct. Siddoway: Thank you. The issue of accesses didn't really come up. Is there any -- are the accesses all okay from the staff review? Watters: Chairman, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, I have not yet received a report from ACHD on this. Staff does not have any objections to the access points proposed with this application, but I haven't got comments from ACHD yet. Siddoway: Usually we -- you know, we have been unwilling in the past to send on applications without ACHD's comments. So, is staff comfortable with this one going on without those? Watters: Caleb, our planning manager, is telling me that he's fine with it going forward without ACHD's conditions or comments. Siddoway: That's all I have. Hood: Mr. Chair, I do want to follow up on that, though. We will have comments from ACHD before it goes to City Council. That way the whole picture is there. I just don't envision any problems from the highway district with this application. In fact, they reviewed it when it was in annexation form only and provided comments. I believe what the applicant is now proposing is consistent with those preliminary comments that they provided last year when this project was annexed, so -- E Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 72 of 83 Rohm: Does this go to City Council? It's a CUP. • Hood: Yeah. Excuse me. No, it does not. But, again, the project, though, is consistent with those original comments that ACHD provided when this was just an annexation. I do apologize. You are the decision making body. Siddoway: I know that we have the Findings at the end of the agenda, but I feel a little uncomfortable approving Findings without ACHD comments. Would you agree or do you -- Moe: I guess I would be a little bit curious in regards to their requirements when we are considering what we are doing with the landscaping along Franklin Road as well. As to whether or not, you know, to keep the requirement in or not, so I'd like to see those as well. Newton-Huckabay: I have no comment. Rohm: Any further discussion? Mr. Siddoway, are you prepared to make any kind of a motion here? We have closed the Public Hearing? Siddoway: We have. Rohm: Yeah. Siddoway: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay just asked if we would consider continuing until we have the ACHD comments. We could either do that or act on it, but defer action on the Findings until we have those and they can be incorporated into the Findings. That's where I was headed. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's a good idea. Siddoway: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Where do you come in on the landscape on your motion? Siddoway: One, I want to make sure that their -- one of the reasons I want to wait for those ACHD findings is I want to make sure we understand what right of way they are requiring along Franklin, because I want to make sure that we are getting a 35 foot landscape buffer beyond ACHD's required right of way. Moe: That's kind of why I wonder why we should go ahead and continue it now and get those in and act on everything at that point. Siddoway: That might be smarter, since that's still an outstanding question. I'm fine with that deferral of the area south of the sidewalk. I'm wondering if it really needs to be across the entire frontage. But without knowing what ACHD is doing there it's -- we just • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 73 of 83 0 don't know. And, you know, assuming we were willing to defer some or all of it, I would want to make a condition that the letter of credit that's provided, you know, be good for three years, not just the typical 12 months that we usually see. And I don't know if -- I'm not familiar enough with the bank process whether they could issue one for a three year letter of credit. I would assume they could. Typically, though, I have seen them go, you know, 12 months and, then, renewal, but -- but -- Moe: I would anticipate it would be a 12 months and they could renew, you know, every year for three years, something like that. Siddoway: Sonya, do we have an anticipated arrival date for the ACHD comments? If we just defer this to our next meeting is that long enough? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, yes, I had anticipated that I would receive them before tonight's meeting. I had planned on including them in the report and thus being part of the Findings and they did not arrive today, so -- Siddoway: Then after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number CUP 07-013 -- we didn't open the DES one; right? To the hearing date of August 2nd, 2007, to receive ACHD comments and respond accordingly. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item CUP 07-013 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 2nd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would just recommend can we put this one early on the agenda on August 2nd to move it through. Siddoway: I would agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: I would kind of guess it's going to be a big agenda on August 2nd. Hood: It's not too bad, but I will put them first anyways. And just a point of clarification, the Public Hearing is still closed, so that's all that's correct, that wasn't part of the motion to reopen, just to give you ACHD comments and you can kind of digest those or -- Siddoway: Do we need to reopen it to accept ACHD's comments? I probably do. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 74 of 83 E) Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, given that you don't know how you are going to reacted to those comments, I had anticipated that the hearing would be reopened for the purpose of deliberations, perhaps taking some testimony from the applicant on them and it only makes sense to leave that, but for that one issue. Newton-Huckabay: But we don't have to open it -- well, if we talk to the applicant we have to give public testimony, too. Baird: With the ground swell of public input here, I would think your risk is minimal. Newton-Huckabay: I concur. Siddoway: I'm ready to do this. Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- for clarification, we reopen the Public Hearing on CUP 07-014 -- is it? Is it three? Yeah. 013. And continue it to our next regularly scheduled meeting on August 2nd and to be placed at the beginning of the agenda, specifically for the purpose of receiving ACHD's comments and accepting any related testimony to that. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen CUP 07-013 at the regularly scheduled meeting on August 2nd, 2007, for the sole purpose of reviewing Ada County Highway District's input and associated testimony. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: AZ 07-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: RZ 07-010 Request for a Rezone of 75.67 acres from I -L and L -O zones to a C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from June 21, 2007: PP 07-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C -G zone for Pinebridge by Stanley Consultants — south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road: Rohm: Moving on. