Loading...
2007 09-06f<. I ~Y • 'C..~ ~~~' ~ MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING .~,;~ ~~ ~ ° REGULAR MEETING ~~, ;~ AGENDA City Council Chambers ~~<<;. 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ,; Thursday, September 6, 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 O Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve t. 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve B. Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Approve ~ 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: CUP 07-013 Request ' ~~ fora Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian . i Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C-N t . ~ 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 - ~i 2 175 N. Ten Mile Road: Approve ,~..: _ 5. Tabled from August 2, 2007: 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 ;;;=~F ~~. Christian Church by Steve Pardew -175 N. Ten Mile Road: Approve 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 6, 2007 Page 1 of 2 _ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acxommodation 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 I.I ,r~„ ~~ ^ ~,~t ~ ^~ ~' ~ ~: ,r.n- ~~ I s +2 ~ ~i ~f ~~ I } i , k " l , ., , ~~ y.~ t `. l ~ ~_ ~.> _~,~... .. . --.,- ., ~ 1 Z"l yI "~~ it ~ ~. Ll. _ t~ ). . ~ -..._ '„ ~~~~~~ t ~ II I h / 4 {` I '` * f~l l II ~~ r( ~ '_ l ~ ?~ c v:~ I i ~ Y :) ~ ~ .~:. ii:: ~~ ` .. m.r - h, ' r ~~~~ n ~ ~{ a r: . . ~ ~~. ~ ~ l _ ~ ~ ~ ,~,~ v ) r ~ ~ i g ~ f r~' ~~. [ : s~ G r -1.~ . J a ~-, t ., F. ' I ~nC ? 4~k~ ~ ` ~' g I ~ ' :~ d _ r.. , . ,r . 'P ~'Y , I 1 III ~ 11 1 l Y- FFF. N ""~~~y~ '`~ '40,~ ~ ~, " - ~ ~ L " ?3 i ~ 6 '.' III ~ t d ~,. ..p~:~' ~ 'v ~ ~; j{ ~ ~+' i Ip ~ ~~•,/ I ~ I ~.~re tip; _ 2 ~ ~• Ti~i 7~ ~I ~ i~'~Y~"~$~% T~"_ i ~Y ~ i.~i i t: -' ,1 ` .. ~ {c p, f'- ~~ rat,C:# tt: tiaa ._ a I ~~~ ~~ .~ e~`'L{`1..}`t:~ i . %r [~rF' yK~. ~ A 4 ~ ~ti ~ f , f g Ft _ 1 r' ~- - ~ ~ 4 y, ~' F ~ S < ~ , 1 f ~'` a ~~ ~{ 4'~ 1.. .~ • E;: _> the C-G. zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - ~'~ 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road: Recommend w. Approval to City Council fi. ~;Y;x, 7. Public Hearing: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning ~+ district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 ~: ;~: ,:~ `.: & 1375 E_ Fairview Avenue' Recommend Annroval to City Council .. ~, f°I ~.';::: . ~ ire:', Y ~!; ~~_,L: Fy '..; r: ;. ~. i.,°.~ h is ~<>~+~ ~ti~ k. ~~::ti +' ,f ~,!:. ~" ~'''' ~ti: ~'~~ v~,r. `f (~:. ~": i~, y ~_ Y: "-°i°. ~.\`' ~Fx ~: r ~. . , Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - Septemb er 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 ~ ~~; All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~~~ ° Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to docum ents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours p rior to the public meeting. ~: ~~u. , ~ am, } a r . s~3`. - ~i,. - F ~~ ~"~ '~ ~ _, ,. ., ,~ . ~ . ~ it _ ? . .r _ ~. ~ ~ ._ _ . _. S '~. , ~x ~ ~ ', of 4 I Y I ~ f I , ..q r y ~e ' .. u ,. i . x:. ~ ~ t~ _ k ti e :~" ~ . - ( ~ i~ i 1 III I I Y f M ~ f f 3 ~~ 4Y'~ ~- ' I X . CcY~ ~ j 1~ .l y. t 4. 1 ' ~ 'S ~. _ 3 ~, h'o 1 ~ ..~ , ~~'~. ~. [.. _ k - y ~' ~~ ~ . I' ~ . `.. ~` ~~ i ~:~. ~, ~ y ~ ; ~ ' ~ i I ~ . , r,,:- -?'. h° «rs 'ty ,,~ :~;, .re ~,~~ ~ ;.a h~. r F _. . . T- ~ ~ v r r ~. y ~.. ..r .-~~ I . s. O ~ ~ ' `' ~ I '~~ • ~~.{, -_ .~E - s ~- ~ I I . Ef. : ~~„~~ i ~- t _ .5. [ >~t I ~ *~/: ~' . ~Sx A . w~ ' _ r ~,. <.. ~i, . . L _ !k= .r} E , ~ ' 1-, rM ni W ,.35 W~ . t:i ~i*., ... y~~e ~2 ~ ~ k ~ ;ra ~.:~~-a x v 4. :'4 ~ ~ ~ r a ~~' >, ~3 ~., ._. , I ~ ~ ~~~"f ~~ ~ ~ ' C I ~ ~ a w' 1 .... ..~ -• I. _. 1 y. i P. Je .p .P _..~f 'I ~1~~ Mlni< ..,.w ~xN'r- f ~ .N l~ X9 J.H i ' ddd v 4 'k `: " . p ~~~ ~ I y{ ~ ~ . 4 ~ ~' i I ~ ~~La~ ~' I u~ ~ ~ da ~ ._ S III I' I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~ t ~ '~~ I i i ~ II I ~ ~ f1 '° M S ~, ' "~ ` ~ I ~~ ~a-~ Ali ~i' ~ ' F. s :±~r ~ `~ $ ~'~ r ~ .: .~+:, t s t, . t ,. . . I ~ ~ ~ ~~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ II, I f ~ ~ ~ y ^4 f ~ ~ tFt. _ I ~ ~` ~~k~ I ~ '~ ;~.~ fit ~,' _ . A r... ~: $: _~ : .. ~:~ .. is } ~•k,. ~d~„. r`.G:~81 Ski ~,, .,;, :~ -~y MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected _ to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: ?,;: Tom O'Brien ~ Wendy Newton-Huckabay David Moe Steve Siddoway Michael Rohm -chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~-~~~-® ~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~~~ ~~~ ~= B. Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning y Commission Meeting: ~~~ ~~ ~~ t>-. ; 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: CUP 07-013 Request fora 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 b UDC 11-26-3.A.3 and re uest for an urban farm use y a ~ = ° ~= in the C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: ` /I ~~ ~,® ~ 5. Tabled from August 2, 2007: 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 '`''a'`~' 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: '~ ~ ~dal~~°'~ ~~, 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within `' `~'.~ ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 6, 2007 Page 1 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. }'~' Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, ;: >~°'~ please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~x pert i _ ~~t ~=: ~z ~_ • o w '~~ the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - ` ~ 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road 2910 ~ j 7 P bli H i b n . u c ear ng: PFP 07-003 Request for a Com ed Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning j , district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 ``' kt & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: ~ ~a! ~~ ~ ' > ~/ ' ~'•., :.s°~~ f.,' . ~. Ti, ~ .. i,s l.~ i ~ ':i S, N~~> . •,} -, '~;r"1 ~. 1 _ r~ it J'3:~ ~y}x` 5f ..4 .,~T f~~y Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 _ All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~'~±~- r_~~:. ~~ M r:, ~~s w~~, R . ,f ~~..., ,, :~ Broadcast Report Date/Tlme 09-07-2007 08:53:32 a.m. Transmit Header Text Clty of Meridlan Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1 `~' Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 ~,r This document :Failed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5 "x11 " ,; r ~ ,~ xr ~;.~I '~~' .~ r: ~: ~ ,_ k .~ -. ;,,,~ ;. `~ Total Pages Scanned : 2 r. C~iYt E IDIArrt MERIDIAN PI.ANNIt~iG AND ZONMG IDAHO REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Coundl Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridlan, Idaho Thursday, Sepbsmber 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. °Atthor~gh the City of Meridlan »o longer requires sworn testJmony, all preserrtetions before the Mayor and CHy Council are expelled to be truthful and honest fin best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Rolt~aall Aitendanca: Tom O'Brien ~ Wendy NewRon-Huckatsey David Moe ~ ,_~Steve Siddoway Mtchaei Rohm -chairman 2. Adaptran of the Agenda; A-~p~rjy-~~p~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 2, X07 Planning end Zoning Commission Maetlrtg: l,„~~ B. Approve Minutes of August 18, 2007 Plannng and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~.P~ ~6 ~~ 4. Corrdnued Public bearing from August 2, 20x7: CUP 07-013 Request for a Condftlonal Use Permit par requirement of the Development Agreement far detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the GN zone es allowed by UDC 11-28-3.A.3 and request far an urban farm use in the GN zone for Cherry Lame Christian Church by Steve Perdew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: , /l p~ i,,D ~ S. Tabled from Augusts. Tabled from August 2, 2007: Findings of Fact and Conctuslons of Law for Approver: CUP 07.013 Request lot a Conditional Use Perm}t per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed efts plan apprava! of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; n3quest to exc~d the rnax}mum building ix~igM !n the GN zone as allowed by UDC 11 28-3.A.3 end request for an urban farm use }n the C-N zone far Cherry Lane Chrfetran Church by Steve Parriew-175 N. Ten Mite Road: B. Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Prellm}nary Plat approval for 34 commerc}sl / retell building lots and i comrrron lot an 17.84 acaes vukhin Mend}en PiannLsg ami zonlrtg ComrN9slon Meeting Agenda- September8, ~7 wage 1 ot2 ar ~ r a:pualfcnreedngs siac a pmpany orme ~ ot~endren. Anyone deslnng accommodaden Axratleeb166as rested ro docwnenfs and/or t~enng, pleF~eoanteatd~ cny dance otrrce ata~-4as3 at-emscae Hoare rnoreo ma Quw~ meeang. Total Pages Confirmed : 36 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 024 3810160 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:01:58 212 1 EC HS CP9600 002 024 8989551 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:27 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 003 024 2088848723 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:52 2!2 9 EC HS CP24000 004 024 6886854 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:23 2!2 1 EC HS CP28800 005 024 2088985501 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:28 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 006 024 8467366 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 024 8950390 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:22 212 1 EC HS CP31200 4',_ ~, ~ ,M y_7< ? r ~,~';'- ~ , F - ~: F ~~..;.. 4 r~ 4 5.., ~ .. 1 /:' .... t a i ~ r Date/Time LocaIID 1 Local ID 2 ;;,r ~~. y', ' t _ {f, ;"` ~ Abbreviations: HS: Host send HR: Host receive I WS: Waiting send ~~~I '` `'~.ti. -.z:. Y a i ''~ .: ' i `, r--i=i; 'k~ { .' i PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user PR: Palled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group3 MS: Mallboxsave FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correct 4n ~ ~ s - ~ ;F ~, iE ~°fi~~t t~'~ 4 R e ~i~ F i G l .~ ~`~ ~~t• ~~ ~: ~ ~~ t 5 ~ ~~ ~, ~. ~~.~r ~ ~_ ~.. j ~ J i d , ~~~ fR ~~ ~ `y'1.~ ~'~ I ;,~,r~( ~!F ~ ~~ ~ r ~ "fit Lt ~ L -K+ ~ i ~ ~- ~' 3 fi JY ~~igg~~ [{L .~~ ~,~ ~~ F; - rF f. vGf ~,,, 1-~ ~ ffuc~~~ L ~/t S 7 SY j ~yy ~ S i Y _ FY ) -' ~ h "~ ~~p 1 n ~o;v- ~ ~.~, t,a~~r~ ~~, ~ 1 ~..~ t~ ly#~''~e~~lx~{ ~,~~F.j prF~ ' ~ k A.'. C ~ a ,,,A~ ~ ,.,_~ 4 ;~~ !~ k '~ I'n~~ ,Y~,I g~~` ~'`.~iwc ~~: -~~ r4, ~'n ~- t' 9n ~ t E;'C , 5Si ,' . 'V 4 'c'„ IG ,+,~' .~ yy.~ r ~ ~Y,.^ R~.t ,~ _ ~~f} w alp sbi yayaae '~'~.a :1;. ~ ~ broadcast Report 09-07-2007 08:53:42 a,m. Transmit HeaderText City of Meridian Idaho 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local Name 2 Line 2 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 024 208 888 2682 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:22 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 009 024 2083876393 08:27:33a.m.09-07-2007 00:00:46 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 010 024 2877909 08:27:33a.m.09-07-2007 00:00:22 212 1 EC HS CP33600 011 024 2088885052 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:22 2/2 1 EC HS CP31200 012 024 8881983 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:26 2/2 1 EC HS CP24000 013 024 2083776449 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:45 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 014 024 4679562 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:43 2/2 1 EC HS CP21600 015 024 8886700 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:01 0!2 1 -- HS FA 016 024 8884022 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:01:23 2/2 1 EC HS CP14400 017 024 3886924 08:27:33 a.m. Q9-07-2007 00:00:28 212 1 EC HS CP24000 018 024 8841159 08:27:33 a.m. 09-07-2007 00:00:23 212 1 EC HS CP28800 019 024 8840744 08:27:33 a,m. 09-07-2007 00:00:24 212 1 EC HS CP28800 ~f E IDIAN,- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING =~~ ~ w~ ,~ 7 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ';`=:,~ Thursday, September 6, 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 Y n~:` 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~ `` 3. Consent Agenda: ~~~ A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning i ~'~ `~~'` Commission Meeting: ~!'~-< i B. Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ~ '^ 4. Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: CUP 07-013 Request ~~i fora Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development y'`" ```~ A reement for detailed site Ian a royal of the Che 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 `j~ „' in the C-N zone for Cherry Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - 175 N. Ten Mile Road: a,: .^ h ~ `! 5. Tabled from August 2, 2007: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of ri.~'>~~ Law for Approval: CUP 07-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit r r =~' per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Chery 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: , ; 6. Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 " ~, Y- ~,,, commercial /retail buildin lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within ~; ~- `~ ~~~ ' Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 6, 2007 Page 1 of 2 ~r1 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~ h .,~ f 'G' f ~~ -t' ~ A Y R t~ a ~' ~ .. ~?- , .7 ~ t ' ~} ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ th f %~~ ~ ~~~tZ!1` ~~.' E 1~~ Y L r ~~. '+~~C~S+IY } F~ ~r~ ~ Y 5 1i~r ?? r ~ k ~~ . ~, . _ __ ~,. Y ~' t' , a: t;., ~. , E f ~d• ~ji3 _`E' „: ~r~~:; ~;,y ,_,~- <~~F: ~;r': ~~ Ib~`" ... fr 4;. • the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road: 7. Public Hearing: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda - September 6, 2007 Page 2 of 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. . - ~ _,~ .;, ~.: ..o ~ L - Broadcast Report Date/Time 09-04-2007 03:40:22 p.m. Transmit HeaderText Cltyof Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 ~= :. This document :Failed _ (reduced sample and details below) M. ~. ~~~ `~~ Document size : 8.5 °x11 " ~' ~ ~fease~o~l--~r`~i,b~r`c l~~ree- ~h~ks ~~> C~%~E IDIAN n~E~IDtAN Qt.ANnua+; AID zolvtaG " IDAHO REGULAR NIEEi'ING ~+ :, ,_ AOEMDA ~} Clty Council Ghambera ~,'~ 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ;.` ~:`Za f ,~ ~ T~ra~Y, September S, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Although the City of Meridian no Longer requees sworn testFmonY, aH presentatlons before fhe Mayor and City Ctwnc~J are expected to be truthful and b honest to best of the abf(Ityof the pre~nter. ~ 1. Roibcali Attendance: tz, ~~ Tom O'Brian Wendy NewtotrHuokabay David Moe Steve Shidoway . _ Michael Rohm - chairman ~~s-;:~,~.= ~, 2. Adoption oftha A~nda• ~~ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of Aulaust 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commtsston Meeting: B. C~ammissfonr Meetng August 1t1, 2007 Plannirg and 2:onfng 4. CorrfJnued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: GUP 07.073 Request ,i ..,: for a Canditfonat Use Permit per requirement of the Development ~j.:'~- Agreement for detailed site plan approve! of the Cherry Lana Christian Church site; request to ®xcesd the maximum buiidtng height in the GN -. zone as allowed by UDC 11-2B-3.A.3 and request for an urban farm use ~~ ;~ In the GN zone for Ghany Lane Christian Church by Steve Pardew - ' ~ 1 Y5 N. Ten Mils Road: 5. Tabled from August 2r 2007: Findings c1P Fact and GOnciusions M ;, Law for Approval: Ct1P 07-013 Request for a Condttlonal Use Permtt r..~ per requirement of the Development Agr'eemtartt for detailed site p~17 approval of the Cherry Lane Ghristian Church site; request to exce®d the maximum bufkting height In the GN zone as slowed by UDC 11-28-3.A.3 •~• and request for an urban farm use in the Gld zone tar Cherry lane ;;:..-.~ Christian Church by Steve Pardew -175 N. Ten Mile Road; ti, Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request far Praiimtnary Plat approval for 34 commercial J retail building iota and 1 common lot on 17.84 awes within ~~~' Maridtan Pkinning and Znnfng Commission MleeHng Agenda - September 8, 2007 Page 7 oft A#I maEer}e!a Presented at puWtc meetings ehafi beratne pmpet3y or the qry of Mstidtan. Anyone desMtFg aruommod~n for dlsab9tt~e related 10 doatmaMa arMlor headrrg, please tmntxf the CHy Gledc's Otflce at f~8~4a33 at least 48 holes prior to the pubis maegt~. Total Pages Srannarl ~ ~ Tn+~I Donne r....~F1.....,.J . oe ~, No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results ~`:~~ 001 999 3810160 ~~ - -;., 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:01:49 2!2 1 EC HS CP9600 002 999 8989551 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:26 212 1 EC HS CP21600 ,~~y 003 999 2088848723 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:22 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 ,,~ ,. ''"`~ 004 999 8886854 03;13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:24 212 1 EC HS CP31200 005 999 2088985501 r 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:27 212 1 EC HS CP31200 '; - 006 999 8467366 ,. 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:22 2/2 1 EC HS CP28800 007 999 8950390 03:13:24 p.m.09-04-2007 00:00:20 2/2 1 EC HS CP33600 :- ~'`F tel~{ ~ ~;< ~ ~ ~: ~ . - i ~~~ ;~ ;~~~:~ ry~ s fi ~. k r - ":- ,. ~. jt~T. ,, . ~:~iv,. }µ.~.. ~~':'~ :::, $~" • ~: ;- /~ ~. ~ t- ,ti.~,: ~~ >. ,~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Meetinu September 6, 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 6, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Moe, Tom O'Brien and Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Members Absent: Steve Siddoway. Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Scott Steckline, Bill Parsons, Sonya Wafters, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X David Moe -Vice Chairman O Steve Siddoway X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to open 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: The adoption of the agenda. I do not believe there are any changes tonight and so I would appreciate a motion to adopt the agenda as written. Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: ?~ _. .. t ._.. ., .... r ~__.. ~.. i ~..., 4 F- ,. ~~ . 1.- ~; i ~ }` ,t_ { F • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 i`~ Page 2 of 46 B. Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning ~`~~` Commission Meeting: _ Rohm: The first item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and that consists of approving the minutes from the August 2nd, 2007, and the August 16th, 2007, Commission meetings. Any changes or corrections? ,! ~,.;:..: y,,... ,~ L;r I Vii: ,'. l`' _. '. 47 -' _~.: ~° . .. Moe: I have none. O'Brien: None. Rohm: Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We have a very short schedule tonight, but as always, before we open up any public hearings, I'd like to just share with you the process that we go through a little bit before we open it up and, basically, we ask the staff to provide their response to a given application and once the staff has given their assessment as it pertains to the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC, then, we ask the applicant to come forward and present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations have been completed, the balance of the time will be open to the public to provide their testimony. The applicant, then, will have an opportunity to respond to any testimony from any respondents out in the audience. So, that's the process that we will go through and when you come forward, please, state your name and address for the record. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: CUP 07-013 Request fora Conditional Use Permit per requirement of the Development Agreement for detailed site plan approval of the Cheny 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: Item 5: Tabled from August 2, 2007: 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 ~~~~e~~9~~r L..~ ''''STTTT~~~ `S j.4' . F >' R. cn _ ~ ~€~~'4` .~4r ~ i Y14ni .. 1 S C {~~ 3~ ~~t~F ~~ r~rrr`" p ~Yt~~ x~~i .'s i ~ ~ ,~ f ~ .l il r,1.q. .aL x .,,~;4; ~ - c ~~t~ r~ f~ ~~~~ 9 ~~ 4 ~~ l,h. ~~f - t J Y y i ~ C t ~ .('y.~~ l1 R~'.. ~y - * ~ k F a ~- s kz tza u~ ~ .,r n +. +e~ A:•k~3 Una>'"~' '` ~`i~,'4 ~~~'~ ~Sj ,',, r „;~ } ~`~ ~; ,,~: 4 4r,; - _ x .. ,, ~.` ~} 1J ~' x411 ak~,a'5. i ~. ~ T i+. i v .~ •.,,r ~~2~ i • .• , t, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 3 of 46 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: With that being said I'd like to at this time open the continued Public Hearing from August 2nd, 2007, of CUP 07-013. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This is the Cheny Lane f..-`. Christian Church project that you guys previously heard on July 5th. It's located on the '"~ northwest comer of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. At the hearing on July 5th the Commission declined to make a decision, because ACHD's comments had not yet been received and you guys wanted to have that information before making a decision. The ACHD report was still not completed by the August 2nd hearing, so the project was continued until tonight's meeting. Comments have been received from ACHD and staff has included those comments in this report for the September 6 Public Hearing. ` Additionally, the applicant has submitted revised elevations that reflect the ~~'' Commission's desire for the proposed metal siding to be used as an accent material as required by the UDC, rather than as a main building material as originally proposed. I '~: t will show you a copy of the revised elevations that the applicant submitted here. The , ;;, original plan -- plans have been included on the slides here and, then, the revised ones are also included, so that you can see the difference. The applicant has also submitted .! revised site plans that show a reduction in the size of the structure proposed in phase one from 48,000 square feet to 35,277 square feet. Has a reduction in parking from 481 ,: L spaces to 413 spaces. And the seating capacity in phase one sanctuary was previously ~~ 888 and is now 760. This is a copy of the revised landscape plan. The original also. And the master plan has been revised to reflect a reduction in the overall parking :«~ proposed from 2,388 spaces to 2,050 spaces. And the total square footage of all buildings before was 316,858 square feet and is now 333,621. The difference being in the master church building previously 229,475 square feet and is now 246,238 square feet. And the revised site plan also depicts relocation of the easterly access to Franklin Road shown on the master site plan to be shifted further to the west as required by ACHD. So, these revised plans depict the location that ACRD required. So, that's all ~''`~ staff has, unless the Commission has questions. `~~` Rohm: Thank ou, Son a. An y y y questions of staff? O'Brien: Excuse me. Staff -- Mrs. Wafters. What was the reason that Ada County Highway District wanted to move that -- what was the main reason for moving that entrance further west? Wafters: Give me just a second here. I believe it was the location and proximity to the intersection, but let me look real quick here. It says here that if the applicant relocates the driveway 100 feet further to the west it will be allowed to be a full access driveway, ~ 'r err ~#'~ r ~ ~` ~ ~ 3Y ''ij~E 'KY i ~~ +h~.H~'f , i• i 4t~ ~ r~ ~,E~~M ~ ~' F. t' ':.4 x ~ ' ~5~5~~ ~~~ ~~ - t.r .)~: tln ~ irr. F~ ' r F',~~ ~ A ~ 'Ai/ty ~k ,~t ~ 1`t ~F - '`di 55 ~ r ~ ~~ ' ' R ~ M y k ~ '~ pf ~ ~K~~ ~J pt ~ ~ti~' ~ i . F ~3 e Z :iR : 11 k ~.F t.i Y ~ 3 ~LFFF F~~ 7 7 . ~ T jj ~y~`~ dyYV~'~F .. , ~ ~i ' ~ 'F ~ -, x C - - ~~ Y ,,{{~AH} i~ Y~ i a~ ~ , - '~ Y ,~W~f ~ ~ '~E '~ , ` c ~. k ~f~. ' r,. ~'.c . ' s' 4 it^ f 1 } ?~. L+~ ~ k ~_ ~~~ta d" r - ~ _ . i ~ i~rF ~ t ~~ ~e n , c ~i c 4 F s `X~ ~{ E~~~~~ , ~ ~ ~ ti' ~ 'FLL ~ ^J ~ p ~•b ~ ~, 41yb~L #2i4 ~ -I ). t ~' 35~~ ;~ `~E~ik~~- ' l Y~Nij Y. j~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~ t. 1 b esYyd i ~ ~ ,~ S . . FE ` ~ to f~~ ' G '~'{ t ~)~ ~` { .. ~~~~~ •'~ g~e y ~_ w } ~ M1t~w` ~f~:~S ~6 ~ ~~ ~;t{~ k b `i • • ',-~ ';~ ~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ".fig September 6, 2007 x Page 4 of 46 ~,~,. ~a; ` due to the intersection design of Franklin -Ten Mile that includes dual left tum lanes, it's not possible to allow a full access driveway in the location originally proposed by the applicant. ~~; ~~ ;:: O'Brien: Thank you very much. Nothing further. ~: ~> Wafters: And this will be constructed in a future phase. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Sonya, a couple things I was curious about. In your summary of the recommendation and whatnot we still have the issues as far as the deferral of the requirement of the landscaping on the area south of the sidewalk, as well as the 25 foot ~< buffer along Franklin Road. Those are still in your staff report as staff wanting those to - happen; is that correct? Wafters: That's correct. Yes. Moe: And I did note that we did get a letter from ACHD discussing the Ten Mile - ~ '~s Franklin -Cherry Lane projects and whatnot and it looks like that's not going to happen for awhile, so, therefore, I just wanted to make sure that I -- that we were aware of that ~r•~ as well, so --okay. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? :';~ Newton-Huckabay: I have none. "'`'~~ Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. ';~,<;' Woodard: Good evening, folks. My name is Larry Woodard. I live at 1701 Almaden Street in Meridian. I'm one of the pastors at Ten Mile Christian Church, formerly Cheny Lane Christian Church, and so let the final record show that it's now Ten Mile Christian. We appreciate you placing us on the agenda tonight as we wrap up our request, so we can begin construction of our new worship facility at the northwest comer of Ten Mile ~;"~~, and Franklin Roads. If you recall from our previous hearing, there were two main issues ,.: that were unresolved and they were, one, a lack of a report from ACHD and we did not ~. have the elevations and pictures of how the building was actually going to look and we ~~ ~` have all of that tonight. Since that July 5th meeting we have met with ACHD officials ., and I'm pleased to report that we have reached agreement on all of the issues with ~` them. The issues of access points off Franklin Road were resolved and you were ~,:~ correct, they asked us to move that one -- future exit a hundred feet further west and they would allow that and so in a future phase we will build that. We also are in ~~. :..r„ ... .. .. . ,.• .> -`5.., :•'{.~; {..;;tri., '~."Is 1.. ~' i ~ ~ ; t~.. € ,~~•iF'v ~..a:a ... ,. •. ~:; .a `ter.., . _a,a-,r.t,,. a~i"'.1. ":v.: ~gL•i s .. '.. ;,. ,.. , .. S ? iy~~ ...... ,.. ~"i'T ~:~x "~~ i ,~. _ _ <;~:'~'.t ., ~~, t~ sp ,.s. 1~;:_ C~ cc':. ., .~L 1, '-', >:: ~~. ;:: ~.>: ~: ~r Ty h;.~; >~~ 1 -__ ;'~-. :: ~,Gc Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 5 of 46 i agreement at the southwest comer of our property that we will be a partner in installing a traffic signal at that comer and I understand that's apt to happen within the year, that Baronya -- have I got the right -- Baronya project to the south. Initially we will have two access roads in this first phases. One's directly in front of our new facility and the other is Umbria Road, which is at our southwest corner. And that's where the traffic light would be installed. We have also negotiated to the north two fire access routes across the Avest Storage property to meet fire department recommendations. At our July meeting it closed with a recommendation that the Public Hearing tonight be limited to the issues surrounding ACHD. So, I think now we have all the pieces in place. The charter school which purchased our old campus is now open as of last week and they and ourselves look forward to the day that we are not stepping over one another. We are jointly using that facility still. Steve Pardew, our architect from BRS, is here to answer any questions you might have on elevations and colors. You will note that we have down-sized the building a bit because of construction costs, but we are still going to end up with a seating capacity in the main sanctuary of 760 seats, which is double what we currently have. Kriezenbeck Constructors, whom you're familiar with on various public schools in Meridian, is our general contractor. Our plans are to have a ceremonial groundbreaking with the Mayor and other officials on the 23rd of this month and that some preliminary work could start by mid October. We anticipate that we will actually have amove-in date to our new facility around Thanksgiving of 2008. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Not at this time. Moe: I just want to see the elevations and whatnot, so -- Woodard: Yeah. Sure. Moe: So, your presentation is not done yet, you're okay? That's fine. Mr. Chairman, just one quick one. Has staff seen these prior to tonight? Wafters: Commissioners, this particular elevation staff has not seen. However, it should match up to the ones I have on the overhead here. It's just a little different view. Moe: Okay. Pardew: Steve Pardew. Address 1010 South Allante, Boise, Idaho. BRS Architects. First of all, I'd like to ask if there is any questions specifically in reference to the elevations or colors? Moe: Mr. Chairman? ~~~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. e ~, ~ , .~ ~ I~ H~ ~~ 3~ ~ ~ k R, T i ~ mil ~ ~ ~ ~„ _ti.'~I yi~ Fc: r 4 - s•1~ '~~+ w „r ~~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ - ~S' ~ €~ ' s ,~; -; ,~ ~ ~ , - ~. }fn ~* ~~~~~ a- ._ j~~~ ~ 4~ 1 1 `~ S~tY ": ,t {fl 1 1 r ~ti X '~ `~~ ~ ~. L ~ # 'lf A ~ .. - 4 Yx1' ~ ~ {~"` ~ - ' ~+`^~ g~: ~~{..'