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 21 st, 2007, of items number AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008, all items related to 0 • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 75 of 83 the Pinebridge development for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 16, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-006, RZ 07-010, and PP 07-008 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 16th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Do we anticipate finally hearing this on August 16th? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I spoke with Lori Den Hartog today, the planning review supervisor over there. She was hoping to have August 1st as their hearing at ACHD. That didn't work out. She talked with Dan Torpin. August 8th is now an official hearing date at ACHD. You know, if their Commission doesn't take action, you know, I can't guarantee it, but at least there is a hearing date scheduled for it there and that gives us a week to kind of digest that and incorporate it into the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from June 7, 2007: PP 07-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision by Moose Creek Construction — 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 7th, 2007, of Item No. PP 07-006 related to the Moose Creek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Moose Creek Subdivision. The applicant has requested preliminary plat approval of six single family residential lots and one common lot on 1.96 acres within the R-4 zoning district, as you can see on the Powerpoint presentation. It's this property right here. Moose Creek is generally located south of Cherry Lane and east of Black Cat Road. The site is currently vacant. To the east there is the existing Cherrywood Village Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the north is Golf View Estates Subdivision, several phases up there, zone R-4. South and west are still within Ada County, as you can see. Now, a little bit of history on the project. Prior to submittal of the application to planning, the applicant and staff and ACHD held a meeting to discuss the development potential of the subject site, as the site is encumbered by a private street easement, as you can see. The easement provides sole access to Cherry Lane for the parcel to the south, this piece down here. Back on the zoning map. It's a one acre piece. So, the 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 76 of 83 0 easement provides sole access for that parcel and the neighbor had been adamant about maintaining that private street access. At the time of the meeting the applicant proposed a plat where some of the building lots utilized the private lane. And that would have been this one and these two here, they would have had a shared driveway that would have come out onto the private lane. However, after submittal staff received a report from ACHD prohibiting further usage of the private lane onto Cherry. This prompted continuance of the P&Z hearing originally scheduled for April 19th, so as to obtain a final decision from ACHD's commission. The commission denied further use of the private street to access Cherry as well. So, ACHD's decision necessitated negotiations with the neighbor to the south to relinquish the easement and private street, which runs across the Moose Creek property, as it appears that without vacation of the easement further development of the site is just not feasible. Negotiations are still ongoing. However, planning staff has received a letter from the neighbor which demonstrates their intent to terminate rights to the access easement and private street. Staff has conditioned the report in that the city will not grant final plat approval until such time that that occurs. Now, this is the revised plan that the applicant submitted and as you can see it proposes the six single family building lots on a public street, which will also front the neighbor's property and will facilitate further development in the future should they decide to do that. And a snoopy cul-de-sac type access for all of the lots within this development. All of these lots will take access onto the street and out to Summertree to Cherry. Let's see. Now, the Commission and the applicant should note that the city cannot guarantee all of the neighbors' requests that were outlined in this letter that we received, nor can they be included as items listed on the final plat. Let's see. The main issue, which is actually quite small, is that these two lots here, as you can see, double front two streets, so staff has put a condition of approval in the report that a small landscaping buffer be installed along Summertree to mitigate this issue. Other than that, staff has another -- no concerns with the applicant's request and is recommending approval of the project. That's all staff has, unless you have questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Amanda, this strip that's shown along here, is that the landscape buffer or is that additional right of way that's being required? Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's the latter. It's additional right of way that ACHD is requiring, yes. Siddoway: That's what I thought. Hess: So, that five feet or additional buffer that I'm requiring be inside of that. Siddoway: And that -- even with that off, the lot sizes would still be in compliance with the size regulations? 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 77 of 83 to Hess: I'm not quite sure if that would be the case, but it would be very close and I'm sure that with a little bit of wiggle room with the lot lines that that could still be accomplished to meet our 8,000 square foot minimum. Siddoway: That's all. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Whitehead: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead and I am here on behalf of Moose Creek Construction and Briggs Engineering. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And as noted by Amanda this evening, we are asking for preliminary plat approval of six build -able residential single family lots and one common lot and which consists of 1.96 acres currently zoned at R-4. Now, as stated, we have a long history with the site and it looks very familiar and the reason why it looks familiar is because it was before you last October. Unfortunately, we were not able to come to an agreement with the neighbor to the south at that time, so we withdraw our application. We tried to come up with some innovative solutions that just didn't work. It's been an ongoing process. But I am very excited to say that this evening we are in negotiations with that property owner of the south, Mrs. Terry Jones, and we have had a preliminary agreement per my client and Mrs. Jones. Now, a letter dated July 19th of this year from Terry Jones outlines the agreement between my client and herself. While the majority of the issues are civil issues that their attorneys need to hammer out to get that easement vacated, as noted by Amanda, as per Public Works, a condition that is number 2.7 states that prior to the signing of the final plat the applicant shall submit documentation that the private drive easement located on Lot 2, Block 1, will be vacated. This condition is to insure the City of Meridian that, indeed, the easement will be vacated prior to the recording of the final plat. As noted, there is just a few things I just want to highlight and I'm going to keep it short, I know it's been long. With the six residential lots we are proposing, all streets will be public, Jones Creek and Wilson Creek. There is going to be a six foot privacy vinyl fence surrounding the perimeter of the property. I know that was kind of one of the issues in the staff report that I need to address. This site also meets City of Meridian's requirements by limiting access from a major arterial Cherry Road for the future redevelopment, stubbing Jones Creek from the west and the south of our property. As for the comments from the sewer department concerning the out parcel, which is this property right here, the developer Moose Creek Construction will be providing -- connect sewer -- excuse me -- city services connections, as well as any assessments that will be acquired at that time. We will also be having a pressurized irrigation system. This pump house will be located on the Jones' property and a landscape berm down in this area. This pump house will be owned and maintained by the HOA of Moose Creek Subdivision, as well as the Joneses, since they will be using a portion of it. That, again, will have to be delineated between the attorneys at that time as far as agreements. Overall, just to summarize, we feel this is a quality in -fill project. We have had numerous numerous bumps in the roads, but, hopefully, at last we are kind of at the end of our long journey and with that I 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 78 of 83 will thank you for your time and consideration and I will stand for any questions that you may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Whitehead: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Excuse me. Tent' Jones. I wondered what you were standing back there for. Jones: I couldn't sit anymore. I sat all day at the county job that I work at at Ada County sheriff. I'm Terry Jones and I reside in Meridian, 1490 North Jones Creek, and we are the two and a half acres that sit behind the proposed 1.49 1 think it is. Nine four. Two acres. Anyway, the negotiations that have been going on in that -- when this subdivision was first proposed, it was never brought to our attention that this was going to be vacated. In fact, we weren't even approached and that's what has taken so long, is that everything was submitted without us even knowing what was happening. So, we have since sat down with Mr. Loosli and with Sabrina and we put together a letter and we do need to get with our attorneys, because, as they said, it is civil, and we won't be vacating this easement until the contingencies to what we are asking to be done for us to give up our private road, that was built at our expense and will be -- the subdivision will be impacting us, because we are giving up the private lane, so -- and that's all I have to say. So, at this point we will be getting with the attorneys to get this in a legal form, but we were asked to have a letter prepared for tonight, so that's what was submitted. So, that's it. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 07-006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Discussion? Rohm: Discussion. Siddoway: Mr. Baird, is there any legal reason why we can't approve a preliminary plat with a condition that final plat will not be approved until the easement vacation has been obtained? 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 79 of 83 Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission and Commissioner Siddoway, we don't care how they get there, we just want them to get there. So, that condition is fine as proposed. Siddoway: And, then, Amanda, the six foot vinyl fencing that was brought up tonight, is that addressed in the staff report or should we add that to a condition of approval? Hess: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, staff would like you to add that as a condition in the staff report. Siddoway: That's all I have. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing. Moe: I have nothing further. Rohm: It sounds like Mr. Siddoway is on a roll to make another motion here. Siddoway: All right. I'm on the motion roll tonight. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 07-006 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2007, with one addition, that the -- there be a requirement to do perimeter fencing that is six foot vinyl around the perimeter of the subdivision. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of 07-006, to include the staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from July 5, 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 Lary and Judy Kelley — 403 East Second Street: Rohm: Thank you both for coming in and thanks for spending your evening with us. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from July 5th, 2007, of CUP 07- 012, related to the Kelley Carport Revised and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am actually presenting tonight for Jenny Veatch, she composed the staff report. She's at a conference this week. This is a continued item. However, this is the first time that this specific Conditional Use Permit has been heard by the Commission. It's been continued once 0 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 80 of 83 due to a noticing error and the second time because the Kelleys were out of town on July 5th. So, I'm not going to go into a long staff report. I do want to just -- I believe there were three Commissioners here when the Kelleys applied back last fall for the carport on their site on 2nd Street. The Commission did deny that application, but told the Kelleys if you do a couple of things we can approve you in the future. The Kelleys have done that. Those two things were acquire a license agreement through ACHD to place this structure within their right of way and the second one was to not encroach into the clear vision triangle. I do have some updated pictures. There are several more in the staff report. Basically, it's a pretty small lot that the Kelleys live on. There is very little area to build an enclosed garage or other type structure behind the primary dwelling. It's also on a comer lot, which also creates other site constraints. The conditional use is before you because the structure, the 200 foot -- 200 square foot carport tent does not comply with the downtown Meridian design guidelines and the code says if you don't comply you apply for a Conditional Use Permit. So, that's why you have a CUP in front of you. This is the -- what the carport looked like before back last fall and, in fact, for the past couple of years, as this carport has been standing for quite some time now. There is another view of the carport. And, then, here is the change. The applicant has removed those front panels and I believe this view also shows that there is -- it's no more intrusive now than any of the landscaping or trees or anything else that's in this vicinity as far as interference with the clear vision triangle. So, because the applicant did do, essentially, what the Commission asked of them last time when this project was denied and because there is some other analysis in here saying that those downtown design guidelines are really meant more towards commercial property than the core area, staff is recommending approval of this, with the condition that those panels do stay rolled back or not affixed to the carport, so it doesn't interfere with the clear vision triangle and that license agreement isn't revoked by ACRD. But staff is recommending approval of this project as proposed and analyzed in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Just one. Promise to make it quick. But the staff report suggests that this site is unique and you don't -- you wouldn't envision approving a similar structure elsewhere. Can you just comment on what makes this site unique, briefly? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway. If you can look at the aerial view, you can actually see that this lot is a little less than half of what is a typical lot in Old Town and a lot of the lots in Old Town are already pretty narrow. They are pretty deep, but pretty narrow. So, if you look at the way that this structure is placed on the lot, there is not a lot of room for accessory structures on here, so -- and although there are some other cases -- in fact, directly across E Street you're looking at -- or 2nd Street, excuse me, a similar situation. There aren't a lot of instances where homes are on a lot that is this small. So, that's some of the aspect. Again, it's on a corner lot, so all of a sudden you're cutting out -- you know, you're down to 15 or 20 percent of all the lots in Old Town are on comer lots and it's smaller than a typical lot and there are some existing trees on site that we thought were -- it would be better to 0 Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 81 of 83 C. leave some trees, other than to bull doze a tree to get it -- you know, to move this carport back or a temporary structure back. So, there are some circumstances around this that we don't believe are setting any precedent for anyone else. There may be some similar circumstances, but the Kelleys' case is a unique one and we could make the findings to recommend approval of it in this case. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Kelley: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. I am Judy Kelley. I live at 403 2nd Street, Meridian. And this has been a long, ongoing thing and we are very pleased with the staffs finding, to finally approve the carport. We would like to thank you for working with us during this long process of applying the CUP. It's been a very long time. It's been over a year. My folder is quite full at this point of all kinds of legal papers that I have received. I have met some very nice people during this time and I wish to thank especially Jenny, Caleb, and Justin, they have worked with me very well. And the committee's recommending of the CUP is a neat thing for us. We have had a long time getting here and we just appreciate all of you very much and the things that you do for our city and that's all. Rohm: Thank you. Quite honestly, I'm a little bit surprised that you were able to get that from Ada County, but I'm also pleased, too, so it's nice that you have been able to work the system and it worked to your benefit, so -- Kelley: I met with Ada County and one of the Ada County commissioners happened to be working on the work and he came by anyway and took a look around and he says no brainer, here. He was very nice. Rohm: Cool. All right. Any questions of the applicant? Siddoway: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: No. Thank you. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-012. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 82 of 83 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number CUP 07-012 as presented during the hearing for July 19th, 2007, and the site plan as presented tonight, with conditions of approval as proposed in the staff report. I further move to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 2nd, 2007. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. CUP 07-012 and prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for next hearing date of August 2nd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Folks, thanks for coming in and spending your evening with us. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 15: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11 -2B -3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew — 175 N. Ten Mile Road: Rohm: I think we will -- can we just defer Item 15, because we continued that item, and, then, go straight to 16? 1 don't think we would open it, would we? Siddoway: No, but we can table it without opening it. We can table it to that date. Mr. Chairman, I move we table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for CUP 07- 013 to our next regularly scheduled meeting of August 2nd, 2007. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to table Item No. 19, CUP 07-013 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 2nd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 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: At this time Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for MCU 07-002. • Meridian Planning & Zoning July 19, 2007 Page 83 of 83 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared for MCU 07-002, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of MCU 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: One last motion. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, move to adjourn. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: --seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF ►fTfCi111� PROCEEDINGS.) — CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: DATE APPROV�,p G. BERG JR.,Plj C CI,j ie' 11 July 16, 2007 MCU 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Doug Tamura ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 7/5/07- Modify the existing CUP (CUP 05-023) to allow for flexspace, warehouse/storage and show room on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Blk 1, Devon Park Sub. No 2) for Devon Park Flex Space - 1875 North Lakes Place AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • July 16, 2007 NACU 07-004 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Erstad Architects ITEM NO. 5 REQUEST Public Hearing - Modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a 15,620 square foot office / retail building for Freedom Storage - 943 W. Overland Rd AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. July 16, 2007 AZ 07-009 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT James Prather ITEM NO. 6 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21/07- Annexation and Zoning of 22.67 acres from RI to C -G zone for Queenland Acres - SEC of South Stoddard and West Overland Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting / See Petition/Letters from Concerned Citizens Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • July 16, 2007 RZ 07-012 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene ITEM NO. 7 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21/07 - Rezone of approximately 22.7 acres from an R-8 to a C -G zone for Valley Shepherd on Meridian - 150 Maestra AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: 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 Affidavit of Sign Posting/See Letters/Petition from Concerned Citizens/ See Email by Michele George Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • July 16, 2007 CUP 07-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT J & K Investments, LLC ITEM NO. S REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 7/5/07 - 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 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 Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. July 16, 2007 CUP 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Steve Pardew ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Public Hearing - CUP per requirement of the DA for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the mcDdmum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11 -2B -3.A.3 & request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church -175 N. Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Cffy of Meridian. • July 16, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 AZ 07-006 APPLICANT Stanley Consultants ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21/07 - Annexation & Zoning of 94.69 acres from RUT to a C -G zone for Pinebridge - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Request for Continuance Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 0 July 16, 2007 RZ 07-010 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Stanley Consultants ITEM NO. REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21/07 - Rezone of 75.67 acres from I -L and L -O zones to a C -G zone for Pinebridge - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See AZ Packet Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. C July 16, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Stanley Consultants ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/21/07 - Preliminary Plat of 61 building lots and 21 common lots on 170 +/- acres in a proposed C -G zone for Pinebridge - south of E. Fairview Avenue, east of N. Locust Grove Road and west of N. Eagle Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See AZ Packet Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • July 16, 2007 PP 07-006 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Moose Creek Construction ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 6/7/07 -Preliminary Plat approval of 7 single- family residential building lots and 2 common area lots on 1.96 acres in an R-4 zone for Moose Creek Subdivision - 4275 N. Jones Creek Lane AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report See Attached Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materlals presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. • July 16, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 CUP 07-012 APPLICANT Larry and Judy Kelley ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 7/5/07 - 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: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes See Attached Staff Report OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented of public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. n July 16, 2007 CUP 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Steve Pardew ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval - CUP per requirement of the DA for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C -N zone as allowed by UDC 11-28-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use in the C -N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church -175 N. Ten Mile Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. s s July 16, 2007 MCU 07-002 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING July 19, 2007 APPLICANT Doug Tamura ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval - Modify the existing CUP (CUP 05-023) to allow for flexspace, warehouse/ storage and show room on specific lots in the proposed Devon Park Sub. No. 3 (currently Lot 3, Blk 1, Devon Park Sub. No 2) for Devon Park Flex Spac -1875 North Lakes Place AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: 'gyp �(Ol% �/ 1. CITY FIRE DEPT: Y►/1 CITY BUILDING DEPT: �5 I 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: ()OIG] �� (/t �f� Date: �- Phone: -70-4 S-1 I S-1 Emailed: � �Mc Staff Initials: IX P Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. h,rb$ s r g c �"3S A 5 ',`� R k k'a? T �ry vim-,. �.y� £��$ �an i, � f• ,.•f.'trL r#$ ,4� k s �M -V, 4, LIS • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Modification of the Existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-023) for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 to Allow Flex Space with Overhead Doors on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, by Fairview Lakes, LLC. Case No(s). MCU -07-002 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 5 and 19, 2007 (Findings approved on July 19, 2007) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU -07-002 i • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Building Elevations, and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request to allow a flex space use with overhead doors on Lots 26-29 of the proposed Devon Park Subdivision is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11 -5B -6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU -07-002 time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU -07-002 J� By action ofd the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the % day of �g� �� . , 2007. j �j COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM (Chair) Copy served upon City Clerk VOTED VOTED C i VOTED � a! VOTED OF v'OFt4 r - 181, ent, Public Works Department and City Dated: 5✓ 3 - ® p% CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). MCU -07-002 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 19, 2007 (Continued from July 5, 2007) TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Devon Park Flex Space • MCU -07-002 C;W6s P: IDAHO Modification of the Existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-023) for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 to Allow Flex Space with Overhead Doors on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, by Fairview Lakes, LLC. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The Applicant, Fairview Lakes, LLC, is requesting to modify the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-023) to allow for flex space use on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, of Devon Park Subdivision No. 3. If the subject CUP Modification is approved, all other previous conditions of approval would remain the same. The proposed flex space would consist of warehousing/storage and showroom space with overhead doors. The subject property is zoned R-40 and was previously approved for office uses through the planned development for this site. A modification to CUP -05-023 is necessary because flex space is listed as a different use than professional services (offices) in UDC Table 11-213-2. Offices are a permitted use in all of the commercial zones (C -N, C -C, C -G, and L -O); however, flex space is only permitted in C -C and C -G zones. Property for offices use is typically zoned L -O (Limited Office); flex space is a UDC prohibited use in the L -O zone (see Analysis, Section 10, of this report). 