., ~~5 y ~.~ IY ~ ~K ~. f" 5 {~~ 1 [ ~. k 17 ~;_ '~A ~ -ti r 1 /"$ 4 ~ ~ ~ r~~ ~ ~1~~~.+~ ~ l ~~ ~ ~~~ • ~,= Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 6 of 46 Moe: Can you go ahead and give me an outline as to the materials on that? Colorwise I'm not too concerned so much about. With the rendering I've got here it still looks like you're doing some metal wall panels. Pardew: Yes. As was previously discussed in the prior hearing, it was our understanding that staff did allow, as mentioned in the stafFs report, that the metal siding would be allowed as a detail element in specific locations, primarily just to direct one's view with the lighting also centered in those panels as an appropriate finish. Moe: Is that stucco next to it, then? Pardew: Everywhere else is stucco. Moe: Okay. It's -- ~~, ,:-`~~, ~:~ ~_ -~ ~:_ Pardew: And, then, we still have the cultured stone accents primarily at the frame of the entry, the main entrances. Moe: Okay. Pardew: That's all the metal that was previously indicated on these upper areas, as well as in these areas has been removed and replaced with stucco. Moe: I said I didn't care about colors, but just a question for you. Pardew: Sure. Moe: Is that the same blue that's on Blue Cross? Pardew: It's a slightly different blue. It's maybe more understood as a cobalt blue. It's an off blue, not more of a royal blue. Moe: Okay. Pardew: And, essentially, the other colors in this have changed to gradations of gray, so that it's a light, medium, and a dark gray band. Moe: Okay. Pardew: As Sonya discussed the specific data changes from the previous submittal, the plan has been reduced to 35,227 square foot footprint and so what you -- you will see in this being different from previously was that we, essentially, had an increased second story over here, which has since been reduced. But in context, the -- the design I think has been very successfully retained and the elements of entrance and accenting ~~ ~'~ ~~~ ~, ~; ~~ ~ ~`~: ~~ ~ ~;~ ~~ i > ~ ~~~ C L ~ tt ~C~ r ya a ~~ qt- t-.ry. .: ,t +e 4¢S rr 1„ 1 - Y'c')n Ply t Ft •~ L'+,:~ _ ~ i { P~'y. _ _'VI~ ~i i~~~ R ~ ,h .~ ~ S ~„mot ._ - ? ~' s- N i't's ~~~ ` . Yr,: 't', n y u~c ~ t T t:~ .. `'~ ~ ~ t r `. h x ;~c t } S~. q ~;~ at~~~~ c 4 ~t..17 .. . ~~frr$ e ; ~~~~5, ,}~;, r ;. ~ ~ ~ //ppl i•, ~ ~~t+~:~y . ti~ M f7 ~ i' ~, a .~ uk~}=w ~t~ {~~~ ~ r „~~.~" ~ +• ~ ~ .M, ,c;r'''a+ ~~~ ;k f -. ~ • Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning ''' September 6, 2007 . Page 7 of 46 of main entries has also been, essentially, kept the same. Now, the other item specifically that I would like to request of the Commissioners to consider is in the r."`~' conditions of approval and I have Zane Johnson from WH Pacific to bring up another graphic that will indicate specifically what's proposed for current existing edge of asphalt, as well as the proposed landscaping, the proposed meandering sidewalk that's in here and, then, also the area that would -- that is still requested as being deferred. It's mentioned in the item 1.8 of conditions of approval that it is required, but we would like to respectfully request that it be deferred due to the extension of time by which ACRD has put off the actual construction. In meeting with them they specifically prefer {~ t that that curb line and adjacent landscaping be placed after their improvements are in to reduce the aspect of additional costs and damage to that landscaping if it was put in at this time. And there would be a curb only separating the pavement improvements of the new right of way that they would propose from the landscaping and, then, the meandering sidewalk. So, we are only really actually asking for a deferral of the `, landscaping south of the meandering concrete sidewalk. All the other proposed ~~ landscaping of trees, lawn, et cetera, north of that sidewalk around the full perimeter of the property is still proposed. Are there any questions specifically on that? O'Brien: So, if I understand, you're saying that that buffer is going to be without any . landscaping for a time and that -- did we determine that was going to be a year by year 4=:: basis? ~ ~`~' Pardew: As far as the letter of credit, as we discussed in the previous hearing with ~``~'°~r ` Commissioner Siddoway, that that letter of credit would be extended and whatever ~ terms would be agreeable to the city to hold that such that the church would, essentially, ~' ~~: bond for it or be able to provide that landscaping when ACHD made those improvements. ~ `~ O'Brien: I understand, too, that we talked about putting a gravel base in there. 1~~, Pardew: There would beaten foot gravel improved shoulder. ~ f '< :` 'I O'Brien: With weed barrier or -- ~7-.;; .. Pardew: Yes. Yes. ~ ~~ t ~ '~ O'Brien: --they will have maintenance -- `'``' '_=-'~' Pardew: It will be maintained, so that the weeds would not take it over. It would be XIE ~; . ~ ! maintained by the church. :. O'Brien: Thank you. ;~ ~ F,,. Pardew: Thank you. Any other questions on that. '® -,._. _ ~~~~, .,, v~ ~,,. r ,: ~~ ..,> ., ~~;; ~; -,P;; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 8 of 46 Rohm: Not at this time. • Pardew: I think all the other points that have been revised previous to our current submittal have been addressed by either staff or by Mr. Woodard, so if there is no -- I would entertain any other questions at this time. Rohm: Before you sit down I'd like to ask staff to respond a little bit to this adjustment in the landscape. How do you see this request for everything south of the sidewalk? Does that seem logical or does that -- is that something that the city would prefer that we avoid? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, yes, we discussed this at the last meeting and we are not really in favor of holding a letter of credit for, you know, an indeterminate amount of time. The widening of Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile is in ACHD's five year work plan to be widened from two lanes to five lanes using federal funding. However -- and the construction year is unknown, because it isn't a funded project. So, for that reason we aren't in favor of extending this. Rohm: Well, okay, let me -- let me ask it this way, then. If the applicant makes their S. M1:; - improvements based upon the -- the settings from their property line and what have you Pi and, then, Ada County comes in and has to tear it out to finish their road widening } project, is it up to Ada County to replace them and the -- this applicant wouldn't have to ~~ reinvest in landscape, would they not? r ~' ,, Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if ACRD does come in and widen that . ~=s ~~=~~~, road or when they do come in and widen Franklin Road, it would be the responsibility to ~~, ,:.., re-improve, if you will, the remainder of the right of way. It doesn't necessarily mean they will patch back in whatever they tore out, they could put in gravel or whatever they 4 ' feel is appropriate, it's their right of way. So, they may or may not put sod in. They may A ; ~ put gravel down or something else. So, within the right of way they pretty much have ~~ :~~ - free reign to -- to again re-improve that, if you will, to their standard, not to the city's F ;; standard necessarily. .,~: ~`. tr°' Moe: Mr. Chairman. I guess that brings up a question, then. What will their -- what wilt ,.~ the standard be to landscape that area right now, then? ~{ ~~~= Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe -- and that's why I'm looking at the applicant's -- ~_ the only thing that I see on the south side of the sidewalk is sod or that would be sod. All the required trees are on the north side of the sidewalk. So, it wouldn't be like they ,_... are ripping out trees or any real mature landscaping, it really is just -- would be sod or that's as simple as it could be, would just be seed, even, if it -- if it germinates and takes, it could just be grass seed with a ten foot gravel shoulder. So, there really isn't -- mean I uess from m r= ''~ g y perspective, rather than havin to track this eve g ry year and re- k~ _ _. t., ~~ .Sam ~#~J+~ r ~ k ~kY ;'} r A y ~ y n ~r~4, ~ r .~ }Xrys!3 ?f i>~~ ~ ~~ .: ;F !SR ~ ~ ~ ~'''4t i itR'af ` ' T~^K ~ z -,t y tk+aj~ df ~ *,~` °.f < <.f , 1 r 1, A r~ _ r ~ i.x. x f~s,:~ j ~ ~]~~1 p ++' t~ =~ L '_ .~ ,~~ y '.,:~ 5 ` y, '- j„ ~~ lrir.''k 1' ,' 7 ik'11 t :"].~~ fit- P k ~ ~, ~ c ~ ~P"s~' a ~,~ ~~ ,° t_ , ~. u Y h `Y'+.~ ~ lk,.r'. i .'. i- ~b. v Xd ~ , Stxc t ~ _ } F a _ _ w: .,, ~ ~~: ~-. ~~- ~~FA) f r ~~J~• ''~ ~ 1 n .y, u ~ {~ 1~ ri F f ~ ./ J{? _ . ''.'. i ~..; • • _,, -~: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning -r.' September 6, 2007 Page 9 of 46 up a letter of credit and get a new bid, if you want to waive it, I'd rather waive it than wait ten years and us as staff every year have to track this thing and get a new letter of credit and hound dog -- you know, make sure this thing keeps going. If you want to just ~' ` waive it and have ACHD put gravel in that's fine. The ideal situation is to just have them put in the entire improvements on their property, so -- ~'~'~~ ~, Pardew: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one other comment. In the ~` _ discussion with ACHD specifically to that, we were having some difficulty in getting " r~~ ° actual grades and design from ACHD on where that would occur based on the curb that they would put in and, then, pave to. So, the applicant's concern is that we would put in _:~ „I~!, lawn and improve that, takin our best uess at what that ultimate rade would be to ,_ r 9 9 9 match their back of curb, that if it's grossly -- you know, grossly different, obviously, that ':-~~~ would have to be tom out at that point anyway and redone. We are just hoping to be ~i.,N °r'' able to do it all at the same time and have that, you know, be a new construction all at one time. The other aspect of it is in that the specific back of curb for equipment clearances and that you would need to get into whatever the church would provide for that lawn anyway. So, it will be damaged and that was what we discussed with ACHD and their ideal situation of having that put in following their construction, just to ,~:I appropriately blend the improvement of that lawn to the new curb. That was the discussion. _ ~,~' ~'~r~.' Rohm: The distance from the south side of the sidewalk to the Ada County Highway District's right of way, how far is that? 3 °~, Pardew: The proposed landscape buffer specifically is 25 feet. The meandering sidewalk varies down the middle of that 25 foot buffer and, then, my understanding is that there is an additional ten feet of gravel that would be placed at the existing edge of asphalt that now exists. ~- °'~~~' Rohm: It seems to me, just trying to visualize the looks of the lay of the land, if we ask . ~ you to put ten feet of sod or at least a straight line all the way parallel to the roadway, ~~ '~ not to match the meandering sidewalk, make it parallel to the roadway and not take it all the way to where the road right of way is, it seems like that would be a happy medium. Do you think you could do that? ~~>~: ;:.:~ Pardew: I would agree. That would be a good compromise. Rohm: Okay. s,~_~ ~~~~~ ~ Hood: So, Mr. Chair, just a point of clarification. And if that's the direction the Commission wants to go and for the applicant, too, since you're still up there, would that be from the furthest point that the sidewalk meanders or -- that's what I'm assuming, guess, because it gets to four or five feet it looks like, I'm guessing, to that right of way .~ line, so ten feet wouldn't even be on their property, but that would be from the '-, - A 7 4 ~'r " s :~~ `, _ `,J v q~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 10 of 46 t:... Y H. ~~~ _. _.:; ~~ ~_;: . 'I <; , ':~ i -~ furthermost -- the most grass lawn seed, whatever, required would be ten feet and that would taper down to maybe two feet in some places. Rohm: If that's the meandering of the sidewalk. Hood: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. That's -- you know, just -- that's my opinion. I don't know. The balance of the Commissioner certainly have to weigh in on that. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, a lot of landscaping along the arterials now, they are kind of like on a berm or something. Is that what this is going to be? Pardew: That is correct. O'Brien: So, it's going to be raised in some places? Pardew: That is correct. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask staff again. Your opinion of the new elevations, what's their opinion of that? Wafters: Staff -- Commissioner, staff supports the new revised elevations. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: At this time there is nobody else that is signed up to speak to this application, but if someone would like to come forward now is that time. Any discussion before we close this Public Hearing? O'Brien: I don't have anything further. I think we have covered it. Rohm: I think it's been pretty well covered and for all intents and purposes we were just concerned about the Ada County -- Ada County Highway District's report and, then, some of the materials used in the elevations and I think the applicant's responded to both of those issues and so from my perspective I see no reason why we can't close the Public Hearing. O'Brien: So, are we going to waive, then, this -- as recommended by staff to waive the letter of credit on ayear-to-year basis? ~.~ ~< ~ ~, t `` ~ u'.h. t •'Si ~ ~ i ~ ~ ^r qy~ lr~M1~`~~.' F 1 2 ~~ll ! k h^ A r. t, A v t t d } ~~` • ,z~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ~;' September 6, 2007 "`' Page 11 of 46 ~~~ ~~ ; Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing, then, we can answer that -- ~: -, O'Brien: Oh. Sorry. ~~ ~,.. ~~« Moe: -- if we could. Mr. Chairman,. I'd like to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-013. i' kPa ,;^ Newton-Huckabay: 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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. x.. rye' Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. . O'Brien: I'm sorry. Moe: You're fine. Rohm: No. That's fine. O'Brien: Yeah. Are we, then, going to recommend to waive the letter of credit until I guess the end of this --depending on when the highway district improves that roadway? ''" Rohm: Well, you know, it depends on who makes the motion, but just from my ,, perspective, as long as we have an improved buffer that includes some sod on the :+ " south side of the sidewalk, I think that that's suffice to meet the intent and -- from my perspective and you know -- O'Brien: So, were they going to do this right of way, then, the -- Rohm: And we wouldn't take a letter of credit. :~i O'Brien: Okay. ;,~ Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, just to go over all the other items as well, as far as the exterior ~~ elevations, this is much better than the last time and I do appreciate that. And appreciate staffs comments on that. In regards to this site work and whatnot, after readin the letter from ACHD in re ards to the Ten Mile Franklin and Che L 9 ane 9 RY n r. ~,>,. p ojects and whatnot, It could be on that five year plan, but they are stating m the letter -~~_I that, basically, they don't have the money and are not sure when they are going to have .,, _, ~, a s wi ~F~~7jt ~ rL i.s 'rC~t~'~~, - ~ F Y~~~~. 2~1 t ^) ..{~ -t i 'ti } 1 9k S ~ ~ r~ ~ r 4 `~", - q~.pry~'q,'S i µ, r II ~~~• i; l~q v. ~,J~ .. t ~ '..;,~y, - L { 1 i i t~ ~ .~T ~ f,~., k J 'r . n ~` ~ v ~~ ,~n.. ' ~ '~~r ,r s~ ~~ „~. ,~___; " ~ ~ t ``~"' a . , ti b >64 ~ i' > r - ~ ,1 s. ,. ,s'r i "`° ' ~C'~?~s r ~y-~'? ~"¢ L~*W"., ~ 1~ rw: ~~ K3~' i ~, t ~'_ d ~_ v wy«... ~,t p~p~~ ~ - ~q~ ijw vlrr. F'ia't` L~ f~ _'-.s_Jf n .. ,. r~ L J `""'` Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 12 of 46 > i. the money and so I'm of the opinion I would like to see the comments of staff to stay. I think if, in fact, all they are going to do is put out seed, which would be the least F.y expensive way to go, it's going to green it up, it's going to look a lot better. I realize they are going to -- they are considering putting some rock down and, you know, some type of weed barrier and whatnot. I think all you have got to do is go around town and you ' * see quite a few of these after about a year or so. I'm not saying they wouldn't maintain it, but I just got to believe that putting it in grass seed is going to be less expensive than '~~ even doing the rock with the weed barrier and everything else. And, of course, you ~~~-~ have got to have the maintenance cost to that, but I would like to see the conditions stay as they are. -.~ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. u ,.. ~.: h_. ~.. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing of real significant value to add to Commissioner _-~~rj Moe's comments. I agree with him. Rohm: Okay. 4~.~~.' Newton-Huckabay: It's a rare day. Rohm: Mark that down, would you, please. ~.,~ 'Y` Moe: You said that, I didn't. ~~: Rohm: With that being said, then, could we get a motion to move this forward, please. Moe: Yeah. Just give me a second here. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 07-013 as ~~ presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th and continued to September the 6th, 2007, with the no modifications. End of motion. :~Y `~µ O'Brien: Second. !~°~' Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-013 to include all staff comments with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? i, :~ Motion carried. ~~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. `~ Rohm: So, that you folks can move forward, I believe that we have got Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law specific to the staff report as currently written. So, with that, at this time I'd like to reopen CUP 07-013 for the sole purpose of accepting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval. '~ '~`" ~ ~~~ z s~'~-~ i s ~ r . rP `~ ' ~~ ~~ ~n fe. ~~~ ~'. 13 i ~ -{n' f ;~t• s `~r; <; t ,a-S'" ~ , f; i ~: ,~: Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 13 of 46 Moe: That is as per the sty Rohm: As per the staff rep Moe: So moved. `'`~ Newton-Huckabay: Secon~ ~? Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. ~~'~.-;r MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Y. t, ::1 ~ Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 07-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 34 _ commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial by Kuna Victory, LLC - >. 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road: F. "~ Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time we'd like to open the Public Hearing ~ == ~ ; on PP 07-014 related to Emerson Park Commercial and begin with the staff report. , { Wafters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a preliminary plat request for the proposed Emerson Park Commercial development. The property is 17.84 acres in size and is currently rezoned C-G. The subject property is ~~ located on the northeast comer of Victory and Meridian Road at 2910 and 3030 South ~ ~ ; ~-..,r;~l Meridian Road and 110 East Victory Road. The property is bordered on the north by a veterinary clinic, zoned RUT in Ada County and future single family residential homes in qk ~' Bitter Brush Point Subdivision, zoned R-4. On the south by Victory Road and the future mixed use subdivision, Tanana Valley, zoned R-8. On the west by Meridian Road and x y Strada Bellissima Subdivision future office uses, zoned L-O. And on the east b ~<; ;;-; existing and future single family residential, zoned R-4. This is an aerial view of the property. The site is currently being used as a nursery for Victory Greens. This is a re- e . '~ ~;~ lat. This ro e p p p rty was previously platted as Mussell -- I think it was Mussell Comers ?:.:~- `` ~ Subdivision. All of it is included, except for this lot here. I believe it was Lot 3. This ,; ~: ; :. property is currently zoned C-G, general retail and service commercial district, which ~;-`~ - complies with the Comp Plan map designation of commercial. And the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 34 commercial building lots and one common lot on 17.84 acres of land. The proposed building lots range in size from .19 of an acre to ~' 1.28 acres in size. Access to the site is proposed from Victory Road via South Emerson '; Street, a proposed public street within the development. An existing secondary access ~ : ~ consisting of a right-in, right-out is located on South Meridian Road just to the west of "''' the subject site on Lot 3, which is not part of this plat. The secondary access primarily serves Lot 3 of the Mussell Comer Subdivision and also serves the proposed ~ ~ 1 ~, .,.. . ;. t. ti + . x ~; ,,, d i". ~ ~' i ~ ~t 4~, „ f -- ~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning =; September 6, 2007 l:"~~ Page 14 of 46 subdivision through an existing cross-access agreement. There is also an access driveway at the north end of this site to Meridian Road that is being used for loading for Victory Greens. If you will -- it's just right here at the very comer. And this driveway will ~ : be required to be removed and the use discontinued prior to signature on the final plat. ~ Cross-access should also be provided to the property to the north where the veterinary ~~ clinic is located and a driveway should be extended to the north property boundary for `'"~' ~;;~ future connectivi This is a co of the landsca a Ian submitted b the a licant. A tY• pY p p Y pP minimum 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along South Meridian Road here. A ``" ..;:. 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along Victory Road. And a ten foot wide buffer is required along Hallerand Drive and Emerson Street. These buffers are required to be installed outside of the ultimate right of way of adjacent roadways. Additionally, the E<~-- applicant shall either landscape the 30 foot wide Kennedy lateral easement that runs along the east property boundary here with grass and low lying bushes or shrubs, not I, .:.,. trees, as allowed by the irrigation district or provide a five foot wide buffer outside of the ~-~ Kennedy lateral easement, planted with trees and vegetation in accordance with the standards for landscape buffers to adjoining uses, to meet the requirements for a buffer f:~ to residential uses. There is an existing structure located along Victory Road, if you can see it here. And it has a zero foot street side setback. Although there is not a required setback in the C-G zone, structures are required to be located outside of the street ~~` buffer, which in this case is 25 feet from the ultimate right of way of Victory Road. Staff is requesting that a condition of approval be added, that the applicant apply for ~'' alternative compliance to UDC Table 11-2B-3, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer '" ~` along arterials, for a reduction in buffer width to zero feet for the portion of the buffer ~' required adjacent to Victory Road that is in front of the existing structure. Alternative pry' compliance must be applied for prior to or in conjunction with the final plat application. And this condition is not contained in the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff '~ ;.> realized this after the report was written. The applicant submitted a concept plan with `~ the plat application that shows how the site may develop in the future. Staff has reviewed the plan and notes the following: The access point to Meridian Road shown at '~ the northwest comer of the site shall be removed as previously stated. Structures located on Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, adjacent to Meridian Road, an entryway comdor, ': shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C. A driveway should be extended to the north property boundary and cross-access provided to the Bartlett ,, property here, which is the existing vet clinic. And a buffer to residential uses shall be "~ added along the east property boundary. With these changes staff is supportive of the proposed concept plan. The applicant submitted conceptual building elevations with fir- this application that comply with those approved with the previous development . ~ r:~,M1 ~~, agreement modification for this site. There are several here. Per the development ~ agreement future buildings on this site shall contain design elements as stated in the ~ N ` development agreement and each building shall be generally consistent with the elevations shown. If a future building is not consistent with these provisions, then, the `==; building and use shall be required to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to °' r, construction and operation. The applicant submitted a response to the staff report and ;,~~ the staff will reply to as follows -- and you should have a copy of that in your packet ,;<~~{ }: , 3~.. = - ~.~~; ~ > ,~~ +. ~` -~ ~"~~a"Y ~ i ~ ~ k. ~ .~ br ~~ ~F ~~~ ti ~x ~~~~~~, '~~ f i>.i mot, c ~, ~, , }~~ '1 tie Y ,. , ~ ~ x~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' - x .t-~ r ~~_ c~ ,3'~ I ,,a,. ~.., r7~a'' Tai ~ ~t": ~ - - s Y ~ ~.>~ F c - ~ ~~. r ~~ ~ "~ ~, > . . 3> ,mac `E;"~ ~, ~~..: ~..G . ~ y iM.;A~ 1 ~~~'~'~ t ~' € :~?",~ a ~~~1~f zip°~ ~ .l e *~~~~ ' ~' ,t. ~' .~,; ,`~yi~'.~ .- a Ptr ~ N4 k i rY~ € - ~~~~f ;~~'L ~ e b _. ~ t .{::-: fa',~= '.a ~.. - r, ~ _~y J ~~mo-~ ~+% ~. ~ ~ ~~ -.t s. ~~ ,- ;' ~:- ~" r t E .,t+ tart d 3 , r fS3,'Ly ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 15 of 46 ,L ,: t '~ ~~, 'I ~, _~ there, if you just want to follow along with me. Regarding condition 1.1.1, staff agrees that the current development agreement for this site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, because the original DA was drafted for a four lot subdivision and several of the provisions will be outdated as the subject plat is approved. Staff recommends that the Commission add a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a miscellaneous application to amend the current DA for this site that reflects the conditions of approval for the subject preliminary plat. Regarding condition 1.1.4 and 1.1.6F, a detached five foot sidewalk -- five foot wide sidewalk was required to be constructed along Meridian Road, State Highway 69, as a planned development amenity with Conditional Use Permit 03-071. This requirement was based on previous city code. It has been four years since this property was annexed and approved for a four lot subdivision. According to the UDC, all new developments are required to construct a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along State Highway 69. For continuity with adjacent developments this condition should be complied with. Regarding condition 1.1.5. Staffs recommendation that access be provided to the parcel to the north is based on UDC 11-3H-4B3, development along state highways, which requires the construction of a street generally paralleling the state highway to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting state highways that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or a half mile collector road, regardless of zoning. Further, regardless of current or future land use, staff believes that it is appropriate to have afrontage-backage road paralleling the state highway in this location. Regarding condition 1.1.6B and 1.1.7, when the Mussell Comer Subdivision was approved Victory Road was only classified as a collector roadway and the signal at Meridian and Victory had not yet been constructed. Since that time the street classification for Victory has changed to an arterial street in which ACHD requires 96 feet of right of way for the construction of a five lane roadway with curb, gutter, five foot wide concrete detached sidewalks and bike lanes. As a collector Victory would only have been a three or four lane road. Because of this reclassification of Victory Road and the higher intensity of the proposed use, staff believes that the applicant should provide the 25 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way, as the entire 48 feet will be used for the future expansion of Victory Road. If the Commission does not require this, when Victory Road is widened there will be no landscape buffer. Regarding condition 1.1.13, staff concurs that this condition be modified as stated by the applicant and adding the language City Council and Idaho Transportation Department. Note. A variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of an existing access point to a state highway. Regarding condition 1.2.2, staff concurs that the existing pond may remain in its current form on Lot 6, Block 2, provided that the pond have re-circulated water and be maintained such that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground. In accordance with UDC 11-3B- 9C6, staff requests that a condition of approval be added that the applicant comply with the aforementioned UDC requirement. Additionally, staff would like to request that condition of approval 1.1.6D, which requires a 25 foot wide buffer along the north property boundary adjacent to parcel number 82114050305 Bartlett property be stricken. When the report was written staff thought that this property was a residence ~ ~~ u , ~~y ~~ ~ ` ~ °Q* r:< ~; ti ,~~;. Ss`' ~ x t^,k fifi ~ ~, i. ' i t ~ i ; ^3 'r ~ ;- ,~ ~, e ~ sz ~~: .~,~,4r N ~ ~- r; d~S,w~~t ~~f~., ~ F ~: r,.,,Y, LL't S ~a v~ },~ Tr sly {r ~' yy ,p _ ~ y a' fi-rj 7. „S S ~ #~ Y s ~. j~~k^y.~ ~~~:`s N ~~~; ~ ~' ~ ~' ti., +dµ }~ :.r r'ic'h '~ r :"." v~li::1 `71~~ ~'M 3~,4 i ~ Y A,: ~ ~,' _~; 'eye '~ 1 v~, tiF yYj ~ ~ F ~~ y c4 ~t~~ r k s ~h~ ~. ~ ~ ~ rata ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-{s 4~ ~ > .c "s 1~~~ - E ~ ' ~'~~- ~~:.-.... ~~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 16 of 46 ~~>~:; ~=~`_; :.. ;, ,, a ~'~' '. ;~ j ~; because of its RUT zoning. However, it's, actually, a veterinary clinic, which does not require a buffer. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the aforementioned changes to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. That was a pretty good report. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time? Tverdy: Good evening. My name is Chris Tverdy. I work for Oaas Laney, LLC. Address 519 West Front Street in Boise. We have done a lot of work in the last hour and a half and so I'm a little bit behind Sonya's response the -- to the letter that we submitted today, so pardon me if I stumble a little bit as we go through here, okay? I think for the sake of getting through the material quickly, I'll go right to the conditions that are listed, because I think that the staff has done a good job reviewing our application and I think there really isn't -- there aren't any issues with the concept of what we are doing here, it's really related to landscape buffers and interconnectivity. So, those are the -- those are the items that I'll address real quickly, but, please, if you have any questions feel free to interrupt me at any time. Starting off, condition 1.1.1, I think if you refer to stafFs most recently revised letter -- the revision of the one I submitted this afternoon, I think we can kind of just walk down that and that will be most productive. The first item is condition 1.1.1, which is relating to previous documents and development agreements and we agree with the recommendation that staff is making. However, I do want to make one point of correction and that is that the staff is correct in that the first agreement, development agreement, was entered into four years ago, but - - but as recently as September of 2006 that agreement was amended, which is where much of their landscaping items were agreed to and were constructed within the last year by us and as you see -- we will go through this presentation, but you will see that there is a lot of work that we just completed nine months ago that staff is recommending we tear out and -- or not necessarily tear out, but significantly change and expand. O'Brien: Sir, excuse me for interrupting. Mr. Chairman. Is this -- you're refemng to the road work that was done on the south side of the Victory Road, adjacent to the Victory Greens area? Tverdy: It would be the north side. O'Brien: Oh, the north side of the road. Okay. Yes. Tverdy: Yeah. O'Brien: But the south side of the property. ,:c , ,~.:. ;~~. T; A :~~ ".. ~~ ~° ~ ~; ~._S C' li ~ c ,, a h, 'Fu.'~:; k `".yips U~,: ,A ~~"xi~' '' r~.. i ~: ~_: .. .:,:y:', =5„ i; ~.-:,~;; .- is Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 17 of 46 ~';~ Tverdy: Correct. That's exactly right. That's really where the heart of the discussion will be focused on tonight. O'Brien: Thank you. Tverdy: Yeah. But as related to condition 1.1.1, we have no issue with the staffs condition -- recommendation for the condition there. Condition 1.1.4 is focusing on the t" request to widen the sidewalk that's actually on the west side of the property along ~~~ South Meridian Road from a five feet wide sidewalk to a ten foot wide one. Again, that project was just completed within the last nine months, related to some of the work that we did around the -- around the property, which was the cause of the -- the amendment to the development agreement. We would like for the Commission to consider leaving that requirement -- or not requiring that condition and leaving it at five feet. We have a =t~ few pictures here, but I don't know if this is very productive. Would you like me to pass these across to you on these improvements or is this -- is this good enough if I hold it up like this? Rohm: I think we will have to have a copy of it for our records, but -- Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: -- obviously, we can see that. Tverdy: Condition 1.1.5 relates to the north property boundary, the cross-access easement to the north property. Rohm: Can we go back to that for just a moment? Tverdy: Absolutely. Rohm: The picture that you -- you're showing there is the existing five foot sidewalk a~; along the east side of Meridian Road running north-south? ~':':` Tverdy: That is correct. Rohm: Is that what that is right there? Tverdy: That is correct. ;:;. r,.> Rohm: Okay. 4?' Tverdy: So, moving on to condition 1.1.5 where staff recommends connectivity through -- a driveway through to the property on the north. Just a point of clarification. I think '~~~~, staff is incorrect in terms of the location of the vet clinic. It's actually one parcel further t i.. ` '~ k 'i1, ~~' ~~ ~ y L r.' ~t ~ 1 f ~T' iI R ~ 5 S ~'`S ~ ~ ?nr .1µ~f~~ ~a r ~~~~~ i '-~'a "s rb?~nyy~~7r y? ~~ ~k~,~ fl ~i ~ - 5 atiH•, i'!~~~' t S ~ ~ W x" i } ~7 •, 4_ ~1Q~11 ~, ~~ ~ ~. f ~ a.,ti f ~ ~~: ~ rp~r ~~~ _. - ;_y- { 4 p~ ~w ~Y~ f ~~~ ? M ~~~ , $ ~. '~ ~ N~ ~r } ~pp ~~ c ~,~ ~ 4~ $1~'~~~"`~rf i -~ ~ - ~ - ".t" ~ o-~~ i4 rr'+'~:vn r 1~~, csr }~.'_ `~ ~~4 Es ~~ ~ '!; `!fq ~' . Z °s rya r ~~' ~ ~~ v s~ i' F ~'FR ',~'*f ~~: s~ ' Fir t ~ ~ - .y ~, ~ ~~' ~~~'' ~ arc ~' ate. ,_. .. ,~. _. f' ~~,wl ~;~ ~;~:~ t.`~ ;, > • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 18 of 46 over. Actually, I know that -- that property, so I drove out there yesterday and was trying to meet the people to the immediate north and it's just a residential place with about three acres of pasture. The point remains, though, we have no issue making that connectivity. We are a little nervous about what that use is ultimately going to be, but we understand through conversations with staff the requirement for that internal connectivity and we really have no issue with that. So, yeah, we agree with that condition. Rohm: So, you're okay with that, even though it's not the vet clinic, it's a private residence, you're still in agreement that you will provide that interconnectivity. Tverdy: Yeah. And, in part, because it will help us tie into the emergency access requirement and it's likely that that will develop into a commercial activity as well and -- and Ithink that only improves the connectivity and the access to the property. So, moving on to condition 1.1.6, subparagraph B, this is the item that's difficult for us, so I wanted to hold up a picture here. So, this is related to the -- what we spoke of earlier, the property -- property's southern border where along -- along there staff spoke of an existing residence -- I mean the store front of Victory Greens. The building's been there a long time. It's been converted into the store. Additionally, as you go down Victory Road, you will see that the -- that there is another existing building that's abandoned and we probably will be doing some rework to that, but the parking lot is in the -- in the area where staff is recommending we add the landscaping. Further down we just -- we just completed construction of the new 2M facility. They moved in in March of 2007 and it would require half of their parking lot to be removed in favor of the landscaping and it just kind of goes down that whole side. Excuse me. So, we are very uncomfortable with this -- with this particular requirement, understanding all of the issues related to the development codes and the change in classification of Victory Road. This work was just completed with this amended development agreement in the last six months and we spent probably 150,000 dollars putting in the sidewalk, the landscape buffering, improving Victory Road and irrigation. And so you can see that that's a pretty major impact to that area of the development and we would strongly request that we remove the 20 foot wide buffer requirement on that edge of the property. The surrounding other edges, as we will see through here, we really would -- will, you know, comply with those fully. But in this case there is just a tremendous amount of rework and it puts some of the existing structures into a noncompliance situation. Rohm: Now, this picture here is Victory headed east; is that correct? Tverdy: Correct. Correct. Rohm: Okay. Moe: And the curb, gutter, and the walk that's shown here, that goes all the way through your property towards the east? `n S. 5 i j ~ i 7.~,y F ~yd i ~ ~~. ~ t { a ~~ '„,x ~ :x n ~ .fit, '~ .i-. 1 .£. ,f • ~..(~iv ~^~.~~~ ~} X1.:5 `" .`~rEy~ rs. _ v "_ ~ ~ n ~ ,~. '~ 4~R~;3au w :~.Y` ~,~~ ~ ~-~tir~~ _ -xe ~k r~ i 4: r i~`~ a .. 7p~ `~;,~~T y si ~ :&i }° L, ft liar r ~:., ~~~ ~, ~ ~ .a.. ~~ 3r ~~ t ~~~~'~ r~~ X ~ +~: -T~i'F i r ~ •C S ~- rt '.' ~ 7 t ~./- ~ 1 ~ l ~ } . C[_; ,ey „~ ~ ~ k '. ~ ~i~~ f.~il~ • y., :,,' y~ , :' Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 o " Page 19 of 46 ~, _;c., ~,; Tverdy: Correct. ' Moe: All the way through the other building you said you guys have built as well, that's -- ;~ >.~~ <?~ k' Tverdy: Yeah. This is -- I guess I haven't done a great job explaining, but this is in the right of way, it is not on our property. It's in the Victory Road right of way as -- with it's ,~:., - i'` ~~ expanded - ~'{w.~1. Moe: But, basically, what you're telling me, then, is if, in fact, ACHD came in and they .,~,: t%' -" wanted to widen out, then, all that goes away and we basically have the edges. The street, then, would be about where those cars are parked, then? 3 .~ ~'' Tverdy: I think there would probably be a couple of feet, but your point is pretty _ accurate. "'`~ I Moe: That's what I'm saying. "'"~~~ Tverdy: Yeah. Yeah. - ~ Moe: Okay. Tverdy: Section -- or condition 1.1.6 is just a -- you know, redundant with an earlier ;;, 7}T item, as well as 1.1.7, it's really the same exact issue, just stated in two different -- two different conditions. Onto condition 1.1.13, where there is a requirement -- effectively we agree with the staffs revised comments here, so I guess I don't really need to go on i:. t" ~"' with that. Condition 1.2.2 is the wet -- the wet pond condition and we -- staff agrees with our contention that that existing pond is -- I guess we will meet the staffs .f requirements here. It's really become a -- going to be a feature -- landscape feature on the property and it's a common lot central to the commercial building that -- ;: -'~~ / O'Brien: Where on the map is that located? Thank you. ~;r Tverdy: Condition 2.1. This is related to sewer service to the site. We have had many productive conversations in -- in the last couple of days with the Public Works Department. We were surprised, if you will, with the staff report when we were required Y to -- steps requiring us to continue the Black Cat trunk from the comer of -- it would be the northwest comer of the Meridian Road -Victory intersection, carry across -- extend :: -.: ~y across Meridian Road and, then, down the frontage of our property along Victory. We `"'' assume that we were able -- we would be required to bore under the -- under Meridian Road and connect to the sewer that's being -- in the process of being installed there. +~`~~~ Through a variety of conversations with staff, we understand that that doesn't meet the -- I'm not sure the terminology, but the plan for the sewer system, and they want us to ~;, . ~', k F ~ ,,, ;, ~_ ~ Q ' .vfF ~t`k ~ 4 ,, -~Ff~ ~. -1 o-i7 F P ,. ~ _N 7a d at ~ s r.r f r ;r~. 4.~h ~' It ~:. 1~~~~ ~( ~', k: _ ~. 'Pq ~ s ~ ~~ r.°~~ ~ ~ ~; ~ , yi ~ r~ ...~ ~{Ei - 5 ~,~ c l ~~~.~ 1 s yCv ` ~ ~ a 4 Y ~ "'~ ~ n ~~4 H h~,' ¢ "H!= k 1 U ~ ~ ~ _~ .• ~~ ~Fv '~4 I~-: ~t~~rs „t. ri ~ ~.d~ Y ` f.:.... #~ ~ ~ k ~ ~` F~ ~r4: ,t.t+.,r 3 :. ~` 1~..y 4' _i ~ I F ~~ 7. .M,~p a4 ~ ..~ s}_= ~~T rs ~, , ,.. q _ ~ ~~ d s ~ t =1 ~ F ~ .~ ~k. ~~~~ ,.f~ ~~~ ~3 it~ .a •~ ~~ ~..r, ~*;z3~~~1~ rr? t~ ~ h~ ~:~ ~~ ~~x~f ~> h u; ~ • • Meridian Planning 8 Zoning ^=''~ September 6, 2007 - Page 20 of 46 ' ' ` construct that down Victory Road, so -- with avariety -- it's a large cost item, because '~~`` the -- it's a large diameter system and it's very deep, I think. In the neighborhood of 30 } feet deep, which will -- as currently designed, it will require a good portion of Meridian ~w Road to be tore up and with sewer placed in and, then, recreated which, obviously, is a ~~.:~~ti very large ticket item. So, we have been working hard to try and come up with a good ~~ ~~~ resolution to this and, ultimately, we can see a path to accomplishing this and, really, 7~U what we are asking for in the -- in this -- this condition is that Meridian City Public Works engaged in engineering, value engineering efforts, with us to place that sewer line on the south side of Victory Road and that will, of course, require us to work with the property owner on the other side of the road to -- to make sure that we have got good . ~. easement and good location of that, but that could significantly reduce the cost to install 4. ~~' that. So, we are not disturbing Victory Road or at least disturbing it as little as possible. ,.;-~ And, then, secondly, because the capacity of that sewer main is significantly oversize ~: for what we need, we would -- we are asking the city to engage in a reimbursement program with us and I think staff acknowledged today that they are willing to carry forward those conversations provided appropriate approvals. That is a really fuzzy and ;~:~ nebulous item for me and it kind of gives me a pit in my stomach, because I feel like I'm signing up for dollars that we really don't know the magnitude of yet and that's really ~,;~ where the engineering discussions need to take place. But to move forward with the ~`~~' project and the discussions, we are okay with -- in principle of funding the creation or the implementation of that sewer main provided that there is a reimbursement program. Moe: You lost me. I want to make sure I understand this. You said earlier that the Black -- that to pick up the Black Cat trunk line at the northwest comer of Meridian ~.:> Road. Correct? And, then, bring it across. But, then, you talked them talking it to the south side of Victory Road? Tverdy: Yeah. I might have misspoken, but let me just -- let me just clarify. Moe: Okay. Tverdy: The northwest comer of the intersection -- okay. So, it's on the opposite side of Cloverdale -- Moe: Right. Tverdy: -- not Cloverdale. Moe: Victory. Tverdy: Victory. Meridian Road from our property. Moe: Right. .~ t t~ R" ~; ' +i S ~! ~ ati Ski ~ ~ r r4Yr~`{~i ~^F' i { .:t ~h~ ' ~ ~ ~~,; .~ .~ ~ ~,. , =? ct 'l. ' 2, . b ~' r-' r.~ '~ r7q 7 y L .7+~ 'r ~ ~ q y n `~ " i ~ ~: q ~n >,f , yi y. fS~iR~( fi t~ - .h.-!`... J .r 1 ~ = f Y~rtck~~ ~T ~ ~ ~ ~ •~.. ~,N- i ~ i~~} F ~}. 1~ -jN.i.V'RHrd J N'y bCC~ L 1.'~,~F ?~. _ 1 sk }, ~ E { Y -: n ~ ~y ~ ~ 'tr vt'~/?i.~ } t L -~i" y,. ~Yff r d :'~ 1 ~P~~1',1 at a. ~,~ C `x ~ 1 ..t -fix L,4~ a ~~ • Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 21 of 46 Tverdy: So, the path that Public Works would like that to take -- and I'd love them to jump in here and help me, just so I don't muddy this up, horizontally -- Moe: Horizontally. Tverdy: -- or across the intersection to the south side of Victory Road and the reason for that is because there is a significant amount of installed water mains or whatever on the north side of the road already. Moe: But at the same point you'd still have to tie in underneath Victory to get to that to put it onto your property at that point. Tverdy: Correct. ~: `<a Moe: So, you are going to go through all those again. Okay. Tverdy: Yeah. You can see why we would prefer to go just directly across Meridian Road and that's what's clearly best for our -- our particular development, but it really ~~ doesn't meet the plan that's laid for the Public Works. ~~~ Moe: Okay. ;: ~;~ Tverdy: I think I did that justice, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. Okay? Moe: Well, actually, that whole issue is kind of muddied up for me, because the original property -- you know, the original project that happened on the comer, I can remember back in some of our hearings it was discussed at that time, that, eventually, who ever is _ developing this property was going to have to bring the line over, so -- Tverdy: Gosh, I wish I would have been there for that one. I would have had a head start on that. Moe: So, anyway --okay. I think I know where you're at with that. Tverdy: Okay. And, then, the last condition is 3.17 related to the emergency access and I think, you know, we are on the same page with staff in terms of, yes, we will r:~4. provide that access point and we will tie it into the stub street to the north property and ~t~ '_ we see the value there. So, that was a whole lot of material lightly covered in just a -- in .~ just a little bit and Iguess Iwanted -- the only additional comments I have is that we are pretty proud of this development. There is a lot going on on this comer with the 2M project, the Double D facility on the comer. And, then, the Victory Greens business there. The Victory Greens business owns one parcel and, then, leases the majority of that acreage from my company. Over the course of the next several years we will develop this in phases, working in concert with Victory Greens business, so that, you 1'9>: ~~, k i~z~ ~ ~ ~~~. ~~> ~~~ l? { ,1 ,: ~I',~y~1 ~, `F ~?r i~ f,~ jti. k.:~: i~ _ ix:__ s ,; ~ } k 7,' f '7 ~ • • '~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 22 of 46 <~. know, I'll successfully, you know, coexist. However, it is clear and Victory Greens understands that the long-term development plan is to -- to tum this into a very clean, light, industrial, commercial, retail, business park. . O'Brien: So, basically, they are going to be moving out? Tverdy: That's right. And, you know, there is a lot of steps in between now and, then, TY; to work through, especially as we start doing the big earth work here, but we are clearly in sync with them on that. ~`"' Moe: Mr. Chairman. So, if I might, I want to go back through this list one more time just -- as what I think what was said, okay? How is that? Tverdy: Great. I apologize if I went too fast. ~_~ . ~~: ~_ `~ ~~I ~~.~ . i ., .'r Moe: No. You did fine. Basically, condition 1.1.1 you basically agree with staff. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: Condition 1.1.4 you want to keep your five foot walk, not have to go to the ten foot. Tverdy: Correct. Moe: 1.1.5 you agree with. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: 1.1.6 you would rather not do that. Tverdy: That's right. Moe: And, then, 1.1.6E --okay. That goes back to the 1.14; right? Tverdy: Uh-huh. Rohm: Can we go back to this 1.1.66 for just a moment? It seems to me that the buffer that staff is asking is actually north of this existing buffer, if you will, and it -- less the variance for the existing structure that's east of the Double D. Is that correct? And it seems to me that if -- if you could do the buffer east of the existing structure and have that added to the existing buffer that's there now, you're not tearing anything out and it's -- it's just -- it will be an expanded buffer, but, nevertheless, there wouldn't be an area that has no buffer at such time that Ada County does their road widening. Are you following me? 3i j a .r ~~ ~~ i u g 3k~;~ o,, ~, f~; ~~I ~'~ 4 ri: {'. ' ~~: v~ A': ~ .:~ .~ ~ ~, ~ =., a ~ R ~.f~. T k r ., _. .. 5 ~~: _~ ,> `~4, _~~ Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 23 of 46 Tverdy: I -- completely. Let me add a few comments to that, okay, and then -- staff commented about excepting out the area around the existing structure and that was a new one to me. So, I was just kind of absorbing that as you were talking, but let me use my pointer here. There is no -- basically, from this comer all the way to the end, the -- there is no landscape buffer on -- except for in the right of way with the highway. So, from this point to the edge of the Double D property there will be no interior landscape buffer, because that's not part of this discussion. Then right here is the location of that store front and that's the area that staff is recommending we except out, if I understand that correctly. So, when we do any future development on that location, then, of course, we come back for Conditional Use Permit and that's where we discuss that particular location. But, otherwise, I think that that's your understanding so far. Moe: Uh-huh. Tverdy: At this edge of the building, however, this is -- this is still -- I don't know how to describe it. It's kind of a driveway and where the Victory Greens open air store front is, if you will. They have a lot of plants and whatever. So, that's kind of retail space for them today. They are using that space. As that continues down, then, we run into the parking lot for this building right here. The parking lot would be in the -- we would have to remove that parking lot to place the 25 foot landscape buffer. Then, we get to the driveway and, then, this is an existing building. This is the 2M building that we just finished in March. They just took occupancy in March. This parking lot would be, I don't know, roughly cut in half as well, so we would have to tear that out. And, then, we get to the end of the developed area. And so from this point to the side, I think that's where we could discuss the larger area. But you can see more than half of the frontage there we are going to have to tear out some existing -- Rohm: Basically, it's already developed. Tverdy: It is. Rohm: And all you're doing is replatting, if you will. Tverdy: Right. And I guess I want to underscore -- at the expense of sounding like a broken record, but that work was just completed. Rohm: Got you. Got you. Tverdy: Just completed. Rohm: Got you. Thank you. Now, back to you, Dave. Sony for the interruption there. ~.-.r. ~ a~iyir ~ r``~ P wf ~ ~~Y ~f~ ~ f ~t ,Q h T':)~ r ~.. {" Y 4 S~ 1 ,"~ tt5 2; ..a"5 ~'. r~ t ~ }~ ~~ , r r „s. ~~.~.>~~->r-~+~ ~ ~, - ., r.~ s ;; . ~ t r _. tt~t"r ~~<; _r ,~,~, _ H , ~' ~~ i agar '~~` ;' ' a ti ^t -t"Y ..-, ,. r _ _ . t ~~ hL a , ~~ r~~~ n ,. r,.. ff ` ~ ~ r ~~`~ r~ -~ ryt ~ I~~ '~ Ski r`2 ~.,«~`~'' $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s~~~ ''H ~ T ~ ~ f ~( ~ t'~ N t. J K y~ ~tii t CC .~ ~ t ... ~" ~, p•'f ~+ ~~r ~~_ s, {, ~, ~y {`Xi- 1 r ~t k ~~ . ~i _~r x.;2.. ~..... ai~t_~~~ ~ s. ~. ~~ ~ ... K i'' Meridian Planning & Zoning ' r,`~"` September 6, 2007 Page 24 of 46 ~~~ ' Moe: You're fine. Okay. So, I said 1.1.6F, you take exception to that as well, right, ~~.. r °; ~ because that's the same as the 1.1.4. 3, Tverdy: That's right. j; ~~, Moe: Okay. y~+ '`~'~' Newton-Huckabay: Same as 1.1.7. xY4 ~ '~'' Moe: Yes. Same thing. Tverdy: That's correct. Moe: Then, on 1.1.13, you are in agreement with that -- with the city. 4,+ ``}' "'' Tverdy: Yes, we are. i p ~'; r~ Moe: And same thing on 1.2.2. Tverdy: Yes. Moe: And, then, 2.1, discussing a reimbursement agreement, you're in favor of that. ~~,~T ' 'ti' Tverdy: Yeah. And just that -- the commentary related to the engineering work, the ._'=~~ ' value engineering work that needs to take place, which is probably not needing stated, but -- anyway. Moe: And, then, 3.17 you're also in agreement -- ;~~z Tverdy: Correct. ~~ °'~~ Moe: -- with staff. I'm up to speed on those. Thank you. Tverdy: So -- Moe: I have no other questions. fEr Tverdy: That's all I have to present. We have much more material, but I think maybe we would -- it's just backup material, so I'd kind of stand for any questions. ~"~`` ~ r ~ ~ Rohm: I think we have pretty much handled the questions as we have gone along, but thank you for --any other questions of this applicant? Thank you. Tverdy: Thank you. ~' ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~; ~~,; : , ~~ ~~': s, - ~ • T T ~, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 `,` °' Page 25 of 46 ~~;: ~~~ -~ Rohm: There is not anybody that has signed up to speak to this application, but if ~~:~` someone so desires, now is that time. There is no one coming forward, so that's -- no ~, '~< additional testimony. ~~~ ~`' Moe: Mr. Chairman, ask staff a question if I might. I'm just kind of -- I'm a little unclear °``~~ on what the deal is with the amended DA that was done. ~ _. ~' Hood: Commission, Commissioner Moe, I did work on the amended DA for this project fit;,". here in 2006. The driving force behind that was the -- the new 2M building and the `' ` ~ current development agreement or the previous development provision that said all ,~ uses need a Conditional Use Permit before you can get going. So, we did work with K-~s this company on doing a development agreement, rather than sending them through the CUP process. There was a concept plan and some elevations that were submitted with that. I do not remember reviewing landscaping plans at all. It's a little bit odd that the ,~, CZC for the new 2M building got through our office and we didn't say, hey, construct the landscape buffer outside of the right way. I know that wasn't part of what was asked for ,r ;y with the original development agreement modification. Looking back now I should have . said, hey, there is this other provision that no one's talked about that we need to update ;''~ now, but we didn't. That really wasn't what was on the table at that time. We could ~`~,~ have brought it up and we could have addressed it, then, but we didn't. Again, I'm a little concerned that the CZC got through the process and they just finished work here ~~;~ this last year and we didn't get the landscape buffer where it needed to be, but, you ~~"~~ know, like Sonya said earlier today she didn't even realize this was in the right of way ~'' . r; ~ ; , until she really studied the lines to show, oh, there is the 25 foot wide buffer and , ,, ~;~ti~ sometimes you look at that and you don't see, oh, it's in the right of way, it's not on your property and so -- again, I don't know the whole history behind that. What I would 9 ': recommend we do, as -- as hopefully a solution, is the alternative compliance that staff ~.; , recommended for those encroachments in that are there and where there aren t encroachments, then, provide -- and maybe not the full width buffer, because if we are ~~;~~ only going to have five or ten feet for three-quarters of it it doesn't make sense to have a_, ~~ F.. 25 feet -- where you can put 25 feet in. Maybe it's a ten foot wide most of the way and ~: ~ ~,,._, ~ ' when you have the existing Victory Greens office encumbrance, parking lot - encumbrances, those types of things, we can allow those to encroach into the buffer or reduce the buffer width there. But where it is -- where you can get a good buffer, let's ~::~ make that look really nice and meet the intent of the ordinance somehow, so we aren't left with just nothing. So, I think there is some compromise there. The alternative ~~- ~ compliance section is done at the staff level, so it would help to have some guidance °~ ~~ A. -:. from the Commission as to what we should be looking for if, in fact, that's where you go and ask them to apply for alternative compliance. I don't think it makes sense to just require a full 25 foot wide buffer, because this site is -- a majority of it is redeveloped. Now, if they knock down the nursery and something new is constructed where that z ~ house office is today, they should have to comply, because, you know, they are razing it ~ ; and new construction should comply with the ordinance, but I think in this case we can ~- ~- ~. f ~ ~~ ~f,~~~~. t ~' ~4 I~~~Z~m~ ~ tic rr a ~~:~ ~z. Y ... r ..a~; k~t _ ~ ~' 4 l~ ~M7Cd~~j~ fr ;, ti ~.<a ~ 1 ~ r ~ ~ ~ a ~FP~ i'~ ~ _ ~ ,t ~y r.- 2~~i a 7 . -r k t~fr,Y ~ a:..' ~'2 ,.. ~ ~ .. ~~, ,d j_ ~ 3`2. '~' 4 s ~' aka ~ 1 ~ ~* ~ ' `4 r ~ ~ '~ 'v+.-may; ~~ ~,-~~ ;~ t,~,.. ~ ~ giig " .. h M> ~ f M c r~~~: r , . ~3 .,., ~ ''~ ~ ~' ~,a a ::~,~ . r ~ ~. 3 ~i s ~,itr.~s t.__ 4~~.iF~ .- ~.a t ~~~4~ ~ f _ ~~Lh~~ - '~ `f= Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 26 of 46 work with them on finding something that works for both the city and the applicant, <.~_`. hopefully, where we can provide an adequate buffer. I don't know if that totally explains ~`~ the history, but that's my perspective from being involved in this for several years now. {,~ Moe: That's -- I appreciate that. I guess the only other question I would have for you -- again, (realize that the -- the Meridian -- you know, the Meridian Road side as far as where we have the five foot sidewalk there, you do want to see that go to a ten foot. Hood: I can let Sonya answer that or I will -- I will answer it. The code requires a ten foot. ~'~ Moe: Okay. >_. Hood: You're going to have Double D that has five foot and they are probably not going to develop for many many many years, so where ever it goes you're going to have still a stretch of it that's still only going to be five feet. The code requires a ten foot wide buffer and I will just leave it at that. I mean -- or a ten foot wide walkway. So, staff is really "~~ obligated to require that. If you allow the five foot sidewalk to remain, I will sleep at night -- tonight just fine, so -- Newton-Huckabay: But will you, Sonya? Sonya: I will sleep also. Thank you. Moe: We are worried about that. -~ Rohm: Before we go forward, I want to -- I want to have both of those pictures entered into the record, so we need to have both of them up here, please. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? ;','_~ Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: With the landscaping that's in the right of way on the south property line, it also has a sidewalk, so if we don't do any landscaping, there will be no sidewalk. Is that -- Wafters: When Victory widens and -- well, that -- if Victory widens this sidewalk will be constructed with the widening by ACRD. '~ ~,~; Newton-Huckabay: No? ~'~ Wafters: No. Okay. *~ r r: ~ _ y ~: ~ 1 Y ~ ~"~x'y ~ ~ lam, ~ Y ~'1 .S F•.rc _. P v Y~: h, r~ ,;~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~~~ t ~ ~~~ .