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested Conditional Use Permit Modification (MCU) application below. Staff recommends denial of MCU -07-002 for Devon Park Flex Space, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 5, 2007. At the public hearing, they directed Staff to prepare conditions of approval and findings for approval. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MCU - 07 -002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (add any proposed modifications). Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MCU -07- 002, as presented during the hearing on July 19, 2007 (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your approval in the future). I further move to direct Legal staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 2, 2007. Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 1 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number MCU -07-002 to (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (state specific reason(s) for a continuance) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1875 N. Lakes Place Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 Located in the south'/2 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. b. Owner: Fairview Lakes, LLC 1124 Santa Maria Boise, ID 83712 c. Applicant: Same as Owner d. Applicant's Representative: Doug Tamura (Owner/Applicant) e. Present Zoning: R-40 (High Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use — Community (MU -C) g. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting a modification to CUP -05-023 to allow for flex space, warehousing/storage and show room space on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29 of the proposed Devon Park Subdivision No. 3. The modification would allow installation of overhead doors only on the lots requested. All other previous conditions of approval would remain the same. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of Idaho Code, Title 67, Chapter 65, and UDC 11 -5A -2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: June 18, 2007 and July 2, 2007 is c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: June 12, 2007 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: June 25, 2007 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The adjacent lots to the south and east are zoned R-40 and are in the development process. Residential homes in Fairview Terrace exist to the west of the site. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Assisted Living and Alzheimer's Facilities, zoned R-15 Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 2 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 2. East: Vacant (approved for office uses), zoned R40 3. South: Vacant (approved for office uses), zoned R40 4. West: Residential homes in Fairview Terrace mobile home park, zoned R-8 d. History of Previous Actions Pertaining to this Site: ➢ The subject property was annexed (AZ -02-011) in 2002 and zoned R-40. A Development Agreement was recorded at that time (Instrument No. 102143306). ➢ A Planned Development (CUP -02-014) was approved in 2002 for Fairview Lakes (aka Devon Park) for a 192 -unit apartment complex, clubhouse, and commercial/office buildings consisting of 114,500 square feet of commercial uses and 15,000 square feet of office uses. ➢ A Conditional Use Permit modification (CUP -03-014) was approved in 2003 for detailed approval of a 96 -unit apartment complex, 52,250 square feet of office space, and conceptual approval of 122,000 square feet of commercial space adjacent to Fairview. Office uses were approved in the R-40 zone with this application. A Development Agreement modification was also approved (Instrument No. 103097614) at that time. (This CUP replaced CUP -02-014.) ➢ A Conditional Use Permit (CUP -05-023) was approved in 2005 for a public/quasi public use (the DMV) and for detailed site plan and building elevation review and approval of the previous conceptually approved office park, with amended setbacks as follows: Front yard with common lot - 0' Interior side yard - 10' North property line contiguous to Fairview Lakes Apartments - 10' Rear setbacks contiguous to the Settlers Village Subdivision - 15' Setback from North Lakes Place - 20' ➢ A Preliminary Plat (PP -05-018) was approved in 2005 for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 consisting of 16 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 3.26 acres, zoned R-40 and C -G. This PP re -platted a portion of the property platted with PP -02-034. ➢ A Final Plat (FP -06-015) was approved in 2006 for Devon Park Subdivision No. 3 but has not yet been recorded. Note: A building for John Flaherty Construction (CZC-05-091) was approved in 2005 along the east side of the Devon Park development that contained an overhead door on the side elevation. This approval was granted in error. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: North Lakes Ave Location of water: North Lakes Ave Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: NA 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: NA 5. Hazards: NA Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 3 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 8,000 square feet (4 buildings) 2. Hours of Operation: 8:00 am to 6:00 pm g. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Primary access to the site is provided from Fairview Avenue via N. Lakes Place. No new access points are proposed or approved with this application. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On June 15, 2007, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, Meridian Police Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included comments, conditions, and recommended actions in Exhibit B below. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The 2002 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as "Mixed Use - Community." Per Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed Use land use category contains five sub -categories. "Generally, the mixed-use designation will provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual site plan. The purpose of this designation is to identify key areas which are either infill in nature or situated in highly visible or transitioning areas of the city where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility." The following standards apply to the MU -C category: 1) Up to 25 acres may be non-residential uses and 2) Up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area is allowed. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): • Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area (Goal I, Objective B, Chapter VII, page 109). The proposed use of the property would contribute to the variety of commercial uses within the impact area. However, staff does not believe that the proposed use appropriately contributes to the mix of commercial uses in this area. Encourage compatible uses to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land (Goal IV, Chapter VII, page 112). Staff does not believe that the proposed flex space on the subject lots is compatible with the abutting residential properties and will create conflicts because of the noise that is typically associated with loading and unloading of materials that require the use of overhead doors. Further, Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with the future office uses approved on adjacent lots for noise related reasons and appearance of the building favade with the overhead doors. • Require screening and buffering of commercial and industrial properties and residential use with transitional zoning (Goal VI, Objective A, Action 6, page 112). Staff does not believe that an adequate buffer is provided between the existing residential uses on the north and west property boundaries and the proposed flex space buildings. The lots abutting the west property boundary were approved for a reduction in standard buffer Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 4 • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 width of 20 feet to 15 feet. The lots on the north boundary were approved for a reduction in buffer width from the 20 feet to 10 feet. Because the proposed flex use is more intense than a traditional office use, Staff feels that a more substantial buffer and transition in zoning should be provided for the flex space use as originally intended by approving office uses adjacent to the residential uses with commercial (C -G zoned) uses further to the south. Staff believes that the proposed use is not consistent with the Plan's intent of providing compatible land uses between properties. Further, Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible with the uses desired for the MU -C land use category which provide for day-to-day service oriented businesses that serve the community. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: This property is currently zoned R-40, but was previously approved for office uses. Staff believes that if this property were zoned to reflect the land uses approved with the PD, it would have an L -O zoning district designation. This belief is based on the close proximity of the residences to the property and the "office" uses that were allowed with the PD approval. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the commercial zoning districts (C -N, C -C, C -G, and L -O). Professional Services (offices) are permitted uses in all of the four commercial zoning districts. Flex space is a permitted use only in the C -C and C -G districts and is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-18) as follows: Retail use shall not exceed 25% of leasable area in any tenant space. Flex space is prohibited in the L -O and C-Nzoning districts. UDC 11-1A-1 defines Personal and Professional Services as follows: "The use of a site for the provision of individualized services generally related to personal needs. Personal service uses include, but are not limited to beauty and health care services such as salons, hair, nail and skin care, spa, and barbers; locksmiths; and repairs such as footwear and leather goods, and watches. Professional service uses include, but are not limited to: architects, landscape architects and other design services; computer designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios, and title companies. The term does not include health care and social service." UDC 11-1A-1 defines Flex Space as follows: "The use of a site for warehousing, offices, and/or retail showroom. Flexibility in use of the interior spaces and low -scale, attractive exterior appearance characterize flex buildings." b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: CUP: The Applicant is applying for a modification to CUP -05-023 to allow for flex space uses on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, of Devon Park Subdivision No. 3. The flex space is proposed to consist of warehousing/storage and showroom space with overhead doors on the front elevation. If approved, all other previous conditions of approval for this project would remain the same. Note: A building for John Flaherty Construction (CZC--05-091) was approved in 2005 along the east side of the Devon Park development that contained an overhead door on the side elevation. This approval was granted in error. The subject properties are zoned R40 and were previously approved for office use through a Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 planned development for this site. Per UDC Table 11-213-2, flex space is listed as a different use than professional services (offices) and is only permitted in the C -C and C -G zoning districts. The approved office use of the property is most comparable to the L -O (Limited Office) zone, in which flex space uses are prohibited. The L -O zone is the City's least intense commercial zone. The planned development for Devon Park was approved with office uses in this portion of the development to provide a transition, or a buffer, between the residential uses to the north and west, and the commercial uses (zoned C -G) to the south. The UDC contains specific use standards (see above, Section 9, and UDC 11-4-3-18) for flex space uses. Retail uses are not allowed to exceed 25% of leasable area in any tenant space. The Applicant has submitted a floor plan (see Exhibit A.4) that shows future warehouse/showroom area in excess of 25% of the tenant space. Showroom area is considered retail space because items displayed are available for retail sale. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject lots as Mixed Use — Community (MU -C). Sample uses in the MU -C category include the following: grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, salons, daycare, professional offices, medical/dental clinics, retail/gift shops, schools, parks, churches, clubhouses, public uses, clothing stores, garden centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station, department stores, etc. All of the afore -mentioned uses serve the day-to-day needs of the community. Staff believes that the proposed flex space use is not consistent with these types of uses and would be more appropriate in a commercial or industrial designated area. Staff believes the proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent residential uses that border these properties on the north and west boundaries because of the activities and equipment that are associated with this type of use (noise from loading and unloading of materials via the proposed overhead doors). Further, Staff does not believe that the proposed use is compatible in appearance or use with the intended office use of the property or the other uses in the general vicinity, especially with the overhead doors on the front facade, and will adversely change the character of the area. Per UDC 11-1A-1, flex space is intended for flexibility in use of interior space and low scale, attractive exterior appearance. Staff believes that the proposed overhead doors would not provide an attractive exterior appearance to these buildings as intended with flex space uses. Further, Staff believes that the proposed use will adversely change the essential character of the area. As noted above, a building was previously approved in this development in error that contained an overhead door. Staff does not feel that the previous approval should set a precedence and does not believe that further approvals of this nature should be allowed. For the above -stated reasons and per the Findings listed in Exhibit C, Staff is not in support of the requested MCU. Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation for the flex space use are from 8 am to 6 pm (the application did not specify days of the week). Building Elevations: Elevations of the proposed building were submitted with this application and are attached in Exhibit A.3 of this staff report. The elevations depict overhead doors on the front elevation of the proposed building, which is not consistent with the approved office use of the property or the proposed flex space use. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending denial of MCU -07-002 for Devon Park Flex Space, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in Exhibit C. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 5. 2007. At the public hearing, they directed Staff to prepare conditions of approval and findings for approval. Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Site Plan 3. Building Elevations for Proposed Flex Space 4. Floor Plan 5. Overhead door constructed on the Flaherty Construction site B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code Devon Park Sub3 MCU -07-002 Page 7 a 1 f i i III til i I I , Y til 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 2. Site Plan O tk_00, - 1SGIPE FFER arGB? ALaennc/ LOT- R -4d F 141 1 ...... 2,:5036::-5:f .. _.�---_20'— _�---- W IIFilm Exhibit A Page 1 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 3. Building Elevations for Proposed Flex Space Exhibit A Page 1 s e CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 Exhibit A Page 1 V�.s�;� CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 5. Overhead door constructed on the Flaherty Construction site fn 21 Exhibit A Page 1 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 B. Agency Comments 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 The applicant shall be allowed to construct flex space buildings with overhead doors on Lots 26, 27, 28, and 29, Devon Park Subdivision #3. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval of Fairview Lakes/Devon Park applicable to this site and the conditions of approval of the subject CUP contained in this staff report. 1.2 The hours of operation for the businesses on the subject sites shall be limited to the hours between 6 am and 10 pm. 1.3 The use of hysters, forklifts, and similar equipment shall not be allowed outside of the structures on the subject sites. 1.4 One roll -up loading door is allowed for each building on the subject properties in compliance with the proposed building elevations shown in Exhibit A. Said roll -up doors shall not exceed 8 feet in height and shall include windows/glazing similar to the overhead door constructed on the Flaherty site, shown in Exhibit A5 of this report. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 No manholes or water valves shall be allowed in the landscape islands. 2.2 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The Applicant should be required to use any existing surface water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.3 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 2.4 Floodplain: Any work or improvement within the floodway or floodplain on this property shall file a floodplain development application with the City of Meridian Public Works Department prior to commencement of the work. 2.5 The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. Exhibit B Page 1 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5 3.3 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.4 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code (roll -up doors are not exit doors). 3.5 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 6.1 SSC has no comments related to this application. Exhibit B Page 2 • 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from the Unified Development Code The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. The site was previously approved for a reduced buffer between land uses along the western property boundary to 15 feet from the required 20 feet for L -O zoned properties adjacent to residentially zoned properties (L -O being the most comparable zone for the approved use). Staff is unable to determine if the buildings proposed for the subject lots comply with all building setbacks as the Applicant did not submit a scaleable site plan. The applicant will be required to comply with all dimensional standards of the UDC (except for the amended setbacks previously approved with CUP -05-023) prior to issuance of Certificate of Zoning Compliance for each building on the site. Staff recommends the Commission rely on Staff's analysis and any oral or written public testimony provided when determining if this site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Mixed Use — Community (MU -C). The property is currently zoned R-40 but was approved for office use through CUP -03-014. The Commission finds that the proposed flex space use is consistent with the office uses that were approved on this site as part of the PD (see Sections 8, 9, and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The Commission finds that the proposed flex space use would be a compatible use on the subject properties, which are adjacent to residential properties to the west and north. Per UDC 11-1A-1, flex space uses are intended for flexibility in use of interior spaces and low scale, attractive exterior appearance. The Commission finds that the proposed overhead doors would provide an attractive exterior appearance to these buildings. Further, the Commission fords that the proposed warehouse/storage and show room space with overhead doors is compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the intended character of the general vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not adversely change the essential character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that the proposed use of the subject properties for flex space with overhead doors will not adversely affect other property in the area. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public facilities and services. Exhibit C Page I 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the Applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not involve activities, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be unfavorable to adjacent residences. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the proposed use will create excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C Page 2 Al 0 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the Applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community's economic welfare. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not involve activities, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be unfavorable to adjacent residences. The Commission should rely upon any public testimony provided to determine if the proposed use will create excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature considered to be of major importance. The Commission finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C Page 2