~ ~ j~,~~~~4 k~ ~~~~ Y y' jSY.~ tY ~hti~, y {. ~3'Trt ~ 5 F r ~,Fr'; s §3 ' ; y r , ~ ;r-'~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ;5: f ~µ~~3 ~t ~ ~;I~, ~~«~ ~ , Y f J N ..~~ ~ = - ~~ ~ ` ~~• ~~~ _ t -, Y i~ .4 1. I-T ~ ~ iw 5 ~ Y~ N '- ~ !~. ~ Jc Y ~~` pi ~.~ .Y, , N ,.4 :. ',;^ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 27 of 46 Hood: The sidewalk should be constructed with the subdivision plat and, in fact, I'm - sure ACHD has a condition that they have to construct the sidewalk as part of this. That's pretty standard. ~~~ Newton-Huckabay: I was talking about the one that's already there. `'` Hood: Oh. Okay. Reconstruct it you mean? ~<~: Wafters: Yeah. ~; Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. f'"~ Hood: Yeah. It will be reconstructed. Sorry. I didn't -- ~-~~. ,. €~;::~ Rohm: So, that would be Ada County Highway District would reconstruct the sidewalk? Hood: Correct. Rohm: That's real important from my perspective. I just want to make sure we have one. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I didn't want to impede the alternative compliance on the landscaping, because some parts of it you just couldn't put sidewalk in with it all -- for example, right in front of the Victory Green's office. !~ '-~~ Rohm: Yeah. I'm not sure how close that building is to the road right of way. -.. ~~~~- Newton-Huckabay: There is two -- yeah, there is two of them right there that are -- ;:; Rohm: Right up to it. Newton-Huckabay: -- right up there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, and the other Commissioners, I -- you know, in that case they may actually have to condemn -- and maybe that's why this ~~,;. -- this mile hasn't been widened is because there are a couple of buildings that are pretty close, so that may jump the cost of a project up significantly if they have to ,:~: condemn a building. But generally what they would do is they would, you know, neck that down or they wouldn't have -- if it was supposed to be a detached sidewalk, they would attach it for just a short stretch to get around the house or something. I don't s.-~ know what exactly they have up their sleeve as far as that, but it would be a continuous sidewalk. ~~..:,.~ .:4 ``~'~` Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. f,• }- ~~1 :; ~ fi+t Y r.'.~S~y h~. i ~Y rYt' ~ .Si 8,' } ~. ~ c ~~z T ~:~ Y Y '`. ~%. _ i G 4 YT "` T 1 i~ i-dr z, ~-k ~ ` 4 ~~.:rq3 r It+. .. ", y.. .X ' ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ 's f, ~ a`- i '`'~" ~ ~ „t t ~, x z- a 1 5ti• ,. 4 y ` ~ ~,_ x~" ~~~~ ~ ~ ~i ~~~ ~ ~ `~ '` ~~} ~_ c .~ H y ti'a.'K z '~ . ~f.,', ~'.,'. ,. y_.:,~ ~Z^'-^ ltd 'G 't ~ _ F c ~~ f ~'r'~ ~ 6 4 {' '~`~ xc t~ y h ~ _ "•'p4 3 M :qt ~~ r ~,_ .~ ~ c . i ~%s'~ ~ ~ i:?41t'~- ® ~ ~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 28 of 46 Rohm: Good. Wafters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, excuse me, if I might add one other thing, in light of the applicant's statement about the property to the north being an existing residence, not a veterinary clinic. I have my site switched. I'd ask you to remove the condition of approval 1.1.6D that requires a 25 foot wide buffer between land uses. If we could just let that condition stand that would meet the UDC requirements. Newton-Huckabay: That was the one you added during your presentation. Wafters: I asked for it to be deleted. And it's actually in there and needs to stay in there. Newton-Huckabay: Needs to stay in there. Wafters: Thank you. Rohm: Because it's not commercial. Right Wafters: It's residential. ;:~ Rohm: Thank you. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing on this project? Baird: Mr. Chair. I'd just suggest before you do that we might want to give the applicant an opportunity to rebut or address anything that has been discussed. There hasn't been ,`~ any other testimony, but there has been some discussion and I want to make sure we have a complete record. Rohm: And I sure want to give them every opportunity. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and respond to any discussion of the Commission and staff? ?' ` Basically, we have been discussing all of the different changes that you have requested and staffs inserted their comments and, basically, this is your opportunity to respond to any discussion amongst the Commission and additional comments from staff. So, if there is anything that you heard that you take exception to, this would be your time. ~~ Tverdy: I would like to comment on a couple of items. First, I really appreciate the effort that staff is putting forward in working with us on this -- on this southern border, because I realize it's a real irregular situation and we can absolutely live with the commentary of adding that landscape buffer and working with staff to redo our plan to show that buffer being where it's -- where there is room to do it, where we don't have to ~~ J tear out a arkin lot and then as we o forward with some of these develo ments we P g 9 P '' absolutely agree that if -- if, for instance, a building is removed and there is one building ~I on the project that's the Old 2M building, that is an example of that where we would .'-~,,; =~~: ''t' ~ - ~ ~ , Pk ~f ~~ } ' ~~~ E rk~.~t_ , > ... ~ ~ ~ , xrfr: w'%, ~~G+,f;E f ~.. 7§L y 5 S t T .hRr C r:~Clffi?'s F Y gyp,{ L "~+ ,. ~ ~ ~, . ;,'M' -s 3e ;fit '~ ~'~ r h ~ ~~ :: t ~ "~` z cog `ar;?;:. ^~ h'•.; ^ ,t R! ~ .;'~'.,; Etx~'~ s~.~ m;~ -„f%. ;''f~;"'•5"'~~t-1 ~~ 7 ~~ ti. a .7 t• -s' ~~~'.. .+ . ~ t:: .~ ~ 'Y't~s~"'• LW!". :;~. & ~7 ~ ~ ;?;" ,i. ~~ .(~; , ~.,i`, • +~.'~ ,rf• P,. A4 ~'.Ue`.f ff Y'Y't ' ~ I h.. '~:1~35;I i'^•~f~ iS~iii •,~ , [ 5 'Y:• 1 i~ ;~.Y ~: .i.. ~.~c,~~" :,fir"."~t .i..: ;~,:-K>v ~ ~~ :f i±. -: •;t_;, .r.? ~"1 •. j ~-tRn ~+,~Y {~ Fir %~?F{ 'lei F ~' ~ YL {~ j Yr ,. y,: w 1 . .. ? t. ~: k "- •` s n H Y ~ : ;; 4 ,_ , _ fci .'`;"~ 7.. , ~.I ,•.u~ '~ ' '~~ :_ ~~ ,. .:;t ,``;' I II ..;,; ~F~_$. ~.~`'< ,. ,, ~ <~,;I . -'~~ ;: C Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 29 of 46 ~~ remove that, then, we would add the landscape buffer in there. So, I think that's a fantastic suggestion and we can -- we can fully support that. The last comment that staff -- that Sonya made about adding back in the condition on the north boundary of the property where this -- where she previously removed the requirement fora 25 foot buffer, we have no issue with placing that back in as well, just want to comment that the large majority of that small slice of property -- we are talking right there -- is going to be taken up by the interconnectivity road, but there might be a little bit of space on the edges that would -- that would facilitate some sort of landscape buffer. So, we knowledge that. Rohm: Good. Thank you. That's perfect. Tverdy: I think that's -- those are the -- any other comments that -- Rohm: I think that captures it. Tverdy: Okay. Rohm: At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. PP 07- 014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Any final comments, Commissioner Moe? Moe: I'm confused. Well, basically, going through the letter and, then, the comments back through, I'm glad to see that we can probably work something out on Victory Road in some altemative compliance to take care of that issue on -- what was that, 1.1.6. I'm glad to see that the applicant has somewhat agreed to most of the items that the city wants to change here. In regards to the pathway going from the five foot to the ten foot, I'm struggling on that one a little bit, simply because of the fact the five foot one is in there and so, quite frankly, I would just as soon see it stay that way. It's landscaped, it's done, and I think that I'd just as soon see it stay that way, so as far as that I would just delete that. Other than that, I think that -- you know, between the five foot walk or the altemative compliance on Victory Road, all the other items were pretty much agreed to per staff comment. That's the way I see it, unless someone can tell me otherwise. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. ~~ ~= ., ~ ' '~ ~~'' `~ u: 4 ` i `,y~, ,~' 'k i x h.3,r +e'-. 3rd ~ .. w - - ~ .+y} y~ _-_ ,,~~,!4 N~ ~.~'~~ ~ ,~s <~ '' ~~ ~,ia rl,?' "' ~ ,, ~.. s r~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~~~~ x ~~ ~~ ~ ~'~ r .. a + r "~$ c~ ~ ~~ . 4~' -~ ..4'y CT ~`.%- FAY R<~; ~xr vrx! ~~.; ~ "~ ~ y: y a ;-i~, Y4~ 't7 } Y '_ ~ 7 r"kf~'z*1`b '4f ~¢ o ~ _~ ", S~~ v 4~+p~!{ ~~~ j ~~' r i27 i $ '~. ~ f," l ~ T. ~.~~4~G 5 ~~ _Y3J!7~: ~ ~~ W v- k -:. ~ S 1~`l !~ y ~. eye K rrr Mi ~ ~~ ~ ~~ rr,,..~~ r ~~y~~ ~i- r i~Y:< :1~~ yr ~ ~ ~.; ,y ' ~ ` k • • Meridian Planning & Zoning ~~~'"~ September 6, 2007 `:`.,yi! Page 30 of 46 ~5 •~ Newton-Huckabay: I have -- I agree with the sidewalk and that if there isn't some that isn't constructed I would encourage it to be tapered into the ten foot, so as other _~ properties connect into it, it would match up. Does that make sense? .::~ Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Regarding alternative compliance on the south side, I'd like to see }~:~ at least ten foot where ever possible on the -- on the landscape in the right of way. If not, 15. I think 25 would be too much to try to modulate through there. So, that would be my only preference on the -- on those pieces of sections that could be landscaped is `k to go with ten foot, 15 foot buffer. And, then, also we would put a requirement if any building was razed it would come into compliance. °'~ Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. °'` Moe: Mr. -- one question if I might. Your -- your minimum ten foot, would that be something you would want to put in a motion to that or not -- or them working with staff to review it or is that just kind of a comment of yours? i. , Newton-Huckabay: Well, I thought the staff had asked for a preference on that. Was wrong? Was I wrong? Moe: No. I'm just -- ~_:. Newton-Huckabay: So, I -- no, that was just my preference. ``~`~r~'' Moe: Okay. ,,:~:=- Newton-Huckabay: I have no other comments. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. >~~ O'Brien: Well, I get kind of tom sometimes on these issues of flexibility and being .~~~ consistent with other areas around town, but I'm glad that we are able to work with -- ~~1,;; able to work with the situation, so it's not awin-lose thing, but awin-win. I think as we develop this thing I agree with Commissioner -- fellow commissioners about making the transition as we go -- making it compatible with what's already been built and not disturb that, because in going by there quite frequently I think it would be a -- quite an expense ~;; to redo all of that and I think it would make a mess out of it. So, I think that we should ~~' just go along with -- with the way it is and, then, develop it as we go, make sure that the ~- ~ '. ~~4; 1~ ~~ ;~ i ( ~{ ~~~T ~ ~; ~~~i ;;; ;., ~XA ` ~S ~r~ r t ~{~h s':, x ~.: „~«;~~ - r: ;: _ _ f' ~t r ;~. fir`';: .~ti :~:., {~;~.~ ;~>< ~a> ~;:::; >;; Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 31 of 46 buffers meld into the existing landscape and I don't think I have any issues. I think you covered them already, so that's all I have. Rohm: Good. Thank you. I guess the only comment that I would make is I think from the staff's perspective having more time to digest these changes or requests for adjustments to the staff report prior to the day of the hearing would be appreciated. It puts a lot of strain on staff to make sure that any -- any applicant's request don't encumber some other UDC ruling and it's tough for them to put things together for us and, then, by the same token for us to respond all at the same time. So, in the future we'd appreciate it if -- if you have got these kind of developments to address issues, give staff more time to work with it. That's my only comments on that. But having said that, it appears as if there is a compromise here that will work for both our staff and for you folks in the development community and thanks for coming in. Newton-Huckabay: Who wants to make this motion? Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay was going to make this motion. Newton-Huckabay: Since she opened her big mouth. After considering all staff, applicant, and public -- oh, before I start, if I just speak to the letter and staffs response -- staffs response to the letter, make a comment that we are striking condition 1.1.4 from the staff report and -- Moe: And modifying -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, we are going to modify condition 1.1.68 and recommend alternative compliance. Moe: That's what I thought we were going to do in your comment of minimums or whatever. Newton-Huckabay: And that's to be worked out with the applicant and city staff. And my request for the ten to 15 foot is where it's not going to look silly. I don't want to make it look -- I don't want it to look stilly, but I would like it to be as wide as possible. So, that's kind of -- and condition 1.1.6F we would be stricken from the report? That's the ten foot wide along South Meridian Road. Moe: Yes. Same thing with seven. Wafters: Excuse me, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Can you clarify how wide of a buffer that you would like in the areas that aren't encumbered by existing building or parking lot? Newton-Huckabay: I'd put ten to fifteen feet. You want one or the other? f ~ k 4;,ti ~ ~ L mt r rl, 4~~ ' ~ Ss~ ~ t ,i~: t 8 _ . ..p '~ ,_ 'F ~„"Xry at' ;~a y ri~% ~~ F? ~"` ~ ~;; a,~' ~', : '~'a5 ~-~~ , »~ y~ ', `f,... ~ § , Y 6 , Wf'- ,a - r '.-~,y; ~ ,~ d k qtr rt y'' ~,wF r 4 r }~5a ~ t ~ ~~, s~ ~n,r ,x~~U.X 1 4:F nY `~ ~ Y .:.C ~ ? ~ Si1 _ ? G I w 1 a~ i ,, :~~ x ....~ < < ~ ,n. ~/': psi" ~'F ~R.:~',~ # x ~,. tti.~ .rt. •,C+F~ ~ ~~ a+~ r 3 a2a' a x ~-.~ ~; ~7'~ `~ kN '~,r. i ~ ~ ,,' ~~ i5 1 4~] +Y ~r '~~ t,~ . "Cri ~; .;r~. .:A. •_~~ ~f ;~-~~~- ,~= z.:t~= ~ L ._a~~ ~-~~ s.:. ,. ~.<<. fik 1 t~ ~ =; ~~~ r ~~, ~'' Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 32 of 46 Wafters: Please. Newton-Huckabay: Fifteen. Wafters: Fifteen? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Wafters: And could you also add in that -- in your motion alternative compliance must be applied for prior to or concurrently with the final plat application, please. Newton-Huckabay: With the final what? Wafters: Final plat application. Thank you. Moe: I guess the others -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1.7 is striking -- Moe: Yes,. I believe so. Then, on these others staff is going to concur with what they said. Wafters: Excuse me. Commissioners, we don't want to strike all of condition 1.1.7 if -- I believe that's what you said. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, yeah. You're right. Wafters: Maybe modify it to require a minimum 15 foot wide buffer outside of the ultimate right of way where no existing -- where no buildings exist or parking lots, something to that effect. Newton-Huckabay: Where no building or -- Moe: Probably need to put something to revise this condition -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.1 -- Moe: All the conditions that the staff concurs, just per the applicant's response -- or the staffs response to the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: On what -- on 1.3 and 1.2.2? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 ` "~ Page 33 of 46 Moe: .2 and 2.1. Same thing, actually. 3.17. They are going to work with staff on all these. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Moe: That should do it. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Here we go. { <' Moe: That's easy. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 07-014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 6, 2007, with ;~ the following modifications to the conditions of approval -- and most of these are being ''~"~- ~ made from the letter and response from Oaas Laney on September 6th to Sonya Wafters. Condition 1.1.4 will be removed. Condition 1.1.66 the Commission -~':, I recommends alternative compliance for -- with the applicant and is instructed to work with staff on the details of that and the alternate compliance must be applied for prior to or in concurrence with their final plat application approval. '~ ` ~v~t; Rohm: That's 15 feet? t ~~:', :°~~,. ~i Newton-Huckabay: That's down one more. Rohm: Oh. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.6E will be removed. Condition 1.1.7 will be restated as the applicant will be required to put a minimum 15 foot buffer outside of the right of ~~.vi way in areas where no building or parking lots exist. Moe: On East Victory Road? _:~' Newton-Huckabay: On East Victory Road. Condition 1.1.13, staff is in agreement with the applicant's response in the letter previously mentioned, dated September 6th. Condition 1.2.2 staff is also in concurrence with the applicant's response in the same _. letter. `;~rt+~' Wafters: Excuse me. Could we back up to condition 1.1.13? 44 Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: Staff was recommending that that condition be modified as stated by the applicant and the language added City Council and ITD. ;~ ~~~ ° ` ~~~ r~ ~~ ~. , ~t ~~:k p a ,._ ~ ,~ ~ .'~ ~.~ ~.ki~ 2F .YA l x~l .(yy T ll G.~~ f ~ G; . ;~~~ ~+ `f' ~'.Y c 5 -~ y '~~" ~~ W)1 F - ,r ~ ` ~ y'~~ a~ 4 ~ ~rn~~ `c:.3~ r ~ ~~~ i. z ~ 1 .r a`~ s. ~ i ~-._ ,` ~ ~ 7' k ice' ~~Y ~ ~~: '~a. e x c<' :.: x ~ „ ~y ~ ~, ~ .• ~~u~ r ~z., sip _ ,f ti q. , ~. ~. ~ z, t. ,. ~ •,' • ;~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning ' "~ September 6, 2007 'st-, Page 34 of 46 ~~~ yr R`_w' '' r Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Wafters: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. And staff is in concurrence with the applicant and, then, goes ~y on to add that they want to have added -- language added City Council and ITD and "`~ note that a variance is required to be approved by City Council for the relocation of `- - existing access point to state highway. t< Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Condition 1.1.2 -- "~~ ', Moe: 1.2.2. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.2. Staff is concurrence the pond may remain and -- but it must ,~x~:-II have re-circulated water and be maintained so that it does not become a mosquito breeding ground in accordance with UDC 11-3B-9C6. Condition 2.1, staff agrees with ,~.- j the applicant's response and staff will work with the applicant to draft a reimbursement agreement that will go before Council for approval, as outlined in City Code 9-4-19. ~~' Condition 3.17. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's response. They agree that s~, ;F~~~y?1 the condition be modified to require an emergency access driveway to South Meridian Road at the northem portion of the development, rather than specifically at the northem s~;<`,,, end of Colleran Drive. This change is based on the applicant's proposal to potentially relocate access to the highway as stated in condition 1.1.13. If the relocation occurs a new driveway may serve as both an emergency access and access for the F~ „.: '' development. Construction plans for the access drive shall be approved by the Meridian fire department. I believe that is the end of the motion. °:`,' Hood: Oh. One question. We talked about modifying the development agreement to reflect this current project. Staff would still propose -- and the applicant I think -> concurred with that, but that wasn't part of the motion. That was regarding condition 1.1.1 is where it was brought up by the applicant, but if the City Council also finds favorably of this application, I think the development agreement should probably be cleaned up, since it probably makes reference to a four lot subdivision and these types of things, just to be cleaned up to kind of lump this all into one document that is '~ comprehensive. ~~ ,; Newton-Huckabay: Would you like me to read staffs response on the record or -- Hood: You can reference it. You can come up with your own. I mean condition -- I guess the point is is that the applicant should submit for a development agreement modification prior to final plat. That way we can have the development agreement again `' %r r ~ fm~ }~ 4a: ;s`~i ~~ { t~~~ ,t; -;~ ~" ~~.}Y w ~ =. ~ ~ , ~ .A ~' ~cY ~ ~.o ~ ~ r~ ~ %Y t aY k~ ~~ ~ y m 8,~ a ~ Y'rN ro- ~~i'sk'~" ~ s r ~,E , i.' ~G4~37 ,,~..:. tt. ~ J~~ `.' ~*', ~,. v K a } ,•S i, v h k t• _, _ t i ~ '. ,~ ,f~i, ~, :::1 =~~~ ~ ,_ _, . -:~~:: {~ Meridian Planning ~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 35 of 46 reflect the approvals for the subdivision on a project. Again, that's just the cleanest way to go. If it doesn't happen you have got a preliminary plat that would -- Newton-Huckabay: Let's go with condition 1.1.1 will be modified as stated in staffs response to the letter from Oaas Laney dated September 6th that starts with staff agrees that the current DA -- DA for the site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, et cetera, and so fourth. Does that cover it? Hood: Yes. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Second. -~~= Rohm: That was a good job. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City '~~~~` Council recommending approval of PP 07-014, to include the staff report and the -; aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Proposed same sign? ~'+;~ Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. _~ MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. -' Rohm: And we are going to take a short break here, about ten minutes, and we wilt be '~~'.:,F:, '., ~. ~~ right back. }w . (Recess.) ;, `~ Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning ~~ district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian ;_= Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on PFP 07- 003 and begin with the staff report. <: - Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a __ combined preliminary/final plat request for proposed Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. '` ' The property is six acres in size and is zoned C-G and complies with the ~~°~f Comprehensive Plan. In 2002 approval of a preliminary/final plat for the subject site ~; was approved by City Council. However, the final plat was never recorded. The ~_ applicant is requesting approval of the same plat Council approved in 2002. If you look on the map here, the subject site is located at 1351 and 1375 East Fairview Avenue. It's located on the southeast comer of North Stonehenge Way and East Fairview "'-i: Avenue and west of North Locust Grove Road. The property is bordered by county ,r ~ r ~~~~' ~ I t~ 2 h .~w,k k ~'~` ~ l:u ~ i" 1~su ~ ~f~ T T ~ ` E 1 . ~'~k F U ~~~y7rtfi rd',"', C ~ -. ~ -3' '~~ x :~! ~ ~ 'z ~h`MY r~•; i~~~ ~,~11 ~~ r ~; t '~ r fi ~ ~ + : i fi ~~kr~ tt ~t'. 4 ~"~~~~ ~~q"ate. ` r4 e i„ ;..~ y - - ~~F ~.r2uKri i"+ i~ ~. .. ui Zlz3='b ir- ~ - ~~' y ~~ a: t~~~ t r t . '~1 F '~ ~ '~,ak r ~i r ~ k ~S ~~'f~E4~`,~I'R ! ~ S ~ ~f:.. ~: r, ,~ IY ~-; per . ,~„r ~~ f11z~ 1 / ~kr~~~ a~~. .. ,~ • • mss; Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 '.~~~ Page 36 of 46 ~;~ property zoned C-2 and that's Idaho Salvage Yard. There is multi-family residential to the south, zoned R-15 and R-40. And, then, Canterbury residential subdivision to the west, zoned R-8. And, then, more commercial to the north. The applicant is requesting combined preliminary/final plat approval for four commercial building lots -- get to the site here. Ranging in size from .69 of an acre to 3.65 acres. A portion of the subject site includes the Stonehenge Plaza shopping center, which is located on Lot 1 of the ''~ proposed subdivision. You can see that here. And a CZC has been issued and construction is underway for an 8,450 square foot multi-tenant retail shell located on Lot ~.' 3. And that is approximately that lot there. Access to the site is from two existing driveways to East Fairview Avenue and one existing driveway to North Stonehenge Way previously approved by ACHD. So, you have a driveway entrance there, here, -~ and, then, right here along Stonehenge Way. The applicant is proposing across- access easement be recorded for all lots in the subdivision and staff has conditioned ~~; that an access easement and driveway stub be provided to the property owner to the ~~~ east of Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. So, staff is recommending connectivity right here. The submitted landscaping plan is proposing a 25 foot wide landscape buffer ~:= ~ along East Fairview Avenue and a ten foot landscape buffer along North Stonehenge Way. An additional 25 foot landscape buffer is required along the southem property boundary adjacent to residential uses in zones. It is important to note that the Jackson drain and Settler's canal easements run along the southem portion of the property, ~~~;, ; making it difficult to meet that 25 foot landscape buffer requirement. Code does allow a f° five foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. `~~-'~ This also poses a challenge to the applicant due to the location of the existing building and service on Lot 1. Staff is supportive of waiving the land use buffer requirement =~`~ adjacent to Lot 1 due to the concerns from the Meridian fire department. However, a full 25 foot landscape buffer should be required along the southem property line of the proposed lot. Fire was concerned when we met with them at our comments -- agency comments meeting that right now you have the Goodwill that's located right here at this end -- the east side of the building and they have quite a bit of storage here along the _~~-' -~, ; ~ east side and south property boundary here. And sometimes they get quite a bit of ; -~ ~ congestion in there and fire had a concern that if staff was to add additional -- have that J _ -.~ ' requirement of additional landscape, then, that could deter fire from getting behind the ` " building and access it for fire and possibly servicing the rear of the building. The li app cant submitted conceptual building elevations and a master site plan. Lot 1 is an existing commercial development and Lot 3 is under construction for amulti-tenant r shell. Lot 2 will probably develop in a similar fashion. This is what they submitted for their commercial portion. So, this is typically what we might see -- staff might see on ~~ Lot 2. And, then, on Lot 4 the are ro osin y p p gpossibly amulti-family use. And I just want to let the applicant know that in the future we can condition it in the staff report that ~:;> any future multi-residential in the commercial zoning district requires Conditional Use Permit. Also, staff did receive comments from the applicant regarding several conditions of approval with the staff report. Did include those in your packet tonight. First condition was 1.2.2 regarding that -- go back to the landscape plan here. Regarding that 25 foot landscape buffer. They were asking that that portion of it be -- ~~w ~~ ~ . 1 ~~:~~ tr r~r ed ~ ~v ' T ua~'~4~• "~ ,;a,t iC1+~4 ~% 4Blr`., ~~.tz" ~ r" ~:~ 4 1 t4v i ~..,. •. ~ ~ t ~ i ~ ~ y ! F.j'a rY ~~,~~~ N~'i J ~ ~~ f~ ~ i' ~'' k~ ~ sfi / ~~ ~~ ~ 1 ri, 4 Cr'~•.. #ry ~'4~ , , °- F~.~ f ~::~' ~; F ~ ~~. i 7t ,.fit;%.,,:. rt}l~_.y~~ f 4'* iy f •iF e _ - ~: ~: ,:~:': w ~~' ~ ?F `~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 ~ Page 37 of 46 r .; - the portion on Lot 4 be installed when this -- when they come in with this lot to be developed and staff is -- agrees with that or is complacent with that. We don't have any -: `~ issues with that I should say. The other condition was 1.24. We had a condition in the : =-' staff report that the irrigation district would maintain all the pressurized irrigation systems and as I reviewed the final plat here and talked with the applicant, it's actual ~V~L ~ going to be part of the business owners association to maintain that pressurized ~r`` I irrigation system. So, that will change as part of that condition as well. Instead of it "°` stating Settler's Irrigation Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, it's going to be the E~~R business owners association to maintain that. The final condition was 1.2.13 and that primarily dealt with the access agreement. The applicant was requesting that they ~. ~ ~ construct that once this property came in for redevelopment, was annexed into the city, ' "~'' because right now it's currently in the county. And staff is recommending that Planning Commission uphold our condition that we have in there stating that they have to ~t: -~ . construct it with the final plat approval of this application -- or final plat, I assume. So, _ _ r ,"" staff is recommending approval of the requested preliminary/final plat as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. This concludes my presentation ;•~~j and I'd stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? ~_~ ~ _ ~ O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman. On the bottom of your report it says staff -s ,;m recommends condition of approval 1.2.13 requiring construction of the driveway stub to ~ the property and have cross-access to the property. Is that to the west of that property : 'y, >,. line or -- because on the east side is the wrecking yard, I guess, or -- so what are you proposing to have cross-access to? Rohm: The wrecking yard property. f~ O'Brien: Just to that property or -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman -- Newton-Huckabay: When they redevelop in the future they will likely lose their access on Fairview. O'Brien: Oh. And the other thing is if -- if I understand you correctly, that you're requesting that the buffer behind the property for access for fire be -- I guess waive the ``~' requirement fora 25 foot buffer down to five or ten foot you said? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, basically, what we have done is rather than conditioning this 25 foot buffer to the rear for Lot 1, we have done it for Lot 4. O'Brien: Okay. n ~s . N i. ty St 1~ ~. pciE~w. ' "t'. w.` ~~ i'~ r ~, rte, . < < ~ -: i r~ u Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 38 of 46 '~.~ <:.; ~_, ~1 is .' ',~. -.' ;~: ~, _ ~:~ ~_~ .~ Parsons: And let me go to another slide here. The preliminary plat here -- this shows how much of this Lot 4 is actually encumbered by that easement. So, the way I interpret it is say if she only had -- if this lot -- the applicant came in, this lot only had 20 foot in the easement, then, they could do a five foot landscape buffer there, that's a minimum. If it was 15 foot of that easement was into that lot, then, they would have to do a ten foot wide landscape. But they have to have a total of 25. Is that correct? That's the way I -- that's the way it's set up. But the minimum is five feet according to code. O'Brien: Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. O'Brien: I have nothing further. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Suggs: Good evening. My name is Jane Suggs and I live at 200 Louisa Street in Boise. And I'm here representing Carmen, LLC, and Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. And we are going to try to set a land speed record, so -- but I will try and make it really clear, because I think the staffs done a great job. We are not asking for a change of zoning and this did go through in 2002 and that's a way to make extra money when you're a consultant is just do the same project over again, so -- not that we meant to. There were some conditions of approval from the old there that still exist about doing some additional landscaping, even in front of Intermountain -- well, what was the Intermountain Outdoor Sports, now the Stonehenge Shopping Center. The last applicant didn't want to do those things and they just let the final plat lapse. They didn't record it in time. So, there is a certain amount of time we have and they didn't, they sold the property, but the new owners want to do a subdivision, so we want to do that, too. I think Bill did a good job. Let's just go ahead and get the clarification on 1.2.4, so if your recommendation of approval might include a clarification that the property owners association will maintain the irrigation system. That actually comes from a well on site. Let's see if I can add anything else to what the staff talks about about the 25 foot landscape buffer that's along Lot 4. We appreciate the staff understanding that the existing building and the location of the drain makes any kind of landscaping very difficult behind the existing building and we appreciate keeping that open for not only fire protection, but safety also, and deliveries. I have made a copy of just that section of the preliminary plat that kind of shows that part of Lot 4. So, I'm going to give this to you. There is six of those. And I did that just so you don't have to pull out that big set of plans, but you're welcome to do that if you'd like to. And so this is a one inch equals 40 scale, which is just the same as the plan. And what you will see is that the property boundary along the south of Lot 4, that darker line there that is kind of dashed, that's in the bottom of that drain and so by the time you get to the top of the bank that's about 20 to 25 feet. So, what we are asking for is that one condition, 1.2.2, would be revised yr,~r~Kt~i ~.Mr~ ' ~y+ ,+,yC S. z ~+.,~5 ?N: d."' ~ 'r ~ ~i 1 F ~[,~4~ 3 ~, Nh Y `y ti~i{~l k /~. ~ C. k. ,k'_ ~ ,_ .,~- zi ~~* ~~~~ t r~ ;,, r ~' w . t t r,. v ~ °F ~~s -, .~¢f yp~ 4 ~~; ).~~ ~ ~~ ~s '~~.~, "' ~' ~~ F,ya k x,~ ~~ `~ ~ -~'; ..'. ~~ v r .~~ rla` r ~ ~ a_.( 4~4:=~ ~ ''~ y_~ ~ ri .` ,~?b ~e a'~= _1 .w~~: ^ ' i~ ~P ~ ~ E ; µyz !y; ~~ :.;.. k _ - '". .i-. 5 Y ~?= ~± k Meridian Planning & Zoning `~="` September 6, 2007 Page 39 of 46 also. So, we could show that as a landscape buffer, but we can't practically landscape within the canal, because the canal company won't let us put plantings in there, because it's a water conveyance. What we do agree is that we think that a five foot of landscape minimally along the top of the bank is the appropriate way to go and your code allows for that. And that's what Bill was talking about is allowing five feet minimally <a '; along there. If for some reason we find out that the canal bank is only 15 feet from the ;~ edge, we will put in ten feet, but at least there will be five feet of landscaping on the top `='~ ~ of the bank. Now, we haven't worked that out with the irrigation district and we haven't ~;~_ put that -- worked that out completely with the staff. The staff is asking for us to resubmit a landscape plan, so we will show in on that. The other thing we are asking for r, ~i is that to be actually installed when Lot 4 is developed. We don't have a plan right now. We did show amulti-family building. We are not sure what we are going to put there. ~~ 4T''! It's kind of a tight site. You can look at the plat and see that's kind of small with all the ~,I easements on it and we would like to be able to put that in at the time that lot is developed, not now, because it will just get destroyed whenever somebody comes and _ -` builds a building there. And I think the staff concurs with that. So, there would be a little bit of a conditional change to condition 1.2.2 to make sure there is at least five feet of landscaping along the top of the bank and that we would put that in at the time Lot 4 was developed. I do want to talk to you about the idea of putting in the cross-access to the lot to the east. We don't disagree, we think that's a good idea when that lot r~,r~~:, develops. We want to put a note on the plat or record some sort of instrument that says =~ ~ f that we agree to that, but I think a note on the plat would suffice saying there would be a ~ cross-access actually built, but where do we build it? Do we tear out landscaping that ~; I exists now? Now, I didn't make a lot of copies of this, but this is an aerial photograph. I'll let you all pass that around and, then, I will make sure this -- and this might not be the most recent aerial, but there is a planting area, there is some curb -- I would say there is a 90 percent chance if you put a driveway stub to the fence, because it's not -~s going to go into the lot fence. There is a fence there. So, it's a stub to nowhere -- that ~' when they redevelop that we are going to be stubbed into the wrong place. It could be ' even stubbed into the side of their building, because, likely, if that s developed on that :` ' comer, they are going to use the new urbanism techniques to put the building up closer ~~~= ', to the streets, just like we are going to do on lot number two, if that develops. It's not going to have parking up in the front like these old buildings do, like the existing ', building. So, what we are really asking is for us to agree that that needs to happen, but not build it right now, because it's just going to be building it and having to tear it out and put it in again someplace it later and we need to cooperate on where that goes. It ~~ doesn't make sense to remove landscaping, put in pavement to nowhere, and have to tear it out. I think the staff is concerned about catching it. Certainly when that lot to the east does develop, it will be required to do cross-access to us and what you really need to know is there is a provision on this property, whoever owns it -- and that's on the plat -- that that would be required of them. And so that would be something that could be worked out. I don't think it will get lost in the process at all and it seems crazy to have to go out there and build a driveway to nowhere just to make sure it doesn't get lost. I think -- I think that, you know, probably will lose access to Fairview and so it will be ,~U ~: , 1 a; ~} ,. ~}.. ~ fit; s, _ ~~: L ' z a ,. ~ ~~: ~f ~~:~~ fr 4 R 5 ~, r .A .1u C k ~ t R',~~ ,, ~~,. .^. rt ~ S 8y.. f ' Ire S jr :' x x 2.'~ ~ ` ¢ ry.. f ~ ~fi- . v n a~~! ~~fP"Y" ~h ~~;ii < s ~- 4. ~ i ~u~ i;y ~ u .- r ~ +~ 1 . ~7. w, ~,, f v; ~, s~ ~~J Lx . j[z .{ ~, ~,~;;i: .~"~ ' .o. ~~' ti'~2'#K~~ ~L.j l S f~5 ~fA.: ,. .. r J. 2 ~ • • r!! ~: "" ~'~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning .°.•'~~~~'~ September 6, 2007 Page 40 of 46 2 ~` II important to have some good access, appropriately sized. So, we are asking for that condition to actually be changed, so that we do record on the plat as requested, but we actually build that when the lot to the east redevelops. So, do you want me to point at 1` something? H.: ~ `~r, ; Rohm: Well, from my perspective it seems appropriate that it would just be right here. ,~~,> This is an existing parking lot, is it not? l' Suggs: It is. Rohm: And -- ,a=: Suggs: It seems appropriate for you, but if that goes into a parking area of theirs or into .-;;.:,~ the back of a building, it doesn t seem appropriate. Again, their Rohm: Well, then, at such time that they redevelop, they can make application to make adjustments at that time. You think that would work? Suggs: I think it would be real hard for you to tell somebody on the east to change this guy's property, like go in and do curb and gutter and those types of things, because I „s,_ ~~ think what we'd have to do is we are having to remove existing curb and gutter and _~'~~ landscaping to put in, again, this driveway to nowhere, which, you know, we could choose a place, but it just doesn't seem right to, then, tell somebody else they have to ,{_~ build according to a driveway stub -- it would be different if it was a street stub, but not a driveway stub. And, then, if they wanted to do something different and you approved and you liked their design, to go and tell them, oh, and by the way, you have got to go ' ^ work on somebody else's property. I don't think you can do that, actually. So, it makes ^ sense for us to do it as a note on the plat. That's just my hope is that you would reconsider that condition, so we wouldn't end up taking out landscaping again, putting in ~' pavement, knowing that likely it would be moved. `' Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Suggs: And so there would be -- and we agree with all the other conditions. We just have those three -- well, one's just a clarification. One that the staff agrees to about landscaping on Lot 4. And, then, this other one. So, if you could make those changes T to the conditions, we would appreciate your approval. Thank you. Rohm: I'm sure you understand that the reason that they wanted the cross-access installed at this time is because that lot is ostensibly already developed. There is -- there is no redevelopment planned for Lot 1 and if -- if we just make a note on there that, yeah, well, we will be in compliance, that I don't know what the driving force to -- to keep you in compliance after the fact, because that lot's fully developed. ~ ~~~~~ -: _7, .. ~ , w_: Y^ ~ t .- i c.} F ~~ +, ~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~. ~ ~5~ ~- +~ ~+`~~ r ~ F {"~{ 1~F 'S ~. '1 V ~~^ ~ ~frYr 4 a" a.~ lt#;.t.. f;Q'EEi'; ~ITy,L~t ~ t t F _ .).<~.`IF. ~ k~ Y ~ ~ ?` l hv7°"~ 4 e r ~.}'~ r r ~•paa~b :`~+ ;.r r A~ i' ~ ~~{{~`~ i ,'S.. : i. ~y~ '~ ,.5':': ,. rh-: ~ . { ~ ,. A ~~H h , ~Sk rr 1~~ ~~t Y K ~`Sc [{` t ~5~~"4' F f 1, a~ i y `t h f `r~ ,4 _ ~ r~E #~~ {.`: ; t E~~~;. Meridian Planning & Zoning ";"` September 6, 2007 .; ' Page 41 of 46 i. , -. ~`•`Y~ Suggs: A note on the plat that would say that cross-access must be provided when the lot to the east redevelops or some other document that allows that to occur. I mean if someone comes in to -- okay. If we -- I'm just kind of thinking through this, because I'm E=~` -- if we put the driveway in and the lot to the east develops, what makes it -- what gives you the power if Lot 1 is already developed, to make that -- move that. Rohm: I don't disagree with your logic, but just from our --from our perspective that lot is -- your Lot 1 is already fully developed and if, in fact, we don't at this juncture tonight ~. create a vehicle to make that a requirement that across-access be installed, then, I'm not sure how we are going to get it down the road, other than your suggestion that we just make a note on the plat. Let me ask staff if there is a way that that can be incorporated into the final plat. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the problem I see with that is it costs -- and it's not a huge amount of money, but there is going to be some cost associated with constructing that driveway stub on the subject property. So, where is that money coming from, then, and how do we -- it's almost similar to the last one, we don't want to track this thing and be holding a thousand dollars or whatever it takes to build a 20 foot °~r~ wide by ten or 15 foot long driveway. But as the chair mentioned, there is no way to -- to come back Lot 1 and say, hey, now it's time, pave the driveway now. That's the main = concern that we have with putting this off is there is no provision for that or trust or surety or whatever for the cost of actually putting it on the ground. Suggs: And I would say that if we do that, just to follow that logic, we put a driveway here and we stub it through and the development plan comes in and they put theirs here and theirs goes into -- or they put it here, they put it someplace that doesn't make sense and ours goes into the back of their building -- I mean there is not -- if that's the case, I " guess I'm concerned about trying to create a useless driveway, when, in fact, we could create it in the future easily with a condition of approval. I mean that's what you're wanting is something that encumbers the site in the future; right? So, I think we can record a document or something on the plat that allows that to happen. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, since I helped kind of Bill craft this condition somewhat. And the idea -- and what would be ideal for us is to know what's ideal for you to put a '.'k driveway and just best guess, assuming -- I mean you're right, we don't know where the building is going to lay on that lot. Ideal situation is there is a separate document that's recorded under an instrument number that's cross-referenced on your plat. Don't create it with the plat, but cross-reference this instrument number and say cross-access has been provided. Now, you can detail that and say it's 20 foot wide and it's located in this spot. If, in fact, that's not ideal for that property owner, they can come here and say, hey, you know what, appreciate you giving me a driveway, but that's not where I want it, ~_ can we modify that instrument number and it's that simple and you re-record a new ` `~ document. He pays to reconstruct that driveway where ever it's ideal if you concur. If '~~' not, we require them to extend it where it's ideal for you. And that's why I don't see that ~<;,. =at:;` ~,~„1,,. ' ~~i ei iii z z°, i'i'~=3 ~~`ISS ~n ~(j, ~~~~ a0~, l{1~f ~~u~ ~=" ~ ,,., ,,.:-:. -5:. r.~+;, .. ``~ v,r~J'n, ~,. - ..~ ,t 9 '~~ -. iY: 3 ?[. j~TC~ I ~~. X Sir ~' '~'' ~~,''', ~~~ ~ r ~~^ ~~~ ~ ` s s.. ~ r ® o .;~;= ' Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 42 of 46 i ~~~, ~ it s putting you out any. You could put what works for you in line with your second drive x;. aisle here if that's the case and just -- just stub it over. And, you're right, it's a driveway ~~.~ to nowhere now, but we want potential property owners to see that, hey, the city requires this guy to stub over, I'm going to be required to tie in with their driveway and - use the driveway out to Fairview Avenue. ~~~ Suggs: And I don't disagree with anything the staff is saying, other than if you're going '. ~ ~~`~ to go to the trouble of having an instrument number and make it so that the guy can ,;~~,~., ~~ ,~~~ build it where ever it makes sense for him, why do it now and have to do it later. Just };: .~: ~, have the instrument number on the plat now recorded that allows that to be something ~~ ~{:; I that happens whenever the property is redeveloped. I mean there is no reason to build it now and, then, have the instrument number that allows you to build it later. So, I'm -- but, you know, I'm -- Hood: So, again, and I'm -- Mr. Chair, if I may. The only problem with that, Jean, that I see is how does it get constructed? We can't put it on this other guy to come on your property and construct that. We need it to be constructed and if we -- you can figure -- if you can propose some way that there is some money set aside somehow that gives the `~~}= city assurance that can be constructed, yeah, let's do it only once. That's ideal for me, too. I don't want to see it ripped out. But I don't know of any way where it's not just a tracking nightmare to figure out -- maybe it's ten years for now and there is -- you know, back in 2007 they bid this job at a thousand bucks and construction costs in 2017 are five times that, that's the problem that I see. I agree with you in theory, it's just that's ~'~~ where it doesn't work for us. Suggs: I guess I was just following up with your logic that says if you can create an instrument number that, then, allows the other developer of the east lot to come onto your property rebuild it at a location that's best for him, if we can do that through - ` instrument number for something that happens later, we can certainly do it now. But, ~: you know, Idon't -- we don't want to argue about it all night, so if it's -- { ~' Rohm: We certainly don't. a',= Suggs: No. I just feel like that it's just an unnecessary encumbrance and cost to the property that certainly can be handled a better way and I'm sure we can figure out a way to do it without having to build something there that's going to have to be moved and ~' f you just lose that opportunity to have that connection that makes sense, so -- 1`y Rohm: And I'm not sure that it's -- it's assurance that it would have to be moved. If you <~~ build it, then, it's possible that the adjacent property would have their parking right along with yours. It just appears as if that's the way it would look as a redeveloped parcel as - = well, but I don't know that. 7~~. ^~1 k '~ ,' ;.' - s ,.~~r ~ ~, it rl-. r-, ~. ~~.' ~~ ~ ~ ur~ ~ ~,.i~ ' R .~ ~S# i ~!T ~ r { j . ! ~ A.Y - ~ ~~~ 9 kr , ~- ,;.;~7n -. - s ~~ j~~i.:a , _~•. n ~~ 4¢ t r~ r = i ~,~' v ~r1a +~~ i 4 ~ ~+° t>t'}.Pt t': i, c i ~~ ~ ~~~. 1. ~ f rr }~~kt}h ~~m n .t . ~: Jk, 1 b'~ ~ f ~ •~. ray 't 7~,' ~;, Y .~'. i .S: jj i ?. 1 Y~F: M G1~~~;~ 4 3 ~Y~'~f .k `F' Itrt y}~r' -, ,{ C ~ - N' -~ 4 it. Tj'N.k,rr~ y _ l l j ~~~, r .. .~ .,_' , t . ``_ ," '':,i wu;.;;- ,:,::, ;:. ;, - ~.ry-: '. ~~_ `_ ~? I ., t 4 ;i Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 43 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have a long history of people moving cross- accesses that exist now. Rohm: We don't. Right. Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: You take it as a bonus, I have got across-access to the property I just bought and that saves me however much I would have had to spend before and -- Rohm: To acquire it. Newton-Huckabay: -- skip on down the road and build their -- their building, so -- Suggs: I would never deny them the opportunity to build their -- to build it where they want it and we would build it where it -- to tie in, because it would be beneficial to this property, too. I mean probably beneficial -- we would be able to get over to the Locust Grove Road without going out on Fairview. So, that's what seems to be so powerful for us is that it's in our best interest, too, just not to do it now, so -- Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Suggs: Thanks. Rohm: There is nobody else in the audience to speak to this application, so I don't believe there would be any additional public testimony. So, at this time -- O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing number -- can't find that number. PFP 07-003. Is that the one? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, carrying on a little bit about the cross-access, we are going to be the ones that are going to be approving the cross-access to any development next door anyway. I think it's --the burden is going to be on the developer of that property to be in line. I don't think we are going to allow them to build a cross in line with the existing parking structure there, I think we are going to follow an access road and I don't think we are going to have any problem making sure that that happens. So, I don't think ~ ~ "r ~ ~ ~iS~~N .,~: N~7v ~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~as ~y F4 .~ r ar3~, r ; -,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,;z~, `~~~ ~ ;~' -M , -~ ' ~`;~ a~ i.. rt r, Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 44 of 46 there is an issue. Everything else I think pretty much agrees with the staff on their recommendations. End of statement. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to leave the parking access alone for a minute for cross- access. The -- we were all in agreement that the Lot 4 could develop the landscaping when that lot developed and so I have no problem with that. And I had no problem with the minimum five foot there along the canal for that. When I look at this piece of ~~ property -- and I have always thought this -- if I could have it my way, so to speak, would start here and end there with cross-access. I'd just knock the whole thing out and -- so you could develop continuity along that very large comer. So, I'm not really sure what -- what the right answer is. I don't want to put a burden on the city staff to track that and do feel confident that any cross-access stub that would be created would be likely utilized by -- as it is with most other developments. So, I'm going to have to defer to the other Commissioners at this point on how strongly they feel on that cross-access issue. End of statement. End my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm up, uh? I actually have no qualms on any of the other two issues either. As ~: ~ far as cross-access I, myself -- I don't know, because of the existing building on Lot 1 f:: R'~:; there, to me, basically, the drive aisle there, you know, the east-west right there, I would anticipate would be the perfect spot for across-access and call it good and, then, when f:`~ the developer does something next door, then, they have to somewhat design around it ?~~'' to make that work for them and at that point, you know, I don't see any way of bringing cross-access any nearer to the existing building simply just -- well, we talked about ~~,=` earlier -- talked earlier is the fire department and access for them and everything else, we need to keep the area around that open for them. I don't know what the developer ~- ~ per would do, you know, on his property, but the long and short of it -- I guess I'm '" getting long winded about this issue -- is I would like to see the cross-access agreement be required now. Rohm: As do I. End of my comments. Could I get a motion to move this forward, '= please? ._; Newton-Huckabay: Be my guest. .jd Moe: I don't really under -- you know, how to state those others, so you go right ahead. :?~ Rohm: Well, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is on a roll tonight. Newton-Huckabay: So, condition 1.2.4, we are just clarifying that the property owners will maintain the irrigation on the pressurized irrigation system. Condition 1.2.2, staff is x t ~ .: ,~* ~~ 2f ~:~ }~ ~Y'~'*' t `.... . % ~.. ~~ `i? tali; ~rc~~ i s V a, Y ~~_.~j f i1: ~~ 1~ ,,. - 5l?`,~ _::~.-:? ~~ ... "...... ~n~.~ i~°+ ~_~~~ Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 ~~ ° ~ Page 45 of 46 ie..~< supportive of that request and they will just reference the applicant's comments back in :; ; your comment, Bill, and that should cover that. 1.2.13, we will stand as stated in the ~'' ` staff report. !'~ Moe: If that's how you make your motion. °<: ~` ~= Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to ~` recommend approval to the City Council of the file number PFP 07-003, as presented ,~ during the hearing on September 6 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Condition 1.2.4 will be clarified to read that the property owners will own and ~' ~k; maintain the on-site pressurized imgation system, not the irrigation districts. Condition ~; <, 1.2.2. Staff is supportive of the applicant's response to that condition to allow a ~~,~~ minimum of five foot buffer along the -- along the canal easement and that the plantings will be installed at the time Lot 4 is developed. And staffs statement was UDC 11-38-7- -_ C1 B allows a minimum of a five foot buffer width with the buffer is encumbered by `~ - easements or other restrictions. Am I clear enough on that one? End of motion. Moe: Second. z.. `~~;'`~ O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending *=,- approval of PFP 07-003 to include all staff comments, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank ."'; you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~:.: '~~'~~~' Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjoum. ~~ "~ Rohm: Moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. __ ~~'~ Rohm: -- seconded to adjoum. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried. i:.4 1~ ~. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. ~~j f~ ~_ L h.._y ._ R,: ... .. ~ e,' a ., -~r'~k; ' Y~'~Rf ~[. t '~w n'k~~~ ~` " C 5S N s f ~~ :' ~ ~ x; ~ .~i ;'i ~~ 4~ S '~" ~-~, w ' ~ i , ,~ .. .~ P Jg;:M1 Po ,..i, i ~~~ nND Vii. a ~,~- }k~S sir ~."~' ~2 ff s~ ~ y . ~nu~k~1~r -:; .n •dp~ ~ ... } ~ 17~~ f,~~~.5 ' . ti #' E '~ ~°s'G; >x ~, ~;;. cis d mss?` 3+ '~ ~'~ s v i k 1 ~ ~~~ r~ K ~i:, n T, } ~~ .b ~ - a~~ ~ ~ - ~~~b ~y ~ ~~i3 ~, kr ~ ' , ,~" ~~~ ~~~ K ~'~ j _ ~- . ,# ~~-`~~ :+/.' '~ }' ;.':, ~, ' rr .,..3F: 5.~: f~,~ ~±t W~+ ~~- ly', ' ~ .j, f~; ~' ."~s~:{ ~: y'. t h ~~~ (~i~~.t1 ..'. =. ~~ 4 • }z: September 4, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 '~``~~ APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 2, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: ``.`.~ AGENCY COMMENTS { CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. r ~,~ ~`~~~ ;~ ~~~~ x .~, ri rr.~,, , h ~,~. ~ '~, ~ ~. ;~,~, { ~: v ti S ~_., ~ l~ rw7~'~h~~} s~ r_ ~;~ ~~~ c7Y r _"~'z a _ pia t, r,`.t ~ t '~.µ 'fi ~ ~~~ t s,; ~~ ~~~~~~ i r ,_ _~'~ '~,~ .y!7 f "'~'!. .~ ,~~ r s r i ~ ~ , - F a3Xt'. r ~ ~r ^' } t'- . ~- ~ ' z s;~ ~, erg- r ~ '. -t ~?~ ~ l~.` ; ~'~~x '.~ `~ «'"5 r ~ .. ~ ' ~ : a~ r~ 1. r7• R M ~~lu ~ Fl M ~ ~ ~}~ ~.4 x-: ~ S~ '.~ rya J. 1 ~hlj~ ., ~ Y ~ '1 ~ ~~~ ~ ? y ~. w.tz~ r .{.7. ~; ,. ~'-: s • • September 4, 2007 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 3-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of August 16, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: ' CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. ,,~ Y 4 y ,,~ t b~~ ~ f.F. i - F ~ ~. - Jh ~ k S^ i P~fj ~'~ }? „~~k ~ ~ ~ } `"sHtir~ '!~` ~'. 11~.,,pwgs F ljY'. F .f?' . - 4 7 ~ ~ ~ i , + f ~, 'inv.""' ~,. N Zt a d ~~ _ t .. ~ p"§^ ~ ~s 3 ~ '~ ~ "k r 9 4 .S¢SY7G, "~ ~ . yet ~'" ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ Y ~ r~ ~r F ? ~ a. - h ~~ 1 V Y ,t . .- Y C 1 ~ ? ril + 13t t i +p : ~ ~1' . { F° 2 uarr`;+~ . a = ` a+r ~ ~~~ " `~ s:,u ~ ?~ 4 ,, x i,, e `yy '~+l L ~~# ~r~ ,. ;*Z ~' _. e '~ rF . ~,. ~ September 4, 2007 CUP 07-013 ~__..~ , ~' ~~~ '' MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 APPLICANT Steve Pardew ITEM NO. - REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 8/2/07-CUP per requirement of the DA for detailed site plan ;~ ~'~ apporoval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site; request to exceed the maximum building height in the C-N zone as allowed by df ''{~'~ 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 Rd ~~ ~' I~ AGENCY COMMENTS S ~. {- ~ CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet /Attached Minutes ~' ~=~5~ CITY ENGINEER: ar ~at~ r ~=1 ~"~'I CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report ~~ ` ` ~ CITY ATTORNEY ~; :' -,; CITY POLICE DEPT: ' ~ ~. ~ ~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~` `~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~x ',' ~; ~ _ _. CITY WATER DEPT: 9i .` CITY SEWER DEPT: ~~i ' "~ ~ CITY PARKS DEPT: { . '" MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 4 ,:~"' ~~'~`~:` SANITARY SERVICES: `' ~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~'::: Et .: ,. ~~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: ~~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: r ~;J SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: ~` r~ ~' ~'1 IDAHO POWER: i INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: ~~';~~;' Materials Ares®nted at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~: ,: 3. >~~ 1 ,. < ~, yam; _,;~¢~ hSF-~ - ' ,,fi~r W~+.~~~yr~~.. Yly' F ¢1~-~, ~+F ' ~~f ~ ~ ~ ~' ~'~;}rn ~-Y 4 J 1 ~ ~ ~;~ eg ~; r ~r iF t~~ ~~-.,. ' g ~~ r ~ ~:; ( ro x ~ ~: J _ ~~ h F '!u ~ ; i i ,y'~',,~ Y;. ~~~'~~:~ ~ ;~~ ~ ~» 1 ~'~ ~ ~ t~~ ~, ~ t ~~ , i~~: k i, ~'Tii,~9 ~r r~~-. r` / ` I.7 r ~~~~ t',;. ..t ~. _, ~ ~ r ~ c;L1't ~ '~ frf ~Il.~~'r f 1 ~ 'hfF ~~'~ '•i 1 o~is""~3 ~k .a: - • ;;te >, `=1 '-`~,~, September 4, 2007 CUP 07-013 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 APPLICANT Steve Pardew ITEM NO. Jf REQUEST Tabled from 8/2/07 - FFCL 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 11-2B-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 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: s~~: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: >~ `' ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ~:-.<~ CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: COMMENTS See Attached Findings .~P~ ~'v~ I ~p~ ~~ ~~ ''~ ``~ 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. ,. ' `~ '~ a 5~ t~ a r. ~'; x a *~ s ~ ~ ~~ ~~~: e ~ 1 ~'~,* r ~ ~'• F f a tiF lr ,-~~.~v.+~ w'.i ., ~'' S~ r ~~ p~~ x ly R ~o yy "~ .i .,. ~: ;' tt c ;) f . }~. ~i ~ l A _f~./~h1-0~~ii { , 1' iFl S !~!~! ..~~: ~ . ~.. r.:4w~:d3 ~~ r- r~? r v{ z ~~ 4 f. yL R c N!~' 4',', ~t <~~~ I _'-~ • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ;+ ~~, ~~° ~~ ~^ - c-~,-~ ~~ ~~~!'~~~_A #'°~ .,~~ ~~~ ~, ~:u~~ ¢ft`~ ~, In the matter of Conditional Use Permit for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site per requirement of the Development Agreement; approval for deviations from the UDC regarding dimensional and development standards in the C-N zone for the church use; approval for future phases to only be required to obtain design review approval with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance instead of Conditional Use Permit; and approval of an urban farm use for the portion of the site proposed to be developed in future phases, by Steve Pardew. Case No(s). CUP-07-013 For the Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: July 19, August 2, and September 6, 2007 (Findings approved on September 6, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-013 i. t K~: L_ ,: § 2 ~t d .y ti t "u~i' n xr a~Y' . ~. f ~ .,~ + ,~{ ~e -_ tr ~F t j a.~ Y ~ r~-~~,*js~' . '~Y+°f~ ' ~F ~~ 4~ r `~, Y shy ~' rF~K ~ ~~~~ ~ . ~% ~ T f .'Ar' '` ~ ~f S ~ ~ ~y ~ ~,~ 3 ~ 5l ~"~jz; ~ 1 ~ 2~~. v ~jt ~ r T ~~ L ,~ per`,} . st) ~ ~v_ LZ w•~~ C n,,; 4 , ~~ ~yt' 'C '~;'.4 ' r5 3 ,,~., ~` .r Y~#'~ ~c a._.{ _ ~7S .~ aF .~. .~;r Y..u { w7- w F x~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ `:, r~ ~. _ t ~~~11 .p a k 4 Ari ~ '._~ ~~, ! )+; '_ ~~..~ ~ ~ 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. ?'' 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental !~`' ' subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. ~s 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not ;~-;a 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 Deparment and any affected parry requesting notice. `~f 7. That this approval is subject to the Site Plan, Master Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Master Landscape Plan, Building Elevations, and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff rx;`` 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. =, F C. Decision and Order ~~~"-~ Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein E~;~: adopted, it is hereby ordered that: ~ '' 1. The applicant's Conditional Use Permit request as evidenced by having submitted the `•- Site Plan and Master Site Plan, dated 9/4/07; the Landscape Plan and Master Landscape Plan, dated 8/29/07; and Building Elevations, dated 9/4/07, is hereby conditionally `' `~ a roved; and, ~` pp 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff x ~{ ' .' Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007, incorporated by reference. ~A - ; ~` D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits ~•.;;;, .. `~ ' Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration ~x-~~ ,r, ,, ~~. ~h ~,:: 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 Ciry. 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). CUP-07-013 ~E '~' ~ ~,~ t+~; k,r $ 4 r„ .~~ ~~ Y k• fi} ~~F 1 ~j L ~~ ~~ ~} >~. ~ •~~ a ~ -'r^. ~ ~~ ~.~ tR -r-, H.~ .~.. ) ~ { Z ~:F ,, ~ ~^-i: ~, `-%4 t i~: r i x. ~~ ~~ , .. +~ e: ". _ ``~ ~~ such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year phases , 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 '~~: t~~~ period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the '~'~~_ time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the °~' '_ Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code ;~ Title 11. _ E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis << ~;ti~~l 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 _'.; ~ a~I Judicial Review maybe filed. ~ 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of 3, :: ~;, i „. Meridian ursuant to Idaho Code 67-6521 an affected erson bein a erson who has , p § P g P ' xr.; ~ an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of `~ = this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho ~.i Code. =' = ~ F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of July 19, 2007. 4 .'.~_. i •' ~%.. ' • ' ~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ," CASE NO(S). CUP-07-013 t ~5 { ~~.; ~ ~ 4n'"~S~" a .su .-. it ~4 ~~ ~i~~ y°r ry ..x°ree~~~ ~j i ~.. ~ ~ 9. t ~ -{ t}t ~ri ~,t'-rt' ~,-l. ts~'x , ,~ Irr~^ '~' _ ~ ~;, ~ ` ~~ ~ a -' ~ ~+~-,. a ,~ ~ ~,~~ -}~aa:~ _ a. d ~ n'- ~~ ~:,;°~ ~. r `tio ,~° `~~rr~F ~ ; ry ' y~ r }'''.` n r .mot J .^~L kI ' ~. ~. ~~. ~ i ' y^,r~y N~. ~tl'~] _ ti iR `y,p rye, ~ ~d~, s x~e~~, _ ~G~ e~ ,~ i ~~4 ~ ~.:~~ iS t~'$'~t` r r.r• t ~ r '~'~.. !* . - s~, _ ,, By action of the Pl g & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the ~" ~~ day of 2007. E~ -. =~ COMMISSIONER MICHAEL ROHM VOTED ;<-~: (Chair) ~. COMMISSIONER DAVID MOE VOTED ~' ~~ COMMISSIONER WENDY NEWTON-HUCKABAY VOTED ~I ,~.~ad t ~s r ,~ COMMISSIONER TOM O'BRIEN VOTED_ ~~ ,;~; ~~ COMMISSIONER STEVE 5IDDOWAY VOTED ~~` ~~ . ~ e ::;:::~ ~ ~{ k s'`` CH IRMAN MICHAE ROHM s, Attest: \`\\\~~ ~~ i i i u u i i i i ii~oo ~ ', L.:._ :. `'s ~® i i ara Green, Deputy Ciy Cl k ~~~~ -~ ~ e ,;.- ~`: Copy served upon Applic~f,e ~p~.rtment, Public Works Department and City TY Attorney. " '~ . ;;, ~ ~l iI ,~ B ~ 6 ~~ ~' ~ Dated: ~y (i`7 `~ y~ - , `? ~- City Clerk ~~~ j ~~ a lS_; CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER 4F< ~~ CASE NO(S). CUP-07-013 k ^,; ~'; ~ x; H~ '` .' .. ~_ y'` ,,~` ~~Y ' ~~ / ~y ~` ~i r ~rtt - ~~ .- ;,~ _ n.. ~, f .t t `,'k,~ ~s r J. ~~~ ; ~. ~~ ~~<~ `. i~ ~~, n ik~y~ ;:~, ~ ~'~= 1 ~. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 ~~ ~;_, ,. STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 19, 2007 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Wafters, Associate City Planner (208)884-5533 SUBJECT: Cherry Lane Christian Church (Phase 1) • CUP-07-013 ~. ~~- "~ .. ~~ r~ ~r ~_~ ~` ~ ~ ~' id1~ ~~ ~4 ~fwo ~- "~.~:, Conditional Use Permit for detailed site plan approval of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site per requirement of the Development Agreement; approval for deviations from the UDC regarding dimensional and development standards in the C-N zone for the church use; approval for future phases to only be required to obtain design review approval with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance instead of Conditional Use Permit; and approval of an urban farm use for the portion of the site proposed to be developed in future phases. • DES-07-005 Design Review for structure over 7,500 square feet in a C-N zone UPDATE: This project was originally heard by the Commission on July S, 2007. At that hearing, ~~ I the Commission declined to make a decision because ACHD's comments had not been received yet ~, and they wanted to have that information before making a decision. The ACHD report was still not .-1 completed by the August 2"d hearing so the project was continued until September 6~. Comments t {' have been received from ACHD and Staff has included those comments in this report for the September 6t1' public hearing (see Exhibit B). Additionally, the Applicant has submitted revised ;_~' ~ elevations that reflect the Commission's desire for the proposed metal siding to be used as an :~~;z . ~ , accent material as required by the UDC rather than as a main building material as originally proposed Further, the Applicant has submitted revised plans that show a reduction in the size of ~, the structure proposed in phase I from 48, 000 square feet to 35,277 square feet; a reduction in kA"~.~' ~~ arkin om 481 to 413 s aces and seatin ca aca an Phase l sanctua was reviousl 888 and P g.fy' P ~ g P ~t1' ~ ~' P Y is now 760. The Master Plan has been revised to reflect a reduction in the overall parking proposed from 2,388 spaces to 2,050 spaces; the total square footage of all buildings before was 316,858 and '` : is now 333,621, the difference being in the master church building previously 229,475 square feet and is now 246,238 square feed The revised site plan also depicts a relocation of the easterly access ~r' to Franklin Road shown on the Master Site Plan to be shifted further to the west, as required by ''~~'~~~ ACHD. Please see revised plans in ExhibitA of this staff report 1. SiJNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST it ,..~ The Applicant, Steve Pardew, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for detailed site plan approval of the first phase of the Cherry Lane Christian Church (CLCC) site, per requirement of the Development Agreement. The CUP also includes requests for deviations from the Unified Development Code (iJDC) regarding dimensional and development standards in the C-N zone for the church use (see Section 10, Analysis, for more information). Additionally, the Applicant is requesting that future phases proposed on this site only be required to obtain design review approval with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance, not Conditional Use Permit approval. Lastly, the Applicant is requesting approval of an urban farm use for the portion of the site proposed to be developed in future phases, which requires CUP approval in the C-N zone. The property consists of 39.47 acres and is currently zoned C-N (Neighborhood Business District). Cherry Lane Chrisrian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 1 .. ,• y~ , ~. ~~ ~ t s i, t ti~r s c~ ' J M ~ ~ ~~ ~ < rya 1d .r4 ~. Y . .~~ .'~~ .~ 4 ~. S£tJL,~-pJ~~ .. ~, c R 3 ~ t ~ r'.}. r3"f7fy .. k s ¢,N ,~ ~:~ S. 1 ~N f Yy 'y '~ 4~ ~~ , - }i > ~~ t S'- F ~L ~! • pp ~F ~ , f + ~ ~ ~Fl ~ Y'F r~~ 1 1 .af ~ ~ -S, ~~,~ { _~ i~ i ~,~K..,,~.~. Y ~, ?~~ 4 I }ay ~~; rx ~. a>~ a . ': ~= _ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 .~:;,~~ The site is located at 175 N. Ten Mile Road, on the northwest comer of N. Ten Mile Road and W. ~;` .-= : i Franklin Road. When this property was annexed in 2005, a conceptual site plan was submitted with the application. F.., ;: -~ The owner/develo er p proposed to use the property pnmanly as a church with accessory support ` ~ ~~ ` facilities and services as follows: worship facilities, educational facilities, administrative offices, childcaze facilities, maintenance buildings, caretaker/security residences, recreational facilities/pocket +_'x4's„' park, religious bookstore, and food service. Because only a conceptual plan was submitted with the '''~' I, annexation, and because the City did not have design standards (reviewable at staff level) at that time, ?`-:r~'"'~i a provision was included in the Development Agreement for the Applicant to submit a CUP for a~ :,; detailed approval prior to future development of this property. The first phase of the CLCC site will be constructed south of Ten Mile Creek and will consist of a 48,000 square foot church building capable of seating 888 people in the sanctuary; an administration ''`` ~ ` office azea• a fellowshi area at the front en p try in the lobby; and classroom space for the nursery ;`~: children, middle school, high school, and adult programs. The church campus is proposed to be ~r.-,'-`~~:~ constructed in phases as the congregation and its financial abilities grow. s,: Because the church building proposed for this site is over 7,500 squaze feet in a C-N zone, the '~ Applicant is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C (see Section 10, i Analysis of this staff report for more information). The applicant has applied for Design Review (DES) approval concurrently with the CUP application; however, the Commission is not required to ,~ ~- make a decision on the desi review ortion o - gn p my the CUP. Per UDC 11 SA-2, Design Review is an ~_; - °~ ~ administrative a royal rocess and doe pp p s not require Commission action. However, if the `?:;?lz;l Commission has comments related to the design review standards they can be incorporated into the fF ~r~. conditions of approval. °.~; ~J 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the requested CUP application below. Staff recommends approval of CUP-07-013 (and DES-07-005) for the Cherry Lane Christian Church, as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2007, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in l Ezhibit C and subject to the conditions listed in Egltibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning r Commission heard this item on July 19 2007. At the hearing the Commission approved CUP- - ~' ~s~~°~ 07-013. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on July 19, August 2, and ~;; ;~ September 6, 2007. At the public hearing on September 6 2007 they moved to approve CUP- 07-013. i a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing on July 19, 2007: . ' i. In favor: Larry Woodard (minister at CLCCh Steve Pardew BRS Architects _ (Auulicant's Representative) ii. In opposition: None `"1' iii. Commenting• None iv. Written testimony: None *~~~~~ v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Wafters vi. Other staff commenting on application: Caleb Hood b. K_ e_y Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Additional building height allowance with CUP approval: ii. The proposed use of metal as a main siding material for the church building vs an accent material as required by the UDC ; Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 2 r.. r ~;' `ti ~ ~~ ~-::; ~ . ' ~ ,;~ ~r.Q~:: a ~ .t : ` rat ~'~` .t ., *.t~wi ~;r ~_ i ~' ! ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~t'= i F~ *rA~~F`-~. ~ y« ~~~ i . .t_ _ . . t'k f d i„~~ _ S r' ~~fit T A F,• ~'1~ « ; a.'r: ~1i% _~,;, ~ ,ua,,.H. ,,:> ~. ,, '~rti ~ ~~,y ~ ~ s o k S N _'`' °r' `' CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 -'i `: "°~~~' iii. Deferral of the reauirement to landscape the area south of the meandering sidewalk adiacent to Franklin Road until after the Ten Mile/Franklin ~,<, ~ intersection improvements have been completed: and iv. Concern that the reauired 25' wide buffer along Franklin Road is provided beyond AC13D's future right-of--way. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None ~;' ,~'~; 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval <~; After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number CUP-07- 013 (and DES-07-005), 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). Staff has { ~ already prepared the anticipated findings for this application to be approved as the next agenda item. If Commission proposes modifications to the conditions of approval, the findings document should be ` =>~y` modified and considered at the next Plamung and Zoning Commission hearing on September 20, „4,j 2007. Denial w :;' ` After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number CUP-07- 013 (and DES-07-005), as presented during the hearing on September 6, 2007, for the following reasons: (you must state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to obtain your r: ~_ approval in the future). I further move to direct Staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to ' be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on September 20, 2007. ,w ` ~~~ Continuance '~~`~~'~' After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number CUP- 07-013 (and DES-07-005) to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following ~`<; ~_ ' reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: ~t'' 175 N. Ten Mile Road (Parcel #S 1210449010) "' Generally located on the northwest corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road Southeast % of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owner: Che Lane Christi an Ch ch ~~ rry ur Ii P. O. Box 671 .~ 3I Meridian, ID 83680 c. Applicant/Contact: Steve Pardew, BRS Architects ~ 1010 S. Allante Place, Suite 100 .;i _a~ Boise, ID 83709 :;; d. Present Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Business District) 4~' ~ ~~ e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use -Regional (MU-R) Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-0OS °`:;II Page 3 yo- ;~:~ ,. 1._, 3y?,',~,~[' yyJ-j~~. ` ,M} ~ yL•~ ~~ i S~ +rf~r 3M 3M qiE 4 4~F ~~~ ~,, ~,, :: ,~ •<~y r ~:~ 4 ~; ~~w - - i ~ '~ 7 k ~ x.: ~~ , ~ ~ S ~ r .~. ta. ~; 3 d 1 4^ h 4~,; F a i~ h a{~p `~ ~C"~ E ~- 1 ,3 4 ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~"; ~_J" G~r 23 ,~3, .fad:,:. ~% A~,. 1 1 ~ 5 3 ~~ ~j l4iY+' LF .~r ~~~~1 7' ~'; } ~;. w?rp._ ~ ~~~~E Y. ~aw~j ,; ~,x. ~~~ _ +rF. .y e ~-:;f i ~~~~~. a" ~`;`:; ~Ff . ~~ ~, .,e~-,,. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 f. Description of Applicant's Request: The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for detailed approval of phase 1 of the Cherry Lane Christian Church site, as required by the Development Agreement. Phase 1 consists of the church building. "This building will support the worship, learning, administration, and fellowship functions within this initial building. As the congregation grows and those ministries continue to expand, additional buildings as represented in the master plan will be constructed to better facilitate the function and growth of those needs within the campus master plan. The specified land use and zoning previously approved in the existing development agreement is unchanged by this application." The Applicant is also requesting approval of an urban farm use and for deviations from the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding dimensional and development standards in the C N zone for the church use as part of the CUP (see Applicant's narrative for more information and Section 10, Analysis, of this report). 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-SA-2D, a public hearing is required before the Planning and Zoning Commission on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: July 2, 2007 and July 16, 2007 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: July 2, 2007 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: July 3, 2007 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is largely agricultural with a multi-family/office development in process to the west. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Rural residentiaUagricultural property, zoned Rl & RUT (Ada County) &mini- storage and vacant property zoned C-N. 2. East: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Rural residentiaUagricultural property, zoned RUT (Ada County) 4. West: Vacant property (approved for multi-family & office uses), zoned R-15 & L-O d. History of Previous Actions Pertaining to this Site: • This property was annexed (AZ-OS-023) into the City with a conceptual development plan and zoned C-N in 2005. A Development Agreement (DA) was recorded (Instrument No. 105191334) for the property at that time. • A Miscellaneous application (MI-06-007) was approved in 2006 to modify the above- referenced development agreement for Cherry Lane Christian Church that removed the requirement for detailed Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development approval for structures north of Ten Mile Creek (DA amendment has not yet been recorded). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This property will sewer to the 21 inch main located in the south portion of the property. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 4 "aa%~ . yy...~r, µ-~ 1"N ~ ~ ~~ ~^t ~ K t i r.. ,~' ~'~ba' j Wf k.~'j 7 9H! ~ ~ ... r~' , l~ ~~ ` f r~ '~"~' e 1 "~'.~. r ~Y h i - r. r f~r - ~ tft~~k~ 3~ ~'~ #~.~3$ ~. F'. ~ Ry f 4 Alf ~ k, '~'~..' ~ ~ ~ 7 ~~ r~~ ~ y` G ~, r f'~ w H~, _ N ~, ,~ ~:; a s:~i cis --ai'" ~ ' s~ c t.~r; Y+ t `~ `~'! ~"a~ ~. s y. ~p ~. L ~~ ~s~`~¢-~~ ~~ k .F't ~ ,~ ~ i~ r i x.. J '. 'a~j~ r i _ -y.. I ~~yr~ i~ f1 h~ T ~kti~ i ~i9~~~~~r } C., I ~ ~ e [', 7 ~ k ~: __,!~ F::::' ~: 1;> Wit; t ~, 4 }>;:, >.1 ~:: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 Location of water: There is water for this project in W Franklin Road and N Ten mile Road. Issues or concerns: No manholes shall be placed in landscape islands or parldng stalls. 2. Vegetation: There are a few trees existing trees along Franklin Road that are proposed to be removed. The Applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, the City Arborist, at 888-3579 to certify if mitigation is required, prior to removal. 3. Floodplain: A portion of this property along the Ten Mile Creek lies within flood zone "A" but is not within the floodplain. 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Ten Mile Creek bisects this property. 5. Hazards: The Planning Department is not aware of any hazards associated with this property. 6. Existing Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Business District) 7. Property Size: 39.47 acres f. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 48,000 square feet (phase 1) 2. Hours of Operation: 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, 7 days a week g. Off-Street Parking: 1. Parking spaces required: 96 2. Parking spaces provided: 481 (an additional 156 spaces aYe pYOVided foY oveYflow paYking, pYOposed on a tYeated gYavel suYface) 3. Compact spaces proposed: None h. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Road; a 25-foot wide buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road; and a 20-foot wide buffer is required along N. Umbria Hills Avenue along the west property boundary, as shown on the plan. Said buffers must be installed according to the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20-foot wide buffer is required along the west property boundary adjacent to the residentially zoned property approved for multi-family units. Said buffer shall be installed according to the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9. 3. Other landscaping standards: Parking lot landscaping shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. i. Required dimensional standards for the C-N zone, per UDC 11-2B-3: Front setback: 20' Rear setback: 25' Interior side setback: 0' Maximum building height: 35' (see UDC 11-ZB-3A3 foY allowances foY additional height) Maximum building size without design standard approval: 7,500 square feet j. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): One driveway to/from W. Franklin Road (a principal arterial street) is proposed with this phase of the development. This access point will be the primary access to/from the site. An access point to/from N. Umbria Hills Avenue is also proposed with this phase at the west property boundary. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 5 ~, j ~~s S j•. _._ '. .~..~ ~ '~` S 1~ h~Y t ~~ ,. ~~ ;' .fem. ~kIC a; + k ~~ f ~~, y': _ly~ 'p ~:Ey. ._t ..~.; ~ , .~:~, '~' v n ~, t ,~~` k ~ ~, 1 ~~~ ~~F T .,a ~}4 i w'• • • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 :::` Staff is supportive of the access points shown; however, the Fire Department is requesting an additional access road to the east side of the church building from Ten Mile Road for emergency access (see Exhibit B, 3.18). 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 - ~' Regional (MLT-R). 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 aze encouraged. The intent of this designation is to offer the developer a greater degree of design and use flexibility." ~~`~. The MU-R category allows for residential densities of 3 to 40 units per acre. This category includes uses such as grocery stores, drug stores, coffee/sandwich shops, dry cleaner/Laundromat, professional offices, retaiUgift shops, clothing stores, garden centers, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service stations, department stores, medicaUdental clinics, schools, parks, churches, public uses, clubhouses, hazdwaze stores, salons, daycazes, entertainment uses, major employment centers, and `~ `~ ~ clean industry. `~`~',~ The future land use designation for the subject property changed with the adoption of the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan (TMSAP) from Mixed Use -Regional (MU-R) to Civic, which also allows church uses. Because this application was submitted prior to the adoption of the TMSAP, the guidelines of the MU-R designation apply to the development of this property. Additionally, to ensure consistency with future development for this area Staff is recommending that the TMSAP guidelines pertaining to landscaping/sereening also apply to this development as follows: >.. ~, • All parking lots visible from public thoroughfazes should be screened by plantings or walls or -_ a combination of the two (Ten Mile Specific Area Plan, Chapter 3, Page 27) Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the Applicant include a combination of ~ landscaping and berms along Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road to satisfy the purpose of this - portion of the plan. ` ' Staff fords that the requested church use of the property generally conforms to the stated purpose, ~' intent, and standazds of the MU-R land use category within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use -. ~ (staff analysis in italics): fs" :: ~Y ~ L ~.. 1 r. .:'z~C;i... ~-, ~:.... ' . Cherry Lane Chrisrian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 6 aa~ t~- ~; ~Rt}rte; ~ r. , t „'' } ~.. ~ 5, ~1. S` F. } ~ `~' ~ ~ ~J t ~. -: ~.~ ~. kr vl' vt~~33i Y ~~ '+i4 L r s'~ ~r .: v -~ . ~}' t ~ : ' F ~ ~ ~ ~ i+F t °. ~ ~. ,; .~<~: _ ~z r ' .q .. li ~a_r ~~. _ ~~u~ _, i{: ~ ~ 3 r t~ ~ ti ~~ ~ ~ }~ x c ,"~Li~,p ~~ ~~ of _.. i. -:ts; ~ ~, _ n"~3 {- ~ ~ a j r~,. ~ t $ y i~; i , `, CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 r;; ~' • Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in ;~' such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas (Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective ~~' B, Action 5, page 109). •h~:. tA~. ~~ This site is located on the cornet of two arterial streets and is adjacent to the previously approved Umbria Subdivision, a multi family residential development with offices fronting Franklin Road. The proposed church should complement the adjacent residential uses while providing amuch-needed service in this area. • Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping (Chapter "', V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5, page 43). ~~; ~ `'~` ~'~ The landscape plan depicts street buffers adjacent to Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road and a buffer to the future residential uses along the west property boundary. Internal parking lot landscaping is also proposed. All landscaping must comply with the standards in UDC 11- 3B. .:''..` • Permit schools, churches, and other public and quasi-public uses in rural azeas, that aze compatible with adjacent uses. `~~ ~::; This site is largely surrounded (on the south, southeast, and east corners) by rural properties. ;. ry'S ~`~ Staff believes that the proposed church will be compatible with adjacent uses. L • Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, "~ ,: . ~ low walls, berms, etc.) (Chapter VII, Goal 1V, Objective D, Action 5). A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road. The landscape plan submitted with this application depicts landscaping within these buffers that comply with the requirements in UDC 11-3B-7. Ensure a variety and balance of land uses to support the Meridian Impact Area (Chapter VII, =>t. ~~~ Goal I, page 109) The proposed church use of the property will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. ~' '~ ~ • Require all new parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 3, page 43). ~:~ - The site plan indicates that internal parking lot landscaping will be provided on the site. All _ parking lot landscaping must comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8. t~'.;~~;I Permit new residential, commercial, or industrial developments only where urban services >,~M;~,. can be reasonably provided at the time of fmal approval and development is contiguous to the City (Chapter IV, Goal I, Objective A, Action 6, page 26). ~J°° The City approved the annexation of this property in 2005 with the intention of providing City -` services to the roe o p p rty up n development. !'` ~~:: Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible - : with the surrounding uses Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written ~ ; _=;' `" testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's request is ,, ~,.:1 ''~ ~;'~°'- ~ ~ appropriate for this property. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-N zoning district. Churches aze a permitted use in the C-N zone. An ~r . , ;'. ; .: ~ ~< Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 7 j r ~;.; ,> A. ~~, , t .~ ~ '~ ~. ,, ,~ t~, ,~ ate: , ~ A'Vl~ ~#~~k v F., t ~. ~ s. 4 }_ } :, ~F iF .'~ ~ ~ ~ ,. , ' s 4., ~>~ ~ ~ ~ , , f~ ~~ ~ ~ - pt€t% w ~'. ~ , y ,r, ~ ~ ,~ t ~, ,- 3 ~i~i-: s rs r-; a j ~ „~, ~, } x 1 r, r i~ yy r~ ~? Y~ ~~ ~ yyy Y' 5~~4 I}N~ r } ~ ~~ y , ~.r T~ 51 1 xT t u ~ ~ r i~ y , € 4 R :~'~ ~ ; "`i ~ ~ ~ _ ~T ,,~ =b` _ 4 i ., ~~ 4 ': ~ s ~_':'~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 ~- *'.-~ ` urban farm is a conditional use in the C-N zone. b. Dimensional Standards: UDC 11-2B-3 lists the dimensional standards applicable to the C-N zone { -'' , for this property. ~;- , ~~~ c. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail j . ~' and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Vie:; districts aze 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 ~:.1: a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: Staff is generally supportive of the ~ proposed CUP request as presented in the staff report, with the following comments: , -~ --, ~'f CUP: The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for detailed site plan approval of the first phase of the Cherry Lane Christian Church (CLCC) site, per ~~ ~: gJ ;:. requirement of the recorded Development Agreement. The first phase of the CLCC site will ~`- ~~ be constructed south of Ten Mile Creek and will consist of a 48,000 squaze-foot church building capable of seating 888 people in the sanctuary; an administration office area; a fellowship area at "- the front entry in the lobby; and classroom space for the nursery children, middle school, high s~`~- school, and adult programs. The church campus is proposed to be constructed in 10 phases as the congregation and its financial abilities grow. The CUP also includes requests for deviations ~ ,.3 from the Unified Development Code (LTDC) regarding dimensional and development ~~ ~~. standards in the C-N zone for the church use as described below in this section. ~;- : Additionally, the Applicant is requesting CUP approval of an urban farm use for the ~.~~ portions of the property proposed to be developed with future phases. Lastly, the Applicant is requesting that approval of future phases be allowed at staff level through the design y ;::. review process instead of CUP process. The Applicant has submitted a master site plan that is " more refined that the conceptual master pan approved with the annexation. The layout and >.~ traffic flow has been revised at Staff's direction to break up the visual connection of asphalt ~: parking to Franklin with a less rigid landscape island configuration, and a relocation of the 1 :fi administpation building for a presence and representatcon of the church at the gateway <r . intersection of Ten Mile and Franklin. The administration building is also now planned to i'' ~' provide a retail function likely represented by a future book store or cafe. For these reasons, ~~''= Staff is supportive of allowing future phases to be approved at staff level through design review with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application provided that future phases comply with the master site plan submitted with this application. Further, the Development Agreement for ~, this site required a CUP/PD to be submitted to the City prior to future development in the C-N ' ., zone. This requirement has been satisfied with the subject CUP. fi y' Ten Mile Specific Area Plan (TMSAP): This property lies within the azea designated for the `" TMSAP. Although the TMSAP was adopted after this application was submitted, to ensure ~`:;', ~. ~~- consistency with future development for this azea Staff is recommending that the guidelines ~'"``` pertaining to landscaping/screening apply to this development. The TMSAP recommends that all parking lots visible from public thoroughfazes be screened by plantings or walls or a combination of the two. Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the Applicant include a ~' combination of landscaping and berms along Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road to satisfy the k~_ purpose of this portion of the plan. Other than the afore-mentioned item, phase 1 of the CLCC r, site substantially complies with the puYpose of the TMSAP. ~;~.;, ~~._ P., SV;,i l ~. .-" ~' a :>;. ~_ Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Pa e 8 g ~ } ,. ~ ti ~!.; _qq1~~ - ~~i~~~ ra ~ k7~• _ r ~ ;n ~' p tiF. x kr~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~ {{ iY S ` ' t h~ ~~ _ ~'~~ '~ fit'. k~ 3 *~, E ~~„,~ as ?'u,Si - S YT~' ' F ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ +'\Y± !~ ~ ~n tier ~ ~ ~~.~. ~ - :~~ ~ ' - ~ i ~ ~ a~ ~ } ~ S %~ ? r ~ i~f' '~ s _ _ ~~. i~ ji K~ ~r'a ~q { ~~ ~ ~ ~}~( J ~~ i y~Y 1 ..t ~'~ ~. - {.. ~: q f r+s~ 1~ ! ~~ ~~ - T. }. ~~, "~i x~, ~ i ~C' r x~'1 } r ~', ~~ L ~ pA-J T j~ ~ ~ ~ t~ C { f -.~. t, .~'. ~ y ~ ~# v ~. aw r' ~ ``-o <1,~ ~`~n`~ , " ;r.. ~11 :iJl LL~~, ~ {i ~i,~' F { eta' '~' ~,~ '.~J x;•: :; ;;;:'< • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 Design Standards: Because the church building proposed for this site is over 7,500 squaze feet in a C-N zone, the Applicant is required to comply with the design standazds listed in UDC 11-3A- 19C, as follows (staff analysis in italics): 1. Architectural Character: a. Facades: Facades visible from a public street shall incorporate modulations in the facade, roof line recesses and projections along a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the length of the facade. The southern elevation of the proposed building visible from Franklin Road incorporates modulations in the facade, roojline recesses and projections in excess of the required amount. b. Primary public entrance(s): The primary building entrance(s) shall be cleazly defined by the architectural design of the building. Windows, awnings, or azcades shall total a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the facade length facing a public street. The primary building entrance on the south elevation is clearly defined by a 22 foot tall glazing across the entire width of the front lobby and the roojline over the entry is a low sloping 1 in 12 roof to allow a better visual connection to the cross. The windows shown on the south elevation (Franklin exposure) exceed the required 30% of the facade length. c. Roof lines: Roof design shall demonstrate two or more of the following: a) overhanging eaves, b) sloped roofs; c) two (2) or more roof planes; d) varying pazapet heights; and e) cornices. The proposed roof design incorporates sloped roojlines on two roof planes, and overhanging eaves over the entryway, which complies with this requirement. d. Pattern variations: At least two (2) changes in one (1) or a combination of the following shall be incorporated into the building design: color, texture and/ materials. The building facade is proposed to be three different colors (sand, blue Hawaiian, & snow white) and the building design incorporates stucco, cultured stone, and metal siding with metal accent bands, which complies with this requirement. e. Mechanical equipment: All ground-level and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened to the height of the unit as viewed from the property line. All mechanical equipment is screened from view by a parapet wall, which complies with this requirement. Any ground level equipment should also be screened from view 2. Color and materials: Exterior building walls shall demonstrate the appearance of high- quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials. Acceptable materials include tinted or textured masonry block, textured architectural coated concrete panels, tinted or textured masonry block, or stucco or stucco-like synthetic materials. Smooth-faced concrete block, tilt-up concrete panels, or prefabricated steel panels are prohibited except as accent materials. The materials proposed for the exterior building walls are stucco, pre- finished smooth jlush panel metal siding/fascia, and cultured stone with metal accent bands. The proposed stucco and cultured stone with metal accent bands comply with this requirement: However, Staff is concerned about the proposed metal siding. The Applicant states that the siding is not corrugated metal as typically seen on industrial buildings but is a smooth, high quality, low maintenance material The Applicant intends to bring a sample of the material to the Commission meeting for viewing purposes Also, see narrative and pictures included in Exhibit A of this report from the Applicant regarding the proposed metal siding. The Commission should determine at the hearing if the proposed metal siding will demonstrate the appearance of high quality native materials as intended by the design standards contained in UDC II-3A-I9C2. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 9 y_~. K~~e~Y 7 A-~ ~ iT3=.' t TJ 1 l~ Ft~.T 1~ ~~. ~' ~ }:` ~t ~' ~„ ~-'.~~ ~ ~ .. is S 1 - nk. ~t ,; .<kN ,~~ } y["~ Y}?. y4~ F~ y~,~ ~t {{Y• S ^` 1 .a^ { ~~ ~~ a ~ ~: ~ z ~ ` ,_~ „~ ~~4 3~ . a~ ~;; n r`'~' L ~ ~ :1_` c2 /i ~t ~ ~~* ,~~1.3 P , -. , ~~ -, ~,., .4: ~ , ~~ ~`~ 11' K ji 1'~ FY,.•.~ .~ J ):~ `f -: h ~ I C ~~~ u ~y- asry~t' `. ~+ c } roe. `. ~.~F: F'` 'a ~ti ''. k~~ti a t a ~~,~. • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 3. Parking Lots: No more than seventy percent (70%) of the off-street parking area for the structure shall be located between the front facade of the structure and abutting streets, unless the principal building(s) and/or parking is/are screened from view by other `= =_ structures, landscaping and/or berms. The site complies with this requirement (397 spaces '`' `~ are proposed in front and 240 spaces are proposed on the side and rear for a total of 60% parking between the front facade and the street). '' ; I 4. Pedestrian walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of eight feet (8') in width .f; µ'~ .,- :~~; shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance. The °'~~~~ walkway width shall be maintained clear of any outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. An 8 foot wide pathway is proposed from the ~;:~':=? perimeter sidewalk along W. Franklin Road to the main building entrance, which complies with this requirement. ~ b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving "~t' surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. The internal pedestrian walkway is proposed to be distinguished from other walkways by striping, i~ ~r which does not comply with this requirement. These pathways shall be constructed "~~"~-'' with pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks where they cross vehicular driving surfaces, as required c. Walkways at least eight feet (8') in width, shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one-hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the main building entrance. An 8' wide walkway is proposed through the center of the parking lot from Franklin Road to the main building entrance and S' wide sidewalks are proposed on each side of the parking area to the south. Four foot wide ~-, ~ ~.,. ,.f: walkways are also proposed to the north and sides of the building within the planter ' ~ ~ islands. The walkways proposed on the site plan meet this requirement. ''':-- ~,<_::, d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including but not limited to an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. The applicant's narrative states that four self-supported awnings will be constructed in the plaza that are diagonally located to provide cover from weather in access of the main entries as well `'~ as provide protection from weather while waiting to be picked up. Dimensional Standards: The applicant shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in r,. 7'` UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-N zone. Staff has reviewed the site plan submitted with this application and found it to comply with the required dimensional standards of the C N zone. except for the ' ~ ' following: _ _ • Per UDC 11-2B-3, the maximum building height allowed in the C-N zone is 35 feet. 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 limit of 20 feet as measured from the roofline. (The UDC i';~ does not specify a maximum square foot or horizontal measurement allowed for the ~~ ~~ belfry structure.) Additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed for the district requires approval through a CUP. With these allowances, the maximum height is allowed to extend to 62 feet in height if a CUP is granted, as proposed. Further, the Applicant states that the belfry will not contain a bell but will have an exposed roof underneath for l3VAC equipment. Because the belfry and cross are not for human occupation and because the height of the building complies with the height requirements, Staff is supportive of the requested height '. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 10 ;; at i ~ ' ~-, ,A ~ 4:t ? {` ~v x Y~'1. 3 .~. 3 1. A:.:, ~k ~.. v~y 1 i 4 y i ~1. ~ ~ B"'~L p.C~L', a 4 ~{G~~,. t t'.1 I k ~' ~ ~ •a$ i ~~ r Yl:~. L t c~~ ~ t~Y* r 4 ^ r! * /µvA } i ~ 5 ~ , ~~ ~ l~ ti ~{ rtM( ~~~ y~ '~q !! :X . ~. u~ ~~ ~ C ~ fitt. ice' 7w ~ ~ E ~f~f~fry!ry!ry!yyy...~~~ b`a'il ~ t{ f~ 1 yro ~'~; - ~~ c ~` \ s '.'31°'~s /~ . ' '1k.> w' k L_. rr!iw . ~~-...r .~_ - a~' n :' ; ,;t ~. -,~~~tf~ ~~. ~~ t;:_... "sY f, ;;2 #l . YY ~.;: CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 Urban Farm: The applicant is requesting approval as part of this CUP to allow the eldsting alfalfa field that surrounds phase 1 of the church development to remain until the site is ezpanded in the future and be considered an urban farm use. An urban farm use requires CUP approval in the C-N zone, per UDC Table 11-2B-2. The Applicant states in narrative submitted with the application that the church membership has several farmers that would be able to harvest, irrigate, and maintain the alfalfa surrounding phase 1 instead of plowing it under and creating an inevitable field of weeds without purpose. Staff is supportive of allowing the land surrounding phase I of the church site to Yemain being faPtned as it will be maintained and not turn into a field of weeds as the Applicant stated Additionally, the ppopeyty is cuYrently located within a very rupal pant of the City in which agricultuYal use of the ppopepty would complement adjacent prope-^ties. Access: One driveway to/from W. Franklin Road (a principal arterial street) is proposed with this phase of the development. This access point will be the primary access to/from the site. An access point to/from N. Umbria Hills Avenue is also proposed with this phase at the west property boundary. Staff is supportive of the access points shown; however, the Fire Department is requesting an additional access road to the east side of the church building from Ten Mile Road for emergency access (see Exhibit B, 3.18). As of the print date of this report, ACRD has not yet submitted comments on this application. Parking: In commercial districts, one off-street pazking space is required per 500 square feet of gross floor area, per UDC 11-3C-6B. Based on the proposed 48,000 squaze foot facility, 96 pazking stalls aze required for this use. The applicant is proposing 481 pazking spaces with an overflow parking azea capable of parking an additional 156 cazs. The overflow parking shown on the site plan on the southeast and southwest areas of the paved parking area is proposed to be improved with treated gravel or recycled asphalt to prevent dust. These areas will eventually be redesigned and improved with a paved surface upon expansion of the site (future phases). As part of this CUP, the Applicant is requesting that the overflow parking be approved as proposed. Staff is in support of the ovepflow paYking as proposed ppovided that the Applicant maintains a dustless surface for the parking area. One bicycle parking space is required for every 25 vehicle parking spaces, per UDC 11-3C-6G. A bicycle rack is required. to be installed on the site that is capable of holding a minimum of 25 bicycles and should comply with the location and design standazds listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. Site Plan: The applicant has submitted a site plan for phase 1 of the CLCC development, included in Exhibit A. The applicant has also submitted a revised master site plan, also shown in Exhibit A. Staff has reviewed the site plan for phase 1 submitted with this application and found the following items need to be shown on a revised site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for phase 1: • Provide a bicycle rack(s) on the site capable of holding a minimum of 25 bicycles that complies with the location and design standazds listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. .y;~ ;~', s • Provide anorth/south drive aisle on the north side of the building connecting the two drive aisles for better traffic circulation on the site. • Provide a paved pathway from the parking azea on the east side of the proposed building to the bike path along the Ten Mile Creek. • Provide 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standazds. The sidewalk shall either be located within the right-of--way or within a public pedestrian easement within the landscape buffer. • No manholes shall be placed in landscape islands or within parking stalls. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 11 t ~- z ~ : ~~-~~, ~;- ~r 4F , 4,• 5~ r ,. ~ ~ ~~ ` ?~' ' ~ ~ „~s.N ~;~; ~~"a± ~ . ~-~ . ~K~~ S ,~ r } y of t ;~i~.` X ~ ~ 9 - 1 °;.~" 't i ~ ~ t v ;~. i~'~t~ y~~ r "i~t=ei~ ~': c )r ~ a~ r~r4 ¢ _ h. h .r ~ ~.i4K YF, t t f ~, i r , r~ ~ t~i g., o _ ry x, ` t °~.i ~E Y ~ ~ h'~rb.'... ~~~ 6 ' ': r y x ti n i' ~"~ b:. ~ a ,.t q " y Y. ~} ~ nii ~'~r~ ,d, ° v r„i ~ i ~ir3~ t Ft c i},Y,.~;; ' ' cy ~sf' ~, .~,~: ~ ~ ~ ~ : :. Y _Y4. r ~; ~ ~ S } L , c ~ J ~'e'r~ y. l S.tt ei r ;1 ~! i ~ ,y1 ¢~1 i[~vl Y 1y~u IY~ H*`~t:` ~ T~F~'~G~ , T qq~~ h ~~ - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 E3'~' • The internal pedestrian pathways shall be constructed with pavers, colored or scored ~, '' concrete or bricks where they cross vehicular driving surfaces, per UDC 11-3A-19C. ~. ~`' ° ~ Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Franklin Road and N. Ten ~'` ~ Mile Road in accordance with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-7, as shown on the landscape `°~ ` ' ~= -~ lan. A 20-foot wide buffer is re aired aloe the west ro boon ad acent to the future P q g P P~h' ~' j ~~ `" residential use in accordance with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-9, as shown on the ~~ landscape plan. Internal landscaping should be provided on the site in compliance with the `1 standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-8, Parking Lot Landscaping. There are a few trees existing trees ~``> along Franklin Road that aze proposed to be removed. The Applicant shall contact Ekoy Huff, the ~' ;~',` < City Arborist, at 888-3579 to certify if mitigation is required, prior to removal. iv - "~° ~~~~~ Staff has reviewed the landscape plan submitted with this application and found the following "- items need to be shown on a revised landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning ~~ - Compliance application: • Landscape planter islands are required at the ends of rows of parking throughout the lot '- `-~ and shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet, and the planting azea shall not be less than `~ ` ~ ' { five feet in any dimension, measured inside curbs. Each interior planter that serves a k ;;:~ single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped with at least one tree and shall be "' ~ ~~~ covered with low shrubs lawn, or other ve etative p g g groundcover. All azkin lot ~ku~~~ landscaping shall comply with the standazds listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. This requirement ~ c `.~=. does not apply to the overflow parking areas. ~_ ~~ ~'' ' • Include tree symbols in the plant schedule. 'Y• _<` ~ • Depict a paved pathway from the parking azea on the east side of the proposed building to ~ ~-`°i the bike path along the Ten Mile Creek, per requirement on the site plan. • Provide anorth/south drive aisle on the north side of the building connecting the two ~;<~='_,; ` drive aisles for better traffic circulation on the site, per requirement on the site plan. t ~~M1., fi7;.t i • Include berms with landscaping along Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road to satisfy the ~, t~: ~ purpose of the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan regarding screening of pazking lots visible from public thoroughfazes. ' • The Applicant shall contact Ekoy Huff, the City Arborist, at 888-3579 to certify if ~; __' mitigation is required for the existing trees along Franklin Road that aze proposed to be removed, prior to removal. The Applicant is requesting as part of this CUP that a letter of credit (LOC) be accepted for the landscape area between the e~sting edge of pavement along Franklin Road and the south edge of the meandering 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk until such time as ACRD constructs its improvements along Franklin Road. All other landscaping adjacent to the residential area on the west is proposed to be constructed at this time. Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile is in ACHD's Five Peat Work Plan to be widened from 2 lanes to S lanes with cuYb, gutteY, and sidewalks using Federal funding. PeY the Plan, the construction yeap is unknown because it is not a funded project For this peason, Staff is not suppoYtive of the Applicant's peques~ Staff is Pequesting that the Applicant comply with ppovisions in UDC 11-3B-7C5, Landscaping within Right-of-Way as follows: ', • If the unimproved street right-of--way is ten feet (10') or greater from edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property .line, and street widening project is not in the Transportation Authority's five-year funded plan, developer shall maintain aten- (10) Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 12 :fir; >, . ~~ ~r .~` ~+s; ~~F, r,~,; ,~_, k .. _. r,~ ~s~ ~ s ' ~ c ~~Y~£ .. 4 ~ 4 ~ ~~ t ~:. ~?? F ~trd ter ~,+~~ € .7:rt , ~' .~r7 .~~~w . a ~' -~> E ~,~ ' ' ,~; ii, .. - t- t. - ~1 ~ • *?"~" CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 foot-wide compacted gravel shoulder meeting the construction standards of the .:.:; ~ Transportation Authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative ~;"' ~ groundcover. ,~ ~;; ~ Landscaping improvements within the right-of--way shall require a license agreement ~,~~ ~' between the property owner and the 'transportation Authority. All of the above revisions requested to the landscape plan shall be shown on a revised plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site. Perimeter landscaping on the entire site (Ten Mile Road, Ten Mile Creek, Franklin Road, West and North) shall be completed, prior to occupancy. t _;~i Future Phases: The Applicant stated in their narrative submitted with the application that the timing of future phases is affected by the completion of the Ten Mile Interchange, the widening r~~`li of Ten Mile Road from Franklin Road to Cherry Lane, the widening of Franklin Road, the rate of ;;,, sa'?~'~ development of the planned residential communities within the scope of the Ten Mile Plan, the church growth in numbers and ministries, finsncial growth, etc. The Applicant projects that phase ~.; 2, which is the gymnasium portion of the family life center, will be completed in the time frame of 2009-2011. Phase 3, which consists of additional educational wings on the main building, is expected to be constructed in the time frame of 2011-2015. The Applicant is unable to speculate the timing of future phases beyond these dates. Future phases are shown on the master site plan. '~ Staff does not have any issues with along-term phasing plan for the church, provided each phase is consistent with the overall master site plan. -~,~ ~^ Stormwater Drainage: The storm water detention pond proposed at the north boundary of this site shall comply with the standards listed in i~JDC 11-3B-10. '< ~ Address: Because the front entry of the proposed building faces W. Franklin Road, this property should be addressed off of Franklin Road instead of Ten Mile Road. Please contact Karie Glenn in the Public Works Department at 898-5500 to request a change of address of this property. Hours of Operation: The proposed hours of operation for the proposed church are from 8 am to 10 pm, 7 days a week. -~ -~.: Building Elevations: Elevations of the proposed building were submitted with this application and are attached in Exhibit A of this staff report. The phase 1 building will be completely surrounded and covered by the future phases. All exterior walls in the phase 1 plan become "interior" walls. The proposed building shall be constructed in accordance with the elevations shown in Exhibit A and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19C as detailed above. The design standards do not allow metal siding except as an accent material The Applicant shall replace the metal siding with an acceptable material, unless otherwise allowed by the - Commission. ik~3 Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): The Applicant shall be responsible to obtain a CZC permit from the Planning Department for all new construction or a change in use on the site prior -.: to issuance of building and/or occupancy permits. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of CUP-07-013 (and DES-07-OOS~ for `' the Cherry Lane Christian Church, 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 and subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this ..;; ~, .; item on July 19, August 2, and Seutembier 6, 2007. At the public hearing on Seutember '~ ~,' 6, 2007, they moved to auprove CUP-07-013. Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 13 F ~, a ,.Ys,E , ~i ~" ~ ~ t~.'. z n3~'ti { A,.,,,,~' i ~`ir ~ ~e=~ z , ~ r~, ~. ~ -#~ ~~ yyCC 1 ~ 1 yif "~~ ~ 7; fix n r 'y t ~; ~~^ 4 ~ ~ ~/ 1 tit ~. ~R. r'h`.. , ~F li.t' . 4 1. •.h >.,- .~ 3 ~ , ~F ~ ~ ~ ~3~ ~ t~~,,,i,,,~~~_ - € 3t$ s' r s ;R F i l •'•~ t `~ -cf a 3.C~_~y• ~Fa,E~Y~ a, E <. ~ ~ l~ ~.-Fl ~~ r ~~'.7~' f '• N. c~+r ~ yd:~q:. ~~ ~ fi ~ e -. Y~ r {' t ~~ ~~. b ~~ 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF JULY 19, 2007 ~`';'~~" ~~:~ 11. EXITS A. Drawings "' {~ 1. Zoning/Vicinity Map `~ 2. Site Plan for Phase 1 ~- ~~~ 3. Master Site Plan ~~'` 4. Landscape Plan for Phase 1 }t:. '~`~^^`~ ~~ 5. Master Landscape Plan ` . ~:: I 6. Building Elevations I B. Conditions of Approval . I 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department Y ~~ n 3. Fire Department ..rs ; 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code =~'? Fri f~: ~~ -~ . ~'" I I ~. ~'~~~ i,~~r Cherry Lane Christian Church CUP-07-013 & DES-07-005 Page 14 ~~' ~' ~~ fi L ', ,r. t z ~ p f~'. ~ :" 11aa~ t ~ i " v {~ ~;,w. ~~ ~ 4,, f A?~`~,,~j "~ k'kY~~~'3 S f ~ y ~ = xw~. 1N3 `}~ ~ Lp Yt~ C.d?~ h,r 1 u' r ~~ r ~r:,~ ' fit ~~ ; ,~ i. ~ ~r l/ $'i~ ~ (1 p Y ' Nr5 '. ~ . IaK Yl{ 4 ~ ~ 14 Y'- t~yy l y..: ~': 'N ~~ ~ 4 4 '';1= r~:'; ~~+~~.,, A. Drawings 1. Zoning/Vicinity Map Exhibit A s ~ F~ i.~ Y_ ~~ f~ . ". .`~` ~. ~fl ~3::.-, • 2. Site Plan for Phase 1(prepared by BRS Architects, dated: 9/4/07, labeled Sheet ~B-1~ SDl.l ~. 1 ~ _ ~. Exhibit A 10 tE St?~iN ~ b ; iY }~ ~ ' ~ ~ r~ t ~ ~~~_~ =r "t ;k;, r µ ~ ~ r . ,~ ~* 3tiF ~ e .~ _'r {grk ~~ +~ ;;SSjj F~ t.. '{ ,yVy~ ~i*S•~ ~! ~~~6 .p3 RF ~v ~ k ? ~ ~~ t1~~C i ` ^~~ ~ -. sgt#._ t .::f ~ ~~ '1: ~~. r. ~~ p ~" i i[Z , ,~ ,' 5 tJ T L 2 T ~~~ ~t4 N ~Yf fY r '!t ;~' ~ _ ~` ra~? ~ t~L° y7~ n r ±wr° f ~~~ r ~ ti } r i '~ ~ ~ C {l S ~ ~ ri 2 { J '' ~ ' ~ '~ 3 ~ ..F}, f 4)in } 1' ; ~ r,~ - .. ~ ;~l + ~''~i~ji' a r ~ 1 ~' i ~F ~ ~~ J - j ~ `~/ ~~~T ^. ;ll ~; ~:~. ~; _ .-y, ;':::., ~'I .i '`,~ ~~~ u;,; ::.' ,~ i:': t c, ir, h+~- '': { :;~:~~~-~ it i:`~;~ ==i~, ~,'~• • 3. Master Site Plan (prepared by BRS Architects, dated: c"~ 9/4/07, labeled Sheet #I~B-~ SDl.l w Exhibit A ~.~ ~. r ~, t. ,, ~; 3k_ ~ f u - r ~~ ~ n5 } ~ ' ,a ~ _~. :a:] :: rsv ~ s .~~ ~'i 7 M-~ ,"~h ra `T ~ < •: Y ~ r ~; ~. ~ r 1 ~~ . ~ 1 ", 4 i. a Y'H~{ J ~ j~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~T. h & `C ¢ x f %~. ~'~ itli~, 3M '~ Y {p t` ~.~ k i'~~? . . ~ ~~ `` ~ ~ ~ ~ ^s ~'.1 ,y, ryv .. ~ ~ ~ i) ~ ~ 3 Y { ~. ~ .3Z , ! x . _ } ~~ ~f~~I' ~ ; .f -i Ft's h i ". j ?/J.~ "~ .Y~ , ~~5 ~ ~~ x"'.17. 1 ~ ? Y~ ~ Y ~. 1 Y~1'. ~a' l X :. i Ka f' ' ~ p ~. i Y + ~ n~;~ Fy$ `•'f ~'t ; ~ 7 L: _. f + .~ ~ n J } ix .- Y9 ~f 3" ..:"r [~. i~ r;, ~ f .31 a t~a r ~, ~ ~+i y y ~ ~ 4 f~ ~ 5 ~~ {r~ 'cft ' ~ Y h 5 y i~` . ' '~ -, ?ii"~ ) c:k :~; •„s''" r.'a: e:, ~'- . i ~k> ~:- ~~ F I } -_ A;L;' ,~,. ~:', ~` ~:. cC • o 4. Landscape Plan for Phase 1 (prepared by W & H Pacific, dated: ~3FA7 8/29/07, labeled Sheet L1.0) _ " ~iiia& ---------_ ---------- --_ ----- -- - -- ------ --- g1° i' ~ ~~° ~~ gAia e I ~ e ~ ' • • Ire ~t ~ ' f . 5 e . a f e e f ~ e f ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ^~ ~~~~ e Y ` < « ` < e a e~ d~ 1~ e ~<e I r ~A s<! .`. t ,. 9f ~~ i~l~ i F .~. E.` I I 'Y',°'s{~'~` Y .'~` . a f l 5 i aB666~ ^ i ' f a ~' • ~ `' ~" ~ ~-;.. ~ •~ _ ~ dope ~! • • ~ ' , c -' ~ 1 `l ~ v, ie;r`,~~"r'• k '•'4 a e; i z ~~! i ' ~i •3' °'F"~i ~~• rY - r c ..i. p fN+ ev 1 Mp i I :Yea. ; ~ '~, ~7 ~i~ < '/ i A5 ~l i ~ I ~y:i.~,~ C .. e/ ~ IY ~:j ~ ~ ': • . ;°°.:~.. ` ~~ ' ~ ~'~ ia~ lad .9 '. ~9~e I < ~`. ems`.' e.. fi. Y.. ~ ..... :.. ; pt;~ ` < e ` ~ ` = ~ ~ ° ~~. ~ ~ / / ~ ~ 1~1 pfd ~ fee I it c s e' ' ~ ,fe ', I.fi. eb f i a/ //' ~9 Bptl i ~ 6' f e f 1~ f f ..I e~ f I // 9s a ~~~ ~~ s~ ~ ~ ~ a B~ e Y Savo S` weo''~ ~~a,~w~a6f~~g~~..0/l~Y•f.~Aelll6®~1~8/8~9{A~A/1~1t~~f~8flCC1Q~d7li AwU~ V ~ 3 ~ ^ ~ /'TM~L VI~G LI'Yf+/eiM/1r'G IW ~b~'~ C ^~OMU o~ ®~ mtPe` was ~ aCYFD ammrAa OAiQCE ~~~ t CUP Gal-JT-07 ~i'~"~` '~'~' Exhibit A Y F 4 r Y ,~t~ Sr. ~~ 'a -_ ~.t ~~ ~ ~x~ 1 ~r{ it ~~ . - "., 3., f L}' 4 ti Y e j~ S Y`~ ~Y Rk Tf ~'T N~ ~ -S F iv !.'$~'.` f Imo' ~~ _~ 3 r. ";t - s :. ,m ~~ `' r ~ v-~ r ~ ~f k . ~ ~' . , ,:N~~c~Rr' . ~,. r e s ~~~, ~:. v. ~~ JYi s}.` f 1 ~ tY S S ~~'f ~' ~'~*- ~~xHk': _ - y ' ~, i t p. F. `fin ~' i t ~ci as ~,~. - . ., :? . +~ z n r..YSf.i.k ,~'.t` ..~'' S,Y 'C=.r .r ~ y'. - ~ o- L ~ _. ~ rt ` 1 _,> t ~$ ~ti F r jt { s+ ~ 'v ' ~~Yj?~r se8. ~ ress ~ - . rr ~~ ~ Nih ~ I,. v ~ '? ~~~ ~ c 1 ~ S~• x. r r ~ • 5. Master Landscape Plan (prepared by W & H Pacific, dated: ~ 8/29/07, labeled Sheet L}:9 LM1.0 ~.~' ~ 3303!6@ a " B~gRg 33e ~~®' --------~------------; ----~~alaallra~sae --- --- ~ ! ~ ~ I B36 y >~ 1 °t ,. • @. t .~ a L~ ~ @i~ 1 t 14 ..;. , r °:..~ t ~ q = sQ!$t ,: _>..,. ~ 11,3 I ~,. t't°ty. .,f1Ai ! a 4 1. ,.a ~ ' q.. I ~~;a'Z. r ~' rya „;'.~~ 'e A!d° + ~ ~ 1 ~ ~• { 1 per g X:: F,t,;t: " B ~ 3 :'r ' X13` /. M ; ..?t~3. CB ~;. .i:'~'.: %' 'ti ~ ~ I ~ ~ ei i ka}yam 's3%~~'~':T•ifc°• r ~ T't'4 .z~r..~ti'tf &.f'<j ' +. 7 ~ .,! r a l9 a~ ~pt I e e e t y I °°°~ aet ' :+• I ~ ~~ ~. ° I 3~ 933 1 }~~ I ^e ~ : ; 13 : ". F . 3 - ~_-_- j~ ~~ ~~ ~; ~ B~ ~ --~ °' -~- ta~wreaemeecsrmumaxrmr ®... ®•~..:~. ~ ~ ~ _~ ~nsr~raiaacanmscaPE y ~ ~°~~ d ~'''mu.m~ as mntm '"A0. owee a°~OOm, = a~ rm~ cur ae-st-m ~••••~• Exhibit A 3 a yy, ,....v~~~~ - ^~-~~ 'xf ~%~ c iTs i k ~~ + v Z 1} ~. taN'~s tJ .{'. t, ' ' y, ~' ~~ ~ - }'~~~~~ -1' ~~~` a r` 14i= ~` 1. ~ i ~W ~:,. ~~ ~y~ \ t ~ ~r~ ~i L ti ,t ~ x A ,~ S^~ } F ~ - ' .. s f~, •M.,! Ix f y ~ s ~'. ~s~~e~r~` a ~pi ~~ ~ , rr ~ ~ ~ 1h-y~. µ ki __ ~.. n S '~ '~$~ . LLFy4 ~,~~ ~t~r ~ r3-. ,n ry ~Ln~; i' of t ~.. `t f.~ •~"ft ~~ k",~ x ~ Z~1 ~~ I.}*. ' ~ l p~ j s ~~~ .:fR ,,, ,,, t::. _ _;fi tir *± .=,`-`t' ..~q~~, ~~r1:=. :F ::' :Pi i I i lk 4~ ~ ~~~,:,i _::.~i ~I 6. Building Elevations (prepazed by BRS Architects, dated ~"~ 9/4/07, labeled Sheet ~ A4.1 & A4.2 a anecn~eaalQaearne~x ae;ongct........~sesum~uruDaa~ws~ay~ecvnnms na.l.aw. ~,v~mm ~D.a:maw a 2;1>DOb tlmdV~_dIRRtNi'DES7Q10~ud~q••.•.,.•~1f80i0dATfCDW.YN~G51g378H/p7W~kLLO.44 ~fH2~7143/:WIAH Exhibit A ®a~~ II o~~r~ OL14'DR ®R5~°iEr.d.iSS ©~._^ m~~ F~ P~ ~ <<}A '.~ ~7. ~~jjt ~ to k.l ~ Y Z - -~ _ Yi ~~fik S ~ 'k S`.f j ~ r~ Y ~j' ~a ~ ~ t ~ ~ . e ~ ``~S e ~y .fir , ~ ~ ti ~~' j~K` ~ f i t Spit 3 x~~~r ) ~j s! ~. ri ~P"aC _ - !~ ~p ~ ^ ! k ~`~ rH ~~,T e °~'2 }~ ~ s,Y..; ti;. c>.:, !: ~,~ . _ 3' ~~~r r -F.t) < 3 ~}.J _y...:, #1 i ~ ~_ ~ Y 1. ~.: ~~ , t ~ }, '. ~r j f S -.1 1~ ~„ ~~ y, ~ ~~ t. 1- ~ ,.: ,.'l {}~; (,F, ~~~ { ~,' I b- ~ Y`; ~w' I '~;- r" `sr H~ ~~ a . r~; ,.71 li', _ G ~` SDUTki4~'EST EEEVATIDN ~ .~~ _ _ ~ T~,~ ~ !lpi~f~il~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ j l ~ ~ ~ ~1~'lw ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~.` ~ ~ f~ a ~, _ e '„ _ .., ... n ., ~ ~ - _ i .~, - ~ , ~ I I - - Exhibit A 9 ~~~ ~ ~r ~ a , ~~ ~ ~~ F ; 1 r ;~. ~. . f~;: ~ ~;. ., e ., r ~ ~~ ~~;- r i '' { „~ , 7 t' 1 4 N~ - ~~~,s~s'. {~f;aii c s ~,: .,y~ l i+,+~ ~r ~(~ ~p~ m '~ ~ ~'i -> ~ r adze r~ ~ ~~ ~,- } k ~ { ~; t ~,rr. ~~ ~ -~`, ~ 3 St ~,[~? ~ t~;', ~ J ~ 4^ r ~~ 1g S ~ ': .;tai 7 ~ r a ~ ~~ rd ~Sx: ,.~" ..., .... YR "3~~. li H v £; • B. Conditions of Approval ice.'', L PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~~': ; - ~r - 1.1 The site plan for phase 1, prepared by BRS Architects, dated May 14, 2007, is approved, with the ~- conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval i ;~:~ associated with this site [AZ-OS-023, MI-06-007, Development Agreements (Instrument No. { 105191334, and the yet to be recorded amended DA]. The applicant shall revise the site plan as follows: a. Provide a bicycle rack(s) on the site capable of holding a minimum of 25 bicycles that ~; `~ ~ complies with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-SC. ~; ~~ ~~"~~'', b. Provide anorth/south drive aisle on the north side of the building connecting the two drive aisles for better traffic circulation on the site. " c. Provide a paved pathway from the parking area on the east side of the proposed building to the bike path along the Ten Mile Creek. . ~; ' d. Provide 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road in ' accordance with UDC 11-3A-17 and ACPID standards. The sidewalk shall either be located `' ~~ ~~ within the right-of--way or within a public pedestrian easement within the landscape buffer. '~` -`~~4s;~ e. No manholes shall be placed in landscape islands or within parking stalls. f. The internal pedestrian pathways shall be constructed with pavers, colored or scored concrete or bricks where they cross vehicular driving surfaces, per UDC 11-3A-19C. 1.2 Future development of this site shall substantially com ly with the master site lan and mass P p :- :~ : model concept included in Exhibit A of this report, as determined by the Director. Approval of the subject application does not imply approval of future phases of this development; ~~ administrative design review required. ~: '-.},~fi ~ 1.3 The proposed urban farm use of the undeveloped portion of this property is approved with this application. The area depicted on the site plan attached in Exhibit A shall be allowed to be farmed ;i.,- until such time as future phases develop that encompasses this area. 1.4 The overflow parking proposed to be constructed of treated gravel or recycled asphalt is approved with this application; the Applicant shall maintain a dustless surface by regularly applying a dust abatement product. <:~ 1.5 The applicant shall comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 for the C-N t ` ~~' ` zone, except for the following: a. The building with the belfiy/cross structure is allowed to extend to 62 feet at the highest point as allowed by UDC 11-2B-3A3, as shown in the elevations attached in Exhibit A; the beliiy structure shall not be used for human occupation. _ 1.6 Because the front entry of the proposed building faces W. Franklin Road, this property should be addressed off of Franklin Road instead of Ten Mile Road. Please contact Karie Glenn in the Public Works Department at 898-5500 to request a change of address of this property. `r~' 1.7 The applicant's design review application for phase 1 is hereby approved with the following conditions: ~~ a. All ground level mechanical equipment shall be screened from view, per UDC 11-3A-19C1e. b. Internal pedestrian pathways shall be constructed with pavers, colored or scored concrete or ;' , ~~ bricks where they cross vehicular driving surfaces. ~,, Exhibit B S T ~Ja y J ~~~ f s ~,.~f.-c ~:i1 T 1 rv~iJ f ~~ R F y N ~ ~' ~ ~ 'i r; j' !~ .:yr~ ~ b~~tiF ,F1; - j kts~h ~; ~,`: ,~i t ~. ~ 8F .1 1 { _: k x~ r L r i~ } ' _~ 4'te`.PF ~~pp_ f 5~ sfi 1C 2~~1 t k.~et -~y.' y ~~ ~'~'~' ,t ~ ~~ ~z ~ ~,~~7t!> ra 'z' ,~.~c + F ~` • c. The proposed metal siding is not approved with this application. The Applicant shall replace the metal siding with an acceptable material that demonstrates the appearance of high-quality materials of stone, brick, wood or other native materials, in compliance with UDC 11-3A-19C2. Metal siding may be used as an accent material in accordance with UDC 11-3A-19C2. 1.8 The Applicant's request to submit a Letter of Credit for the landscaping area between the existing edge of pavement along Franklin Road and the south edge of the meandering sidewalk until such time as ACRD constructs its improvements along Franklin Road is not approved with this application. The Applicant shall be required to install landscaping according to the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C5, Landscaping within Right-of--Way (see condition 1.12.e. below) 1.9 Future phases of this development shall be subject to design standards and will require a design review application along with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application, which will be reviewed at staff level. Further, future phases will not be required to obtain conditional use permit (CUP) approval, unless a modification to the CUP is necessary. (The Development Agreement requirement for the Applicant to obtain CUP/PD approval has been satisfied with the subject CUP.) 1.10 The Applicant shall be responsible to obtain a CZC permit from the Planning Department for all new construction or a change in use on the site prior to issuance of building and/or occupancy permits. The site plan, landscape plan, and elevations submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for this phase and future phases shall substantially comply with those approved with this application and attached in Exhibit A of this report. 1.11 The storm water detention pond proposed at the north boundary of this site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10. 1.12 The applicant shall revise the landscape plan, dated 5/15/07, as follows: a. Landscape planter islands are required at the ends of rows of parking throughout the lot and shall contain a minimum of 50 square feet, and the planting area shall not be less than five feet in any dimension, measured inside curbs. Each interior planter that serves a single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped with at least one tree and shall be covered with low shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. All parking lot landscaping shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. This requirement shall not apply to the overflow parking areas. b. Include tree symbols in the plant schedule. c. Depict a paved pathway from the parking area on the east side of the proposed building to the bike path along the Ten Mile Creek, per requirement on the site plan. d. Provide anorth/south drive aisle on the north side of the building connecting the two drive aisles for better traffic circulation on the site, per requirement on the site plan. e. If the unimproved street right-of--way is ten feet (10') or greater from edge of pavement to edge of sidewalk or property line, and street widening project is not in the Transportation Authority's five-year funded plan, developer shall maintain aten- (10) foot-wide compacted gravel shoulder meeting the construction standards of the Transportation Authority and landscape the remainder with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. (Landscaping improvements within the right-of-way shall require a license agreement between the property owner and the Transportation Authority.) f. Include berms with landscaping along Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road to satisfy the purpose of the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan regarding screening of parking lots visible from public thoroughfares. Exhibit B a ~3 ~ r:~ ~ ~' ~ s 3^ .~ ' '•` F ~F~~.~~ i S1i'.e'Y; .. ..~ w .(H: ~f ,~~..: . iY' y _ ~y .. ~,. .~T'.~ >r., ~~' __ ca h .e i :~;~ y:.\ ., .~:'~ ~r ~'~ ~?' 3j j `r ~' ~~ ~ J >4 '~ 1~~~~ ~?' 9~ " - ~~' ~ {1; S r '' w ~ aa; x ~• J $ .. ~~ 3k~ i } "' "cc ~,: da ~~ '.::~Frl.;~ti;: ~': • I [''-', ' V `z'~ g. The Applicant shall contact Elroy Huff, the City Arborist, at 888-3579 to certify if mitigation -J~ is required for the existing trees along Franklin Road that are proposed to be removed, prior F : to removal. ;~," 1.13 All required improvements, including the landscaping of the entire perimeter of the site, must be complete prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. A temporary ~' ;; , Certificate of Occupancy may be obtained by providing surety to the City in the form of a letter i'>A? of credit or cash in the amount of 110% of the cost of the required improvements (including ~ ~ paving, striping, landscaping, and irrigation). A bid must accompany any request for temporary ~ ~~ :_. ; ~~`'~ occupancy. . 1.14 No new signs are approved with this CUP application. All signs require a separate sign permit in compliance with the sign ordinance. 1.15 The Applicant shall have a maximum of 18 months to commence the use as permitted in accord i with the conditions of approval listed above. If the business has not begun within 18 months of approval, a new conditional use pernut must be obtained prior to operation. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT "'~~ 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains located in the south portion of the project. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; ~c;;; 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 f.-:y ~ ' alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments `' Standard Specifications, No manholes shall be placed in landscape islands or parlflng stalls. ,. ~ 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Franklin Road, and N. .{. '`.. ~ Ten Mile Road a third connection maybe required. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public . Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public ;~ <: right of way (include all water services and hydrants). ``'` {' 2.4 There shall be no direct access to the City of Meridian future pump house. 2.5 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this `' proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft s~ ;' copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be ~°~'~ ~ submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round ~1<''~ source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface F-: water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, asingle-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 f ~ ~ final plat by the City Engineer. u ,.~ 2.7 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from , domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. Exhibit B ;t; .~fpz .. Y D -`~' ~~ ~~ } ~ ~~ '' ~ '~ ~t ~( ( .}a~e ~ F . 1 ~~~~: ti: ~~ ~x ~w : S ~. ofn 4t *~ t 1 ;. 7j•/ k .d frc`~e' F ~ ..'t ~.._..~.;'k. . X f i' ~fi a? `l= r ~ k~ n ~~ A;'f 1 Y: K 4 t}Lrt ~1. .{w. .~ ,;;,~ ~:: ,1 `':', :~ • • 2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2.9 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking azeas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standazds and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regazding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted required improvements prior to signature on the final plat. These include but aze not limited to, fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, and water. 2.11 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements, such as fencing, micropaths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy 2.12 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. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.16 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or neaz sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations aze set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights, on 25' pole shall be required on all public residential streets. Two-hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations aze at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than 400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain Exhibit B ~k ,Y~, :z ti S~ ; - - ', 3 ~y ~ ~ ~ St z h~- 1 1, YS 1 ;fi- l~:'i . , ~ 4 4 ~~'r ... S:__ ,'?~- C .~ ,.~ `v` . .. ~ ~~, .,~., ~-* _'=i-~ :_'~ ~~ - x; ~ °~~~' '', .fia 5 ~ .4, 4 •F. d ~ ~ ~r ~r t ;; f 1~ Sir TL~.t_ s approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building Department prior to ~.; commencing installations. ,:: € ~ 3. FIB DEPARTME1v [' _ '" fi ~ 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 %" 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. Ef;.;~ c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. ;.;.~.r ~: 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. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. " h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing t , buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. ~' ~ 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside . radius. ,., 3.4 Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D `' " ~ fNaCt Section D103.6 Signs. 3.5 Fire lanes, streets, and structures including the canopy height of mature trees shall have a vertical ~F'; clearance of 13'6. E;>:~ 3.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all ~>,< weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. ~s~;- 3.7 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. ~. ~ 3.8 The commercial lots lot will have an unknown transient population and will have an unknown impact on Meridian Fire Department call volumes. The Meridian Fire Department has experienced 2612 responses in the year 2004. According to a report completed by Fire & Emergency Services `~r`-' Consulting Group our requests for service aze projected to reach 2800 in the year 2005 and 3800 by i-' the year 2010. ;~ - 3.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient -`: response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be }` ~~'' borne by the developer. ~- ~ 3.10 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.1 l All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall ~• be required to comply with the International Fire Code. '''` ~ . 3.12 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. ,, ;,;:,u s;. ,_ - .. xhibit B r 4 ~ `4 'M.l < ~ t., ..~k~: - *~~" ,4: ~ ,,~. y r. 3 r"+ a.... -r ... ~~'4 ~.•~4,w .. n ~..4'P; 7 ~« ~a .1~ a' 5-'~ ';" y, ~ try` ~'. ~::x,. s y~if ~ sx: + . -~.,,. ~.` = s~ i~°' r S ~a ~ ,~~ 3 ;f ~~', A ' 4 . S .A~; T i~Ns ; '1 f/r- + rev' - ,~ ~`1 :,~; ;a ~''t 7 ~. ,zt w, i>x`" ~~~~, • 3.13 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). _~~ f•; 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). "'' 3.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.15 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. Provide aerial access for each phase of construction. 3.16 This project will be required to provide a 20' wide swing emergency access gate at east entrance. ~~` The gate shall be equipped with a Knoxbox Padlock which has to be ordered thru the Meridian Fire Department. 3.17 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have speed bumps. 3.18 Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least three means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Two of the access roads shall be placed a distance '~" ~ apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or '' area to be served, measured in a straight line. A third access point should be provided on the east side to the building from Ten Mile Road. Said access shall have a 20' wide improved surface `' ~`' capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs with a 20' wide gate secured with a knot box padlock. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. Submit plans to the Meridian Fire Department for approval. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT ~= •, 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. r,;;: 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All micropaths and open areas shall have adequate lighting. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. t ,,:y ~'~"~ 6. SANITARY SERVICES COMPANY 1. SSC has no comments related to this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 In phase 1, construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk on Ten Mile Road abutting the site. The sidewalk shall be located a minimum of 8-feet from the future curb line for Ten Mile Road. Provide an easement for the sidewalk located outside of the right-of--way. it Exhibit B ~:a~--~~;-7:,,. ,,~, ~~' ~ ~, ~-~~s ~:~ j.~~ . n~ ~ ~~ ~ *;~ rid Y eft.:; ~ yi ~. ~+ f ~: '` , i . "~ ~se ~,} ~ ~ ~ 4 'ti'- ~ J ~ i~+r ~ ~ k ^] a~~x ^L., ~~ h' ~ ~ t~ r r A f #;. '~ . .. b,3 Ft~ . ~'YYc: ~~; t ~vL~' i. ~~§' r .T t~[S!' '~ ~~n • 7.1.2 In phase 1, construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the site , located a minimum of 33-feet from the section line. Provide an easement for the sidewalk located ~ outside of the right-of--way. ~~_ "~ 7.1.3 In future phases, construct a 40-foot wide full-access driveway on Franklin Road located _'~`'~ approximately 620-feet west of Ten Mile Road. ,...... 7.1.4 In phase 1, construct a full access driveway on Franklin Road (maximum 48-feet width which ''fi`~` includes maximum 12-foot island) located approximately 870-feet west of Ten Mile Road. 7.1.5 In phase 1, construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on Franklin Road for the main ,; driveway, located 870-feet west of Ten Mile Road, within the existing right-of--way. Provide an easement (estimated to be no more than 10-feet in width) for a gravel shoulder and barrow ditch '> ;'' adjacent to the required turn lane. Coordinate the design of the right turn lane with District `~`~~ r-~; Traffic Services and Development Review staff. ~~- ~ ~ 7.1.6 In future phases, construct one right-in/right-out only driveway on Ten Mile Road located ?- I approximately 355-feet north of Franklin Road. Install a raised concrete median on Ten Mile t _' Road to restrict turning movements. ; ' 7.1.7 In phase 1, construct driveway accesses to Umbria Street, at the east sides of the cul-de-sac, as , E ~_ ' proposed. < <'~' 7.1.8 Submit a road trust deposit to the District for 1/8~` of the total cost of constructing the traffic ';~~ signal for Umbria StreetlFranklin Road intersection at the west property line. Coordinate this (: ~; '~.. expense with ACHD Traffic Services and Development Review Staff. ~'~~~:='~' 7.1.9 Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to Franklin and Ten Mile Roads. k~' ,~ ~,.,, :, e-i''.- 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4 j 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. ~``>. "~`' ~. „~u. 7 2 2 Private sewer or water systems aze prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of--way. F k ~~ 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the `~ ', construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. a'~, ~~ ~,,$~ 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. '` ' ~ 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old aze not allowed unless approved in writing ~~~~,`'- by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all 's ~~ . applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the ~r;,~">t E., . ~ ~. State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. ;~ ~~:; 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit } ~~ } (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. __- ; - Exhibit B k; `..Y =.~ 3~ ,,E ar ~` "~r~ ! t i7;'~ li: .:~~5:i5 ~v' ~,~. 3 ~ ~,' _ _ 3~ ~'. s.,~~ ~,: 1 :~:_ { .its ~ y,~~ i . ~ ~. f~;~ '~!~ F+ ~~~ T s<~ ~: f+~ 3 ~" +~' ~-~ ~ t'. '~ d S9!.~....~r~.'w _. .... -. 1, 1 ~ r!: a 't K?r- ~ t 1 F a w ~ +' - - ~ ,. ~ . ~. : - y 9 Jv ^`I',' ~~ 1 ~ CZ'A' '' ~ Z~l `• 4 ~~~• ~~ ,. e ~ a ~ *. .. ~,t„ r ~r~x ~' ~ :x i ~. ,~ ~~ i .. iY+:.,r~ ~ k~~~l i' ~-_ . . ~~. ~`. - ~_, ~R 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable ':: requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. $r ~.~ 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees aze required prior to building construction. The assessed ~-. impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The :;:4., applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during ~_ any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they aze in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. ~~... '''° -' 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this << ~._`.#„ application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or ~{ '. other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect '_ at the time the change in use is sought. _{{ ~~~~I _..._~ w~: `; ~:; f ~ ~'- ' S ~~ 9 h ~^ }y _ ~ C..• _ N~~'n~~j `S.T "" s'` R :- a ~., # k ~~ ~.t ti~ ~.,... f , ' °•`y 3 ~~~y Mkt ,~ ~ , ~ e q c4 ~{ ' ~fi r t ~ ~: ~s ~~ . r ' gg t7 1.; 5 ~` r . ~ F~{r $ ~ ~ 3uh c~+, ri~g +s ~i ~' f.6~` .~ , `,' '3' 3` `~: ,cti R ~ ~ ~• r ~;[ C I N f;U. ~ i `. W c ~ ~~nn C~ S • Y'~'' 14• s C. Required Conditional Use Permit Findings from UDC r.. 'fig' ` The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: ;_ is `~:': 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 existing site is lazge enough to accommodate the proposed use. However, the Applicant is `` tfi requesting approval with the subject CUP to exceed the 35-foot tall maximum building height. ~~ ° The UDC does allow for a greater height of the building, belfry, and cross, with CUP approval, in ~:' > accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3A3. Staff is supportive of the height of the building as shown on the elevations attached in Exhibit A as it complies with the aforementioned ~` ` - standards. '~ ' Off-street pazking is required at the ratio of one space per 500 squaze feet of gross floor azea in commercial districts (UDC 11-3C-6). Pazking provided on the site far exceeds the number of :a ~, spaces required by the UDC. The applicant complies with this requirement. Further, the proposed '`~""' building location complies with the setbacks of the C-N district. ~, ~'~ ' 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 ;, ._R property is Mixed Use -Regional. The property is currently zoned C-N, which complies with this designation. The proposed use is generally harmonious with the requirements of the UDC (See ~'' ' Sections 8 and 10 above for more information regarding the requirements for this use). 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other ~ ;,.~ uses in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. -a The Commission finds that, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, ,~,,. ~"A~~~, the operation of the proposed use should be compatible with other uses in the general ~' '' ~ neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the area. Further, 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, if the Applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, ~~~', the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should rely FJ..- ~:~~~.. ;~.:~Y,x upon any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect the other property in the vicinity. ~k "~ 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, '''~ "i refuse disposal, water, and sewer. The Commission finds that the site will be adequately served by the previously mentioned public .-_~;r*, facilities and services. ,.: ~~ Exhibit C ~~: ~~ '~:. ~.. ~~ ~ ~; ~_~ < <<'-a- ..; ~ ~ , s ~<~' ~~ '`p a}~r- 3 S~ yyy~~ ~ ~ ~ r -~~1 i i~p'". i I ~:~ r ~ } ?~. jy '~ . 1 t11 ~~ 1 e C af. ..: ii~ r F 1 M,' f. i. 'd t ~~~ ~~ .Q Ti s ~ r.,~ ,'~ .~ ~'. ~',~ `-, ..~ ~::_: .,; t-. i ;~,:~ (.: ~k' w: ~~~ ..r Y.''. .~ .y. ~~ 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. Staff recognizes that traffic and noise is a concern; however, Staff does not believe that the amount generated by the proposed new use of the property will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare of the public. Staff does not anticipate the proposed use will create excessive 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 fmds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the proposed use that should be brought to the Commission's attention. The Commission fmds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Exhibit C mr ~~ '~ VCxd" °..~`' ~~ 'F~'~ '<'' '~~ ~4 ~.~, :~~ t Y ~ sr_ . ~ ~ ?s ~ a < .' ~~' R 'F,. , t t ~ ~ L , F4 hW ~4 ~4~ r _ ~ ~'~ v S~F ~ X ~!# ixt, f''.. a ~~.. ~i ~i ~x a ~~Y ~'~ .~ ~ 4 f' .r',! ~` ~y ~ Y ~. ~ ~{ f~~ } '.. r,;*y Y': September 4, 2007 PP 07-014 MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 ,, =a ` ~` APPLICANT Kuna Victory, LLC ITEM NO. 6 ::,~:( REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval for 34 commercial /retail building lots and 1 common lot on 17.84 acres within the C-G zone for Emerson Park Commercial - 2910 & 3030 S. Meridian Road and 110 E. Victory Road ` ` ~ ~ AGENCY COMMENTS r,;, ,~ ,Sy.'~ ~""I CITY CLERK: ;`~~ CITY ENGINEER: ~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY ~~~ CITY POLICE DEPT: ```7`"~ CITY FIRE DEPT: ~~ : CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: '~ CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment ;~," CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: << _`~ NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: E:. IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: '<,< Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetlhgs shall become property of the City of Meridian. ' d , I .-~ ' ~ : \"~> COY k ~ :S;F 1 i 'h ; .r 1 .x a .~ t' ^r 1 ~ ~ . . ~: ' ~ ~ 4 , ' :fij: q7 ~ : i~ >k ~ `.~ ~ .µ y4 .~Knr;A 9,5, ~ ~':s 7. !•3S ` j' i ` ' ' ' s~' -'( .k. ~~> ~ : ' '° ' d `uk::i~;:~Va,}a~ ~, ~ • t k w i j :i~rF '~~~. i fM: y'~" I} i :+~ ~: .. ~1?~ ~. `~'Y,1~, ~ ~ `R'' ~ ~~ ` ~ ' " ~ , ~ , . li T j ~~. ~"~ ~:.'~~, k~. '~"~' :~ x•.:.. > . b 3 ,,. ?rya .~~ f .k ~. t > : a ~ iy . h ai }• ~ , %" Y¢F• ~1~ ' n >~ } k ~ ~ ~. . ,, i ~ - s t ~ + , , . , . . • I{• .~iP .• 'fit ~ k i '.`1, t°.... .~ .i• . • l. ~. ~"V T ~' . _ "~ , ~F , ~ `' ,y ;. :, , : ; °i •~ ;~; ; a ~ i j 5~ef ~ °~i.! )..L~.,2"9. ~:°1 :. >.°,z.' Y~ ~ , ~ * ;lit. . < r, jti~ ~ ~S:.m: .+ v i t `~ n.K .2.. ~3:1 :. ?: a P ~„} ~ -~ . d i , N . .~ .~..- '' ~ ~ ' I `{ .~ '" a.: L ~y I •9>. '..0.4.. S ~, >~a rZr [c ? ~~,.• ~ , I{ Yi ~• ~"~ (pZ1 .. 5; 1"t " . k ~ .t.: .~ ~ y~ ilk , 111 .. ..r~14. . . . y :'~~` ~.f, K. i~ 4 ~ i , .~. ,rr r .•. i .,, ~, - ~~ ~ ~ -~~, ~ ~ r ~, t~7 s a~.t d ~ "~ 9 : . ~x ~. v w., ~LL-- 4' ! _ 4,7,F'2~ t. ~~:t ~_::~' , ~ ~,:~ .: ~ s (c'].: ~~' September 4, 2007 PFP 07-003 ~.,~. MERIDIAN PLANNING 8~ ZONING MEETING September 6, 2007 -. ; '' ~ APPLICANT Carmen, LLC ITEM NO. 7 _ REQUEST Public Hearing -Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivi$ion - .~;'`i 1351 8~ 1375 East Fairview Avenue ~.<,, ~:;~,; AGENCY COMMENTS ;; i CITY CLERK: "`' CITY ENGINEER: ~'`'I CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report }-: ,, , ~:, CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: `~~ CITY WATER DEPT: ~• ,.~ CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment }. _... ~. CITY PARKS DEPT: ;.;~~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: -~~~`, ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments >~ , NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments .. ~, -'. SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: See Attached Comments ,; ~. IDAHO POWER: :°, INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See Attached Comments ' r OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Sign Pos#ing Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetlrigs shah become properly of the City of Meddlan. ~, :fir r~'; z =' ~d~ ~1 ~ r;7; a~ ~ -~ f ~T!,,~ F i ~u` 4~ tiq a,r k4'S Y~'y~ ~ .~i~. 5_., ~ ;~ / Y• ~ { r+' r K.'~ t vD'l,~.Ski~!' r "Y 7~F `t(t'~ l c (~ y ~~{. .'`~: ~` ~ y ~ ;;~ X ~ h .. ~w5 ~. ~{• ~~j~7~ ~~p ~''1 + 2.14. ~` ~j• i~ ~;f r? /~l.' iii 4 _a - ~ xr ~ ,~:~,-~ t ~ ~ chi a s ~ rfir s, ~~: c h ~t T